Jump to content
 

phil-b259

RMweb Premium
  • Posts

    9,794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by phil-b259

  1. Generally speaking within Grater London generally speaking there is very little need for the use of a private motor car - and those who continue to selfishly use one deserve everything they get in terms of delays. If there is congestion to public transport then the solution is more bus priority measures etc, not rolling back restrictions on selfish motorists!
  2. You are confusing two seperate things - braking and CDL Although on trains fitted with power worked doors from the outset the doors are interlocked with the brakes there is actually no specific requirement for a retrofitted CDL system to do the same. Nor is there are requirement for the system to prevent the brakes being released and the train moving off or even that all doors are detected closed before the system can be activated. in essence CDL is something operated by the train guard AFTER all doors have been confirmed closed by them / platform staff to prevent them from being opened again. As such the only relevance to the braking system is that the air pipe running the length of the train provides a source of air which can be used to power the CDL mechanism. Electric power supplied from Batteries / ETS or a vacuum from the vac pipe can also be used a ‘power source’ for the mechanism if so desired - it’s just that nobody has invested/ designed a backlog powered system yet while the ex BR air operated system (which could be retrieved from coaching stock being scrapped or an electromagnetic based solution as pioneered on the Hastings diesels / CIGs used on the Lymington branch are ‘off the shelf’ solutions and are thus relatively cheap.
  3. There is no requirement to 'authorise' anything of the sort. Firstly because the ORR have long made it clear that its up to the operator to test and certify systems to be suitable to meet the requirements which the ORR lay down. In effect all the ORR will say to anyone is "YOU provide evidence of the independent and properly evaluated testing YOU have done to show YOUR design meets what the regulations states" which is very different form "Show us what you are doing and we will approve a specific type / combination of equipment" Secondly, as far as the ORR are concerned the exact braking system that a passenger vehicle may be equipped with and the exact type of CDL mechanism used are completely separate things, designed to do different jobs and fall under completely separate categories as far as regulations pertaining to the use of passenger rolling stock Just because you have air brakes does not mean an air based CDL system has to be used (and on dual braked stock the an electro-magnetic solution is probably more versatile). The only reason Vac brakes with CDL has not yet been done is nobody has thought it worth wile / been able to design a Vacuum based CDL system - not that it needs some form of 'authorisation' Moreover if someone invented a vacuum based CDL system that could be proved to meet the basic requirement of preventing a passenger from being able to open a locked door (however much they pull / push / bash it) then the ORR would have no issue with such a system being employed.
  4. Because the north station was owned by a rival company! You rather forget the GWR and the LSWR / SR were competing against each other for business and there was no incentive to make through workings easy. Had the Bodmin & Wedford Railway entered into the ownership of the GWR rather than being bought by the LSWR then things may well have been different…..
  5. Thats not surprising, but done for sound reasons. Elizabeth line trains (which is what you have to change on to at Ealing) run at irregular intervals because thats the only way of pathing them (plus freight etc) along the GWML. Changing them would result in a significant reduction in the number of trains which can be provided which is not sensible given passenger loading on Elizabeth line services while the Greenford shuttle timings are also constrained as its operated by a single unit which cannot wait around to make connections without making the service frequency on the branch even worse. Of course the Greenford end does have a pretty frequent central line service which can be utilised rather than going via West Ealing if central London is your destination... But none of the above (including your observations) are of any relevance to the thread which is about model coaching stock
  6. Minehead does not require the reversal on route in a small station with limited space. Please go re-read my earlier post and take a look at Satellite imagery of Bodmin! If you want to compare Minehead with somewhere the Newquay NOT Padstow is what you want to do in terms of the sort of trains which could be accommodated.
  7. Interesting* - but not really applicable to the original question of what Padstow would be like in 2024 because given what we k ow about the growth in car usage railways would still have been rationalised and these later add on lines are the most likely candidates for closure. *Would potentially create for a more interesting model of Padstow set in the 1930s though.
  8. Which is why the Newquay branch offers more prospects. Yes it was heavily rationalised but even after that it could still take full length HSTs - plus if you moved to an inland location there is China clay traffic to be had (even if it involves some fiddling with geography / geology to relocate the China clay loading / unloading facilities. But I do get the appeal of Padstow….
  9. Indeed - but that doesn't mean you sit there pretending time stood still in all other respects than they type of trains used! The big 4 and even pre-grouping lines were not adverse to closing lines if they lost too much money - there were a whole load of them in the 1930s after the wall street crash and general economic slump. BR was axing unprofitable lines well before Beeching arrived on the scene too! Even in countries like France which did not have a Beeching like purge lines continued to be shut throughout the 60s, 70s 80s, 90s, 2000s, etc as passenger and freight volumes continued to be abstracted by the car and lorry. SO with respect to Padstow, however you cut it by 2024 the ONLY line that would have ever stood a chance of staying open (and thus what you should be basing your scenario around if you are seeking to portray such a reality) is the GWR link via Bodmin General.
  10. Of course they didn't - but anyone with any degree of sense would realise that the only realistic way Padstow could have ever survived until the present day is as a feeder to the GWR line at Bodmin Parkway. So although obviously people are free to model what they like if you want to produce a convincing model of Padstow as it might be today then you cannot discount the effects of the widespread growth in car ownership or the call for improved roads which that generated, all of which points towards the only rail link having any chance of being retained being through to the GWR
  11. I think Bodmin General is a bit better than Bourne End - I estimate Bodmin General to be able to take about 5 Mk1s and a loco (leaving space for it to run round) A single Voyager unit or one of the shorterned HST sets opperated by GWR would fit too as would 2x 15X or 16X units
  12. Oh and just to say I know Padstow was a LSWR / SR terminus but even with the best rose tinted specs you can buy there is simply no way in the world the North Cornwall Railway via Camelford etc would have remained open even with the most optmistic hindsight! You cannot dis-invent the motor car nor expect the UKs road system to be perpetually stuck in the 1920s.... If Padstow did keep a rail link it would be in the form of trains to Bodmin Parkway connecting with GWR services not to slow trains meandering through sparsely populated Cornwall and Devon to Oakhampton / Exteter / Waterloo....
  13. The biggest constraint you have (strategic decisions aside) is the need to reverse at Bodmin General on every trip. Even if you plot a different course in terms of politics and rail strategy etc then that constraint isn't going to vanish - its a physical constraint rather than the result of a policy decision and still rule out long trains like full sized HSTs... OK you can imagine infrastructure improvements happened but the more you deviate from reality the less like a model of Padstow it becomes.... If you want to model longer trains (and trains with more variety) then to be honest the Newquay branch is a far better bet if you are looking for a real world location to model.
  14. I get the impression that pre Covid / DfT imposed cuts / Industrial relations collapsing (due to DfT meddling) GWR did actually care about its SW branches plus the condition of their fleets and the management / staff would do their best to put on a decent service using the 15X fleet.
  15. Given the need to reverse at Bodmin (General) and the constrained station there you can rule out pretty much everything other than 1st or 2nd generation DMUs and ceratinly no through trains* * Though a Voyager might fit you need to remember that before them you had HSTs and 7 coach Mk2 rakes - neither of which would fit at Bodmin. HSTs (and now IETs) to Newquay were (/ are) only possible because the branch infrastructure could cope with them from the outset (i.e. no need to reverse at a short station on route) In 2024 it would be worked by the same units used on the St Ives branch (i.e. a15X DMU) - and in fact given the popularity of both resorts the amount of custom would probably be similar In terms of freight - its the same story, the need to reverse put significant limits on train lengths while the tightly curved China Clay branch to Wedford Bridge would not accept long wheelbase wagons. Thus the only non-passenger workings you would see would, as with the St Ives branch, be the occasional visit by a weedkilling train in the summer. As such it would be a relatively boring model, but deffinatly one which would have been worth keeping open - unlike some of the other routes in the area...
  16. Thats up to the Scottish Government and Scottish voters. How they get the money to fit CDL is largely up to them (though a grant from a Scottish Governmental body could be challenged by other charter operators as an illegal subsidy unless carefully structured) - the main thing is making sure they are not allowed to operate non CDL coaching stock on any of their trains.
  17. Given the ORR is a supposedly an independent regulator it cannot be seen to be singling out one entity or taking sides - and believe me thats what WCRs lawyers would love to as the minute there is any hint of bias then it would form grounds for another Judicial review / legal action. Hence the rather dry and procedural nature of the ORRs response - one which doesn't bring up mentions of WCRs past regulation breaking and confines itself to 'WCR didn't apply in time' (which of course neatly side steps any talk of what the outcome of any application for a derogation might be)
  18. The BBC News article has been updated 5 minutes ago to include a response from the ORR
  19. There is now - the ORR have responded with their response added to the article.
  20. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7z6xnpyn6o And before all the WCR apologists start saying how terrible it is maybe they should pause to consider that had the ORR inspector found that the requirements were being fully compiled with by WCR last year then its likely that an exemption for this year would be granted.
  21. Technically we still don't know whats has happened to the tooling for the Genesis coaches either as Rails have made it pretty clear they don't own it and Accurascale say 'generic' stuff is not what they do either....
  22. Indeed they did, till it got to the stage that someone realised it was a waste of money. Fortunately in the case of Mam Torr the road could simply be closed thus solving the issue - not an option for the railway network alas. You could argue the same is happening now with potholes where councils apply a short term fix rather than do a proper dig down and rebuild / full re-surface because a lack of funds but a need to keep roads open. Mind you as I said pre-grouping / the big 4 were just as bad - they loved using loco ash to rear bank slips (because it was free) rather than do a proper rebuild of earthworks....
  23. Although that move to ban ‘live’ working was indeed foolish (given the staff involved in the south Wales incident deliberately ignored lots of rules and procedures which would have entirely prevented the incident from occurring) when you get to large remodelling schemes involving alterations to OLE and signalling as well as track layouts and civills, an all line block is actually sensible and ironically reduces the chances of screw ups as well as being cheaper and quicker to deliver. The added complication with Old Oak is the site is effectively rail locked by the IEP depot and the HS2 worksite meaning that the logistics of delivering it are actually quite awkward. Moreover it seems like the industry is working hard to ensure that as many trains as possible get into London as they can - hence the use of Euston, Waterloo and Ealing Broadway and NOT simply dumping everyone at Reading.
  24. In one sense that’s not a problem - adding more ballast to restore the profile is something that goes way back to the pre-grouping era and not simply a modern phenomenon However repeated topping up of the ballast does suggest the embankment had been slumping / sinking for quite a while and has long been in need of repair work.
×
×
  • Create New...