WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[phil-b259]

On 03/05/2024 at 18:13, stewartingram said:

There,I've amended it for you.

All Joking aside the problem with any such idea is the same which faced the HCR and their automatic Mail Drop off / pick up apparatus - namely that for it to work they need to go faster than the 25mph limit Heritage railways have for public trains.

 

As such a water trough wouldn’t be much use for day to day operations and be an expensive maintenance headache more generally.

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

I dont see anyone being successful longterm with mk2def/mk3/4/5 stock for enthusiast tours as enthusiast interest riding them is slim.. they cannot hear the loco, they cannot see the loco and they cannot smell it… so why bother to go on it, it offers not much beyond a Pendolino.

 

We have been through this before.. 

 

It would be entirely possible to fit opening windows (they would have to be of the hopper type to the saloons of Mk2s / Mk3s and Mk4s!

 

Yes it would compromise the air conditioning effectiveness and cost a fair bit (unless the windows from the SWR 455 fleet can be retrieved from the scrapyard when they get disposed of) but it’s perfectly possible.

 

 

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

We have been through this before.. 

 

It would be entirely possible to fit opening windows (they would have to be of the hopper type to the saloons of Mk2s / Mk3s and Mk4s!

 

Yes it would compromise the air conditioning effectiveness and cost a fair bit (unless the windows from the SWR 455 fleet can be retrieved from the scrapyard when they get disposed of) but it’s perfectly possible.

 

 

I heard this idea mentioned several times but its not been actioned, so far all the 31x/45x York units went to scrap with their windows fitted.

 

The SWR 455’s / class 150’sare all thats left BUT… most the mark3’s have been scrapped.. that boat sailed. Theres enough preserved but aside of ERS and LSL its a scattergun of coaches around the country. MidNorfolk, Weardale has a bunch, I dont see a coordinated effort there to do this.

On the mk2’s weve seen I think 3 coaches with a hopper fitted, but its a half-ass job.. 2 windows from 7 or 8… may as well use a class 156 as hauled stock, as they are all hopper windows.*

 

* for pedants, i know you cant cos the coupling yada yada.

 

 

 

Edited May 5 by adb968008

[MarkC]

56 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

They do place large membranes over each layer when covering with soil - but it's interesting to watch the sealed bags that get dumped there run over and popped by the heavy digger to minimise air gaps!

I did say "in theory" 😎

 

Mark

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

in short I dont see why wcrc would bother without mk1’s, it could be completely shutdown and everything scrapped, site redeveloped for housing and maybe worth >£100mn… I dont really know why they are bothering to put up this fight as they do, for £2mn a year, when the whole hobby, industry and regulator is against them and not much chance of winning. Then look see the current business model is going to fail on costs anyway. It would be easier to Demolish it all, scrap the lot, write off the tax loss and offset it against site redevelopment. Take the really big money and give everyone the finger from a brand new yacht on a caribbean island sharing a Jubilees name.

You're being deliberately facetious now; you think David Smith would scrap his Mk1s for about £2k each when he could sell them to preserved railways for £20k each?  Or that he would scrap a restored main line steam loco he paid seven figures for, to recover 2% of that?  The value of the land would also be nowhere near £100M, even with detailed planning permission.  It's a long, narrow site and not that many people would pay a premium to back onto the WCML.

[enginelane]

15 hours ago, Matt37268 said:

Does Pickering still have them? 

 

15 hours ago, Matt37268 said:

Does Pickering still have them? 

Yes and are used until the last two trains of the day when trains then come into platform 2 where it is more level. Ticket inspector goes down the train before Pickering  and Platform 1 informing passengers that they should wait until the boxes are in position and then leave the train. 
 

regarding short platforms ticket inspector has to be in the first door that will not be on the platform at Levisham and Goathland and look back along the train to shout at anyone trying get out without a platform!

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

You're being deliberately facetious now; you think David Smith would scrap his Mk1s for about £2k each when he could sell them to preserved railways for £20k each?  Or that he would scrap a restored main line steam loco he paid seven figures for, to recover 2% of that?  The value of the land would also be nowhere near £100M, even with detailed planning permission.  It's a long, narrow site and not that many people would pay a premium to back onto the WCML.

Theres over 100-200 vehicles… that many vehicles all at once would flood the market. The locos would suck some cash from the sector too.

Most will end up in the bin.

Lets see what happens to these dozen coaches currently up for sale ?

6151 - MK2F - TSO

6134 - MK2F - TSO

1252 - MK2F - FO
5925 - MK2F - TSO

6154 - MK2F - TSO

1253 - MK2F - FO

6073 - MK2F - TSO

6029 - MK2F - TSO

5815 - MK2E - TSO

5888 - MK2E - TSO

5958 - MK2F - TSO

6045 - MK2F - TSO

6009 - MK2F - TSO

5978 - MK2F - TSO

 

All cdl fitted, in need of restoration, one is burnt out.

But its clear wcrc sees no future in mk2def by binning the reserve fleet, and doubt anyone else will either.

 

Dont forget capital gains, those coaches only cost £2k back in the 1990’s, there might be a horrendous liability there, which is tax to pay, not losses offset against tax.
 

LSL would be looking to feast, and lets not pretend LSL isnt hunting wcrc. The antics in FW show it is seeking to hurt WCRC. That isnt compassionate preservation its cold business. Wcrc may not want that.

 

its not as if preserved railways have loads of spare space too. I’d imagine a fair number would end up on campsites and glamping… indeed bottom end of Carnforth might even make a glamping site.

 

What makes you think people wouldnt want to live next to the wcml ?… thousands of people up and down it already do,including in Carnforth, some even have scrap coaches for a view. Commuting convienience often outweighs the distractors.

 

Just as many maybes against as for, making the retort just as facetious.

 

The truth might lie in the middle, making it no less uncomfortable… The steamies will have a future, so will Queen of Scots set, maybe the Lakelands Pullman set, but the rest… what else can you do with a crumbling listed steam shed and structures, on an industrial site in a prime real estate location populated with an extensive collection of rotting vehicles without a substantial revenue stream ?

 

Truth is, if it wasnt for WCRC, Carnforth MPD would have been demolished for housing decades ago, just like the housing estate that sprung up next to it… and just up the Barrow line. Look at Lostock Hall, Bolton, Southport flat ex-Railway land is easy to redevelop. It was game over in 1990, a sad depressing shed with few attractions at the time, why, because the 1968 vintage had gone stale and preserved lines across the country had taken its place, hence why Dinting and Southport ultimately folded too.. the will wasnt there and better options presented themselves. Tyseley is no different, it realised survival is to be a maintenance base and tour operator, not a railway museum.

 

Indeed the mistake was made back in 1968, Lostock Hall would have been a much better location for a railway museum, in its in a city catchment area, and ideal as a mainline changeover location.. As soon as the lakeside branch was lost they should have moved on.

Edited May 5 by adb968008

[Michael Hodgson]

On 03/05/2024 at 10:11, newbryford said:

 

A case for bringing back water troughs on the main line........?

 

I'm told Langley troughs are still there, with replacement track laid over the top of them.

[Michael Hodgson]

18 hours ago, Grovenor said:

But steps down from trains are the norm all over the country, although maybe only London has places where you need to step up onto the platform. For new builds things are very strict and level only a very small gap is mandated. Which practically rules out any significant curvature through platforms. Always noticeable when getting from DLR which had to meet these requirements then changing trains in Stratford where Network Rail has yawning gaps such that quite large people could easily fall onto the track under a train doorsill. These days its common elsewhere to have active gap fillers linked to door opening and when the ORR get around to it you can expect a call for Mk 1s to be retrofitted. Probably get a 20 year grace period. 😄

 

In theory you shouldn't need them if the vehicle can be designed such that the clearance to the platform is closer, and you only need fillers at the door openings. 

 

On a curve the overhang/underhang varies along the length of a bogie coach, and is greatest/least at the middle of the coach depending on which side the platform is on.  So if we avoid centre and end doors on carriages, but place the doors in line with the bogie pivot we can fit the gap more precisely with a fixed filler.  Then all we need is the tolerance for the dynamic movement of the vehicle on its susension and for track moving out of position relative to the platform

 

In practice though, active fillers are probably easuer to engineer.

[Michael Hodgson]

17 hours ago, Matt37268 said:

Does Pickering still have them? 

 

Not sure, but it ought to have them.  Our dog slipped while boarding and we had to help her up.

[Michael Hodgson]

6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

The coaling towers are also listed, I’d imagine this too could become a couple of quirky flats and a rooftop bar.

 

I visited the site several years ago to look at a MR signalbox (which we could only enter using the staircase stringers as the treads were unsafe!). which a friend was considering for relocation.   The decision was against buying it.  The decrepit coaling towers were fenced off from the rest of the site with keep out signs saying it was a dangerous structure, and indeed it looked it. 

 

Listing a building of outstanding interest is one thing; stopping it from collapsing altogether is quite another. 

Cancer Research UK is doing some excellent work but they are not trying to find a cure for concrete cancer!

[GrumpyPenguin]

4 hours ago, Morello Cherry said:

 

Erm if you'd read on you'd have seen that I agreed with his point about uneven platform height as a safety issue and I said that it was good that the authorities are taking steps to improve the issue although it is all too slow. It is an issue across across the country and one that impacts on all users old, less mobile and the young.

 

I find it ironic that someone who earlier in this thread was calling children 'brutes' and demanding parents take responsibility for their safety on the railway, getting worked up about low platform heights just because it is something that directly impacts upon them.

I did read on (after commenting) & would agree that the latter posts had some merit.

 

I would have thought that my description of children as "brutes" was clear to anyone (except those devoid of a GSoH) was tongue in cheek.

 

Personally, I stand my previous comments that we all have a duty of care to ourselves & those that we are reponsible for.

[Michael Hodgson]

4 hours ago, MarkC said:

It's all very well talking about redevelopment of the 10A site for housing, but I suspect that there would have to be a massive clearup operation, and given that there is likely to be asbestos & other nasties in the ground, excavation to a metre down or more might be required.

 

You may recall the a few years ago AIMREC had stands at some model railway shows proposing an extensive model railway museum on the site of Ashford works.  That fell through at least partly because of the amount of work required before the site could be used for anything, partly probably for financing but they ended up with a much less ambitious site in a village a few miles away.

[adb968008]

5 hours ago, MarkC said:

It's all very well talking about redevelopment of the 10A site for housing, but I suspect that there would have to be a massive clearup operation, and given that there is likely to be asbestos & other nasties in the ground, excavation to a metre down or more might be required.

 

I live near the site of an old asbestos works (as does another member of this parish), and before housing could be built on it, it had to be dug down over 2 metres, if not 3, if memory serves, and the material removed in sealed lorries to a processing site, cleaned of nasties & returned to site. Very expensive, and probably only about a third of the area that 10A covers.

 

Mark

Crewe works has a substantial housing estate on it.

 

lets not pretend its impossible.

Developers smell £££ and make £££ by taking on these jobs.

 

Crewe is much less glamourous than the lakes.

 

Canary Wharf is built on poisonous toxins from hundreds of years of dubious dealings too. No one ever worried about that. I doubt theres rare newts and bats in Carnforth either.

 

 

Edited May 5 by adb968008

[MarkC]

4 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Crewe works has a substantial housing estate on it.

 

lets not pretend its impossible.

Developers smell £££ and make £££ by taking on these jobs.

 

Crewe is much less glamourous than the lakes.

 

Canary Wharf is built on poisonous toxins from hundreds of years of dubious dealings too. No one worried about that.

 

 

Agreed - but the site of a Works is not likely to be as heavily contaminated as the site of an old MPD.

 

I guess it would be up to the developers to see if the costs can be covered. Case in point - backing onto my house is an old industrial site. No nasties there, as far as I know, but a foot or so of concrete. It was offered for sale with planning permission for 36 houses, but 10+ years down the line it's still undeveloped - and from my point of view, long may that continue...

 

Mark

[Northmoor]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I visited the site several years ago to look at a MR signalbox (which we could only enter using the staircase stringers as the treads were unsafe!). which a friend was considering for relocation.   The decision was against buying it.  The decrepit coaling towers were fenced off from the rest of the site with keep out signs saying it was a dangerous structure, and indeed it looked it. 

 

Listing a building of outstanding interest is one thing; stopping it from collapsing altogether is quite another. 

Cancer Research UK is doing some excellent work but they are not trying to find a cure for concrete cancer!

The ongoing status of the Carnforth Coaling Tower is one of very few issues where I have some sympathy for WCRC. 

 

It is built of materials that deteriorate badly over time - especially when so close to sea air - and it serves no useful function today.  Restoring/maintaining it in working condition would be very costly (assuming it is even possible to restore a reinforced concrete structure such as this) while its means of operation if of largely academic interest to a very limited group of people.  Even were it restored but not to operating condition, it would be exceptionally difficult to modify - within listed building regulations - to allow the public to safely access the structure.  This is without even considering that it lies within what is now an industrial site; Carnforth hasn't been a publicly-accessible preservation site for almost 30 years.

 

I can foresee a time before too long that the tower may be recorded in detail by a conservation body, de-listed and dismantled.

[MarkC]

14 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

The ongoing status of the Carnforth Coaling Tower is one of very few issues where I have some sympathy for WCRC. 

 

It is built of materials that deteriorate badly over time - especially when so close to sea air - and it serves no useful function today.  Restoring/maintaining it in working condition would be very costly (assuming it is even possible to restore a reinforced concrete structure such as this) while its means of operation if of largely academic interest to a very limited group of people.  Even were it restored but not to operating condition, it would be exceptionally difficult to modify - within listed building regulations - to allow the public to safely access the structure.  This is without even considering that it lies within what is now an industrial site; Carnforth hasn't been a publicly-accessible preservation site for almost 30 years.

 

I can foresee a time before too long that the tower may be recorded in detail by a conservation body, de-listed and dismantled.

AFAIK the primary issue was/is the poor quality steel used for the rebar, which as it corrodes away is expanding & bursting the structure from within the concrete itself. I don't think that there's any practical solution to that, tbh, other than replacing the sections of concrete piece by piece. Horrendously expensive and a very long term project - if indeed someone would find the funds for it.

 

I count myself privileged to have seen the coaling tower in action, including sending a coal wagon up on the hoist, many, many years ago - early 1970s.

 

Mark

[MarkC]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

 

 

Truth is, if it wasnt for WCRC, Carnforth MPD would have been demolished for housing decades ago, just like the housing estate that sprung up next to it… and just up the Barrow line. Look at Lostock Hall, Bolton, Southport flat ex-Railway land is easy to redevelop. It was game over in 1990, a sad depressing shed with few attractions at the time, why, because the 1968 vintage had gone stale and preserved lines across the country had taken its place, hence why Dinting and Southport ultimately folded too.. the will wasnt there and better options presented themselves. Tyseley is no different, it realised survival is to be a maintenance base and tour operator, not a railway museum.

 

Indeed the mistake was made back in 1968, Lostock Hall would have been a much better location for a railway museum, in its in a city catchment area, and ideal as a mainline changeover location.. As soon as the lakeside branch was lost they should have moved on.

Dinting was slightly different, wasn't it? The landlord wouldn't renew the lease, because he wanted to build houses on the land. He came a cropper though, because of a combination of ground contamination and access issues, the site, of course, being inside the triangle of a working electrified railway. As a result, the site remains derelict and overgrown as nature reclaims it.

 

As for Southport, yes, easy redevelopment for the reasons you give, but it's actually a shopping centre, not residential, so perhaps not so essential to clear the ground as much, as it was going to be concreted over. As an aside, I suspect that many Morrisons stores will have used the same argument - near me, Darlington (on the site of North Road works) and Bishop Auckland (The old station site) spring to mind.

 

Mark

[adb968008]

I don’t see it surviving at all myself.

I keep thinking one morning we will wake to the news of a towers collapse.

 

look at the shed in google maps, the south corner has no roof.

it had nets hanging from the roof when I last went inside in 1990 before it closed as chunks of roof were falling off back them

 

The MR signalbox is rotten too.

 

Anything museum related that has no wcrc related function has been largely neglected, inc the rolling stock.

Tbh ive more sympathy for what was Steamtown, than I have for WCRC. I fondly recall Steamport and Dinting too.
 

I admire what WCRC has done for mainline steam, affordable by the common man, however I do see, from a commercial perspective, that the end of the ride could be quite near, and think that the ORR battle has been self-selected as the hill to die on.

 

What would convince me otherwise would be the plan B, and cdl coaches emerging, a second set in the WHL, or more AB locos .. but what were seeing is dredged up mk2defs on what looks like a swansong… given the WHL contract ends this year, they may already  know the inevitable a year before we do.

 

Carnforth only exists because WCRC does. Once WCRC goes, 10A has to be to the highest bidder for the land as thats the greatest potential. Northern Belle is a separate product, could move location elsewhere, maybe take the lakelander pullmans, perhaps even the Ex-Sloa pullmans too with it easily enough and become a slimmed down  wcrc reincarnate. I cant see QoS ever being cdl fitted, so heritage use, and then dumping the rest.

 

I dont see LSL taking the site on, from a Railtour perspective its a pretty unideal location, not close to the S&C, and right in the middle of the Crewe - Carlisle railtour stretch. Loco changes only happen there because it is there. In 1968 Lostock Hall would have been a better proposition than Carnforth for both Steamtown, and WCRC, but the 1968 dream was Lakeside railtours, not S&C or WCML running.
 

But Steamtown aint ever coming back.

 

 

Edited May 5 by adb968008

[Michael Hodgson]

34 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I can foresee a time before too long that the tower may be recorded in detail by a conservation body, de-listed and dismantled.

 

Sorry to say this, but I see demolition as inevitable on safety grounds.  It must be worse than when I saw it and the local council would probably call it an eyesore.  Nobody is going to spend significant money on it, and if it is left long enough it will come down in a storm eventually.  If anybody wants to document it, I would advise them to take the initiative now and approach the site owners with a vew to starting before it gets any worse.  I don't see them getting permission to climb it even at their own risk.  It would have to be surveyed photographically - perhaps using drones?

[adb968008]

1 minute ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Sorry to say this, but I see demolition as inevitable on safety grounds.  It must be worse than when I saw it and the local council would probably call it an eyesore.  Nobody is going to spend significant money on it, and if it is left long enough it will come down in a storm eventually.  If anybody wants to document it, I would advise them to take the initiative now and approach the site owners with a vew to starting before it gets any worse.  I don't see them getting permission to climb it even at their own risk.  It would have to be surveyed photographically - perhaps using drones?

Which coaling / ash towers were the Hornby and Bachmann models scaled off ?

 

They may have already been scanned ?

[Morello Cherry]

55 minutes ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

I did read on (after commenting) & would agree that the latter posts had some merit.

 

I would have thought that my description of children as "brutes" was clear to anyone (except those devoid of a GSoH) was tongue in cheek.

 

Personally, I stand my previous comments that we all have a duty of care to ourselves & those that we are reponsible for.

 

LOL. So when you make a 'tongue in cheek' comment that offends others it is because others lack a good sense of humour and the inability to recognise it as tongue in cheek but when other people make an obviously tongue in cheek comment which offends you it is an outrageous insult.

 

Good to clear that up.

 

If we followed your logic then NR, TOCs, etc have no responsibility for low platforms and it is up to that guy, you and anyone else confronted with a low platform to sort themselves out and take care.

 

 

 

 

[woodenhead]

33 minutes ago, MarkC said:

Dinting was slightly different, wasn't it? The landlord wouldn't renew the lease, because he wanted to build houses on the land. He came a cropper though, because of a combination of ground contamination and access issues, the site, of course, being inside the triangle of a working electrified railway. As a result, the site remains derelict and overgrown as nature reclaims it.

 

Dinting was to next to the curve from Dinting to Glossop from the Manchester direction, it was not in the middle of the triangle, the station took that prize.

 

It is though at the top of a horrendous and narrow sloped road which I remember from my youth and I would guess any building work whilst commanding lovely views would have to take account of the slopes as well as the sheer volume of contaminated soils made worse by the slope as you cannot simply cap it on a slope like that I would imagine as you'd need to dig into it to create the flat bits for building on.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Platform heights and other issues do matter — and some are getting worse.

 

I made my first (and so far, only) visit to North Road (Darlington) in 2019. Only a very small area at the Darlington end of the platform is standard height; the rest of the platform was much lower. There was NO warning of this on the train whatsoever, and there was a pretty long and jarring drop to the platform from the train. No, I didn’t fall or hurt myself but someone older than I was then — say the age I am now — could have real difficulty.

 

Also in 2019 I boarded an "Azuma" at Newcastle Central to travel to York. The platform is curved and there was a long distance outwards as well as the usual amount upwards to board the train. It was difficult to reach and in my opinion would have been dangerous to alight from the train there. I was concerned about alighting at York but the platform was straight so there were no issues. This was just when the trains were first being introduced so the return journey was no problem.

 

Those responsible for specifying longer stock should have borne this issue in mind and should have included in their costs the need for modifications to platforms such as this (platform 3—the main southbound platform).

 

Quite a high proportion of rail travellers are elderly!

[john new]

The problem with any heritage asset is finding either a use for it that generates maintenance funds or an individual/group/etc... has the funds, willingness and ability to keep it in repair. Changing legislation adds additional constraints. Even museums which meet every other category are currently struggling on the collection conservation front due to the rising cost of heating bills. From statements up thread it appears they (WCRC) have funding available for at least doing some of the necessary work; however, I emboldened willingness as they don't seem to have it regarding keeping up a regime of adequate maintenance and upgrading across their full fleet.

 

Edited May 5 by john new
Typo spotted on re-reading the thread.