Jump to content
 

New coaches at preserved lines


The Evil Bus Driver
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
On 07/07/2020 at 15:56, Johann Marsbar said:

The Tyseley based "Bloomer" project are supposedly going to build some 4-wheel carriages of appropriate vintage to be used with it on Main Line workings, which should be interesting..

4 wheel coaches on the main line, just as we're getting rid of Pacers?!

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Won’t the Bloomer’s cab need to be more enclosed to run safely on the main line than it is on the locos in their early condition?

I can't believe there's a cat-in-hell's chance of the Bloomer and coaches running on the national network.  Not to say that it couldn't be done - we've had steam on the London Underground - but the expense would dwarf any level of public interest.  It will certainly earn its keep on preserved lines though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I can't believe there's a cat-in-hell's chance of the Bloomer and coaches running on the national network.  Not to say that it couldn't be done - we've had steam on the London Underground - but the expense would dwarf any level of public interest.  It will certainly earn its keep on preserved lines though.

I do find it unlikely - maybe occasional use with a more modern design of stock and an enclosed cab but definitely not as a regular thing. The Underground steam in central London was a one-off with an existing loco.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 04/07/2020 at 08:36, Tim Hall said:

Why would anyone visiting a preserved railway to savour the sounds (and smells) of steam (or older diesels) wish to be sealed in a metal tube with no opening windows (except the droplights at the end)? Especially when the reliability of the air conditioning, even in frontline service was always somewhat hit or miss.

 

Opening windows per say are not a problem provided they are of the type you cannot put a body part through. As such you could replace the Windows on a Mk3 with a type incorporating small hopper style windows at the top.

 

On Heritage railways the ORR have made it crystal clear the on the the railway to PROVE it has suitable mitigating measures to compensate for continuing to have large opening windows. This can include staff paroling the train to make sure people are complying and where possible slewing the track away from obstacles. Long term its entirely possible they could mandate window bars or opening restrictions, central door locking systems and retention tank toilets if passengers cannot behave.

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

Long term its entirely possible they could mandate window bars or opening restrictions, central door locking systems and retention tank toilets if passengers cannot behave.

 

I believe the Talyllyn carriages have their original 1860s window bars! On the Ffestiniog, I recall a guard unlocking a compartment in one of the heritage carriages for our family party; he could I suppose have locked us in but that practice was deprecated after the Versailles accident of 1842, though it seems to have come back into vogue. None of my favourite heritage carriages, whether original or reconstructed, have lavatories, so the last point is irrelevant. However, all three points taken together do apply if you or a young member of your party is caught short and needs to make an emergency evacuation through the window...

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

On the Ffestiniog, I recall a guard unlocking a compartment in one of the heritage carriages for our family party; he could I suppose have locked us in but that practice was deprecated after the Versailles accident of 1842, though it seems to have come back into vogue.

 

I wonder whether it’s based on a risk assessment, weighing the risks of fire in the carriages or people becoming trapped during a serious derailment (probably a low likelihood on most preserved lines) against the risk to somebody falling out of a poorly-secured door (seriousness depends on the individual line but probably more likely to happen). Risk matrix charts look at risk (likelihood) as well as how serious the consequences are.

 

I suppose technically the doors on modern trains (particularly those with sliding doors) are locked, as emergency instructions always seem to involve forcing or smashing them open. The first time I read about this on heritage lines was in an article about the Spa Valley, where doors apparently have to be locked on the section that parallels Network Rail (no fence between them, NR trains running at 60mph iirc). I can’t remember if the NYMR Whitby trains have to lock doors before going onto the NR line - the concern on the Spa Valley seems to be for people falling into the path of a train on the adjacent line whereas I understand the line to Whitby is single track.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I wonder whether it’s based on a risk assessment, weighing the risks of fire in the carriages or people becoming trapped during a serious derailment (probably a low likelihood on most preserved lines) against the risk to somebody falling out of a poorly-secured door (seriousness depends on the individual line but probably more likely to happen). Risk matrix charts look at risk (likelihood) as well as how serious the consequences are.

 

It has to be said that on the carriages I have in mind, the door can only be opened from the inside by lowering the droplight, leaning out of the window and working the - rather stiff - handle. This is, I think, beyond the physical capability of a child below the age of reason. The internal door latch on a Mk1 is almost as much of a struggle, as I recall from my 4-VEP commuting days.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 01/07/2020 at 09:19, Bucoops said:

 

The Mid-Norfolk Railway has just bought a mightily impressive 18 ex-Greater Anglia Mk3s and two DVTs. Fantastic achievement especially in the current climate.

 

Give me a varnished Teak coach any day, but Mk3s are a massive part of our railway heritage too.

Surely, not for use on their own railway???

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 04/07/2020 at 09:17, dibber25 said:

Given the huge amount of unrestored equipment scattered around preserved railways, that can't be restored because of lack of money and manpower I would have thought that the last thing preservation needs is a rash of new-builds. It's already happening with locomotives, and few of those more recent projects are likely to see completion. New-build coaches would most probably end up looking simply like 'modern' coaches because of the need to comply with modern regulations (somewhat easier with flat-sided wooden narrow gauge stock than with anything resembling a Bulleid or a Mk1). There is already a tendency to 'sameness' among preserved railways as they grab up cheap Mk2 and Mk3 coaches and Pacers. Once the public start saying, "seen one, you've seen them all" about preserved railways, they'll be less willing to keep splashing out on fares, and the whole delicate business case starts to unravel. (CJL)

 

Chris,

I agree about the importance of each preservation railway having its own clear identity for the public to keep wanting to visit. That can come from various factors, not just the locos and rolling stock. I don't see any great problem in making new coaches look like "classic" designs. 

But ultimately, a lot of the current preservation lines are probably not viable. It would be far better for resources to be focussed on fewer lines.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Chris,

I agree about the importance of each preservation railway having its own clear identity for the public to keep wanting to visit. That can come from various factors, not just the locos and rolling stock. I don't see any great problem in making new coaches look like "classic" designs. 

But ultimately, a lot of the current preservation lines are probably not viable. It would be far better for resources to be focussed on fewer lines.

 

I've been hearing that for at least the last forty years. There was even an article in one of the magazines (Railway World or Magazine I think) in about 1968 saying there was too many railways and locomotives. That was even before Barry sold the 4F! 

 

The article was called something like "The preservation bubble is going to burst". Not long after that article there was quite a few saying "scrap the lot", "too many engines", "none of them will work again", "waste of money". etc.

 

Don't even mention diesels. ISTR somebody at the NRM in the 1970s said none of them were worth saving....

 

 

 

Not happening I'm afraid. If I support a railway or project I'm not going to give my money elsewhere if that project flops or merges with another project. I supported that project for a reason, if I wanted to support the other project then I would have supported that in the first place.

 

Most other enthusiasts I've known are the same. Once "their" railway, preservation site or project is gone, they don't tend to go elsewhere. They leave preservation for good.

 

 

 

Jason

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Paul.Uni said:

They have been purchased for the use of the railway, primarily for the Polar Express trains. https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2020/06/mid-norfolk-railway-purchase-18-ex-greater-anglia-mark-3s-for-polar-express-trains.html

 

Not really about preservation then - although any income stream is important to enable preservation.

 

Financially, it seems rather strange to be going to this expense for something that is only going to run for a short period of the year.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Not really about preservation then - although any income stream is important to enable preservation.

 

Financially, it seems rather strange to be going to this expense for something that is only going to run for a short period of the year.

 

But preservation is only one aspect of the heritage railway "industry". Indeed, a very small part, since very few if any of the heritage railways are "preserved" in the sense of faithfully keeping or replicating their appearance and equipment as they were at some point in the past. They wouldn't be able to offer a train service that would go anywhere near to making them financially viable if that was the case.

 

I dare say the MNR has a sound financial case for its investment in what by my reckoning is "modern" stock* for what is presumably a major money-spinner for them.

 

*That is to say, less than fifty years old!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But preservation is only one aspect of the heritage railway "industry". Indeed, a very small part, since very few if any of the heritage railways are "preserved" in the sense of faithfully keeping or replicating their appearance and equipment as they were at some point in the past. They wouldn't be able to offer a train service that would go anywhere near to making them financially viable if that was the case.

 

I dare say the MNR has a sound financial case for its investment in what by my reckoning is "modern" stock* for what is presumably a major money-spinner for them.

 

*That is to say, less than fifty years old!

 

Are they going to use them at other times of the year though? It just seems odd to have a dedicated set just for the Polar Express trains.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 09/07/2020 at 06:21, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Not really about preservation then - although any income stream is important to enable preservation.

 

Financially, it seems rather strange to be going to this expense for something that is only going to run for a short period of the year.

 

The Mk3s were, apparently, offered to the MNR so cheaply it would have been daft to not have them.

Overall very little expense was involved.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tysley project could actually be viable,  They are a TOC in their own right hence would deal with their own operation. The intention I believe is a very local short distance operation at low speed, Much like a preserved railway train just operating over part of the national network. I dont believe there is any intent to operate long distance railtours with these.

 

Pete

Edited by IWCR
finger trouble
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, IWCR said:

The Tysley project could actually be viable,  They are a TOC in their own right hence would deal with their own operation. The intention I believe is a very local short distance operation at low speed, Much like a preserved railway train just operating over part of the national network. I dont believe there is any intent to operate long distance railtours with these.

 

Pete

 

So more like the Looe branch railmotor runs? Although that was actually designed for branch line use and doesn’t need run-round loops so possibly fewer issues than the Bloomer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 09/07/2020 at 02:56, Steamport Southport said:

I've been hearing that for at least the last forty years. There was even an article in one of the magazines (Railway World or Magazine I think) in about 1968 saying there was too many railways and locomotives. That was even before Barry sold the 4F! 

The article was called something like "The preservation bubble is going to burst". Not long after that article there was quite a few saying "scrap the lot", "too many engines", "none of them will work again", "waste of money". etc.

Don't even mention diesels. ISTR somebody at the NRM in the 1970s said none of them were worth saving....

 

Not happening I'm afraid. If I support a railway or project I'm not going to give my money elsewhere if that project flops or merges with another project. I supported that project for a reason, if I wanted to support the other project then I would have supported that in the first place.

Most other enthusiasts I've known are the same. Once "their" railway, preservation site or project is gone, they don't tend to go elsewhere. They leave preservation for good.

 

I tend to agree that forecasts of the death of UK railway preservation have existed for decades - I remember all the arguments over the Barry survivors in the 1980s - however by some measures the movement actually peaked about 20 years ago.  There have been at least 30 schemes which got as far as opening to the public but which have since closed.  The number which acquired or rented a site and some rolling stock, but disbanded before opening formally, is probably at least as many again.

What may be a reasonable prediction is that the mileage of preserved railways probably won't increase significantly in future.  The larger, more successful lines have mostly completed their planned extensions and the smaller, younger schemes, are unlikely to be able to fund the costs of extending.

The smaller railways rely totally on volunteers - sometimes they only have about 20 working volunteers - and the age profile is moving to the right.  You only need two of them to be unable to continue for whatever reason and the loss of key skills means the railway could be unable to operate.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I tend to agree that forecasts of the death of UK railway preservation have existed for decades - I remember all the arguments over the Barry survivors in the 1980s - however by some measures the movement actually peaked about 20 years ago.  There have been at least 30 schemes which got as far as opening to the public but which have since closed.  The number which acquired or rented a site and some rolling stock, but disbanded before opening formally, is probably at least as many again.

What may be a reasonable prediction is that the mileage of preserved railways probably won't increase significantly in future.  The larger, more successful lines have mostly completed their planned extensions and the smaller, younger schemes, are unlikely to be able to fund the costs of extending.

The smaller railways rely totally on volunteers - sometimes they only have about 20 working volunteers - and the age profile is moving to the right.  You only need two of them to be unable to continue for whatever reason and the loss of key skills means the railway could be unable to operate.  

You're probably right there. Most of the ones that are planning extensions already know how far they want to  extend, I think the only significant extensions left are the L&B which will depend on a lot of land swaps courtesy of Exmoor Associates, the Churnet Valley with the Cauldon Lowe/Alton branches. The GCR with its northern extension, although that only involves a small length of new track and a bridge and embankment etc as well as a possible Leicester Abbey section. The Bluebell also own the trackbed of the Ardingly branch as a western extension.

 

What was really behind my original post was that after speaking to a C&W volunteer at the Bluebell who I used to work with (I was 5 minutes late out of the bus garage as a result lol)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...