Pacers on preserved lines

[papagolfjuliet]

11 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

 

Then rebuild them with simpler control gear, use batteries, put solar panels on the roof, or whatever.

 

There must be zillions of interesting possibilities for what is, basically, a delightfully simple machine. And there probably wouldn't be the howls of anguish you might get for "improving" more heritage gear. Battery powered "Flying Scotsman" anyone?

 

Think positive, it is still possible🙂

 

I offer you the Ffestiniog's solar powered ex-LNER Wickham trolley. 

 

[Steven B]

17 hours ago, adb968008 said:

i’m not sure how well a Voyager, Adelante, Desiro etc would do on a preserved railway… bespoke units, more IT Centric etc..

 

It's not just heavy rail where modernisation causes headaches for preservationists.

 

Heaton Park Tramway in Manchester are hoping to have a first generation Metrolink tram running. Whilst their existing fleet can be mended with a hammer, I suspect that after a few years they'll be left with a static exhibit despite the large number of spares they've aquired.

 

Other areas have similar issues. It's easier to keep a Lancaster bomber flying than a Vulcan for example.

 

Steven B

[009 micro modeller]

5 hours ago, Steven B said:

Heaton Park Tramway in Manchester are hoping to have a first generation Metrolink tram running. Whilst their existing fleet can be mended with a hammer, I suspect that after a few years they'll be left with a static exhibit despite the large number of spares they've aquired.

Is the Metrolink wheel profile appropriate for their line? I was under the impression that for a lot of modern tramways it would be reasonably compatible, but that Metrolink was slightly different because of the number of former heavy rail lines it runs on. Unless it’s just going to be reprofiled anyway. With Adelantes etc. the number of vehicles in a fixed set might be an issue (apparently it is for EMU preservationists and even for lines that have Gresley Quad-Art sets).

[Steven B]

From a visit last year, I think they're hoping to lay a new branch to run the Metrolink tram on. There's also some issues around supply voltage.

 

 

Steven B

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

From a visit last year, I think they're hoping to lay a new branch to run the Metrolink tram on. There's also some issues around supply voltage.

 

 

Steven B

That sounds interesting. Do you know where the new branch would go? I understand they also have ambitions to extend towards one of the nearby Metrolink stops at the side of the park but I don’t know if such a branch would follow that route.

[Ben B]

On 08/11/2023 at 19:41, Not Jeremy said:

 

What great pictures of a preserved railway moving with the times, I kind of like the Pacers and think that they might actually be improved  by having some "fictitious" liveries applied.

 

And really wonderful to see the Met Cam without orange cant rail stripes, I'm not quite sure why but they really bug me!

 

Thank you for sharing the pictures.

 

Simon

 

Thanks for the nice comments about the pics :)

 

Prior to repainting (and towards the end of the dark days of Covid, when the KWVR was playing host to a lot of the Pacer fleet), there was this sight:

 

 

Where there had been a mill, and a metal/wood bridge over the river, here were two modern-liveried Pacer sets threading their way through modern housing on the way to the new concrete bridge over the Worth.  There's an image of the Worth Valley Railway that it's a rural line (largely thanks, I think, to "The Railway Children") but with more and more housing being built along the valley, I can see the route logically going back to a public transport corridor at some point in the next 50 years, with the occasional steam special.. and as one of the residents of the new houses, I wouldn't necessarily mind that, if it meant the line surviving.

[Steven B]

On 10/11/2023 at 17:28, 009 micro modeller said:

That sounds interesting. Do you know where the new branch would go? I understand they also have ambitions to extend towards one of the nearby Metrolink stops at the side of the park but I don’t know if such a branch would follow that route.

 

It's a while since I was last there, but I think they hope to extend beside the shed at the boating lake and head west towards Bury Old Road.

 

From memory the old trams would be able to use the new line, but the Metrolink tram wouldn't be able to get to the museum end of the line.

 

I could of course be completely wrong....

 

Steven B

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

From memory the old trams would be able to use the new line

Would the different wheel profile not be an issue then? Unless that’s not the problem anyway and it’s more to do with loading gauge, curve radius etc.

[Steven B]

You'd need to ask the guys at Heaton Park!

 

Metrolink's minimum radius is 25m if Wikipedia is to be believed. A quick look on Google Earth suggests this isn't far off what the minimum radius is on the current track. I think the problem with Metrolink tram on the existing track is the depth of the flange - older wheelsets manage on regular rail at Crich so suspect they wouldn't have too much trouble with Metrolink standard track.

 

Steven B

[009 micro modeller]

41 minutes ago, Steven B said:

You'd need to ask the guys at Heaton Park!

 

Metrolink's minimum radius is 25m if Wikipedia is to be believed. A quick look on Google Earth suggests this isn't far off what the minimum radius is on the current track. I think the problem with Metrolink tram on the existing track is the depth of the flange - older wheelsets manage on regular rail at Crich so suspect they wouldn't have too much trouble with Metrolink standard track.

 

Steven B

That makes sense. So it may have issues if it was to run on the current line, which as I recall includes not only the historic double track section up from the park gates (which the line was originally set up to preserve) but also a substantial bit of inset track beyond that on the way to the lake, which presumably couldn’t be relaid with deeper rail anyway (in contrast to a new line). Is it possible to use it on their overhead wire system without adaptation?

[Lemmy282]

I would suggest that the wheel profile would be a problem as well as the flange depth. Crich employed a contractor to do some work on the overhead last year, and the wheel profile of their vehicle was not compatible with some of the track.

As regards the overhead, I would assume a pantograph would work well, but the voltage would be different. I believe Mterolink uses 750v whereas traditional trams use 550v-600v, so I assume some adjustment of the electronics would be required.

[phil-b259]

13 minutes ago, Lemmy282 said:

 

As regards the overhead, I would assume a pantograph would work well, but the voltage would be different. I believe Mterolink uses 750v whereas traditional trams use 550v-600v, so I assume some adjustment of the electronics would be required.

Not necessarily - in Europe there are a few examples where a 3KV and 1.5KV DC electrifications meet and the 3KV locos are quite happy to work under 1.5KV (though obviously with a consummate reduction in performance)

 

In the UK it was also the case that in the London suburban area most of the conductor rail was energised at 630V while from the 1930s the voltage used for main line electrification was increased to 750V. ‘Main line’ EMUs with electrics designed for 750V had no trouble working on 630V (apart from a slight hit on their performance)

Edited November 14, 2023 by phil-b259

[Jeremy Cumberland]

I don't know what wheel profile either Manchester Metrolink or traditional British trams use, but there is a useful side by side of the Sheffield Supertram wheel profile and the National Rail P8 profile in this paper: https://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/27316/3/IMechE Stephenson Conference - Development of a TramTrain wheel profile for dual operation running_Iss_1.pdf

 

Here is the diagram, and if the mods think this infringes copyright, please remove it:

 

Really, it is just like our models, and there are the same things to consider:

• Flange depth. Here, as with some models, there might be two issues. Obviously there must be room for the deepest flanges not to hit anything, but the flat bottom of the Sheffield tram wheel profile makes me wonder if they are intended to run on their flanges in some places.
• Back to back. This has to be greater (with reasonable clearance, too) than the cover check to wing rail distance.
• Back to front of flange. This has to be less than the cover check to crossing distance, otherwise the flange will strike the crossing nose.
• Wheel width. This has to be at least twice the crossing flangeway width, so the wheel does not drop into the crossing. Alternatively, if the wheel and crossing are designed for wheels to run on their flanges, then this consideration does not apply.

If you only have a limited range of wheel profiles and back to backs, it might be possible to arrange trackwork to cover them all. The usual method on British tramways to accommodate main line stock was to narrow the gauge to 4' 7¾" (1416 mm).

[Lemmy282]

I think the flat bottomed profile of the SST is to ensure that on the normal tram track is does not run on the flange. That said, the routes where the tram trains run on normal tram rail were re-profiled to a compromise to accept normal and SST tram wheels.

Yes the normal way to enable main line stock to run on traditional tramways was to reduce the gauge to 4' 7¾" (1416 mm), but there the wheels did run on their flanges. Glasgow tramways were all built to 4' 7¾", which did cause Crich a bit of a problem as they had a large number of trams from there!

[009 micro modeller]

46 minutes ago, Lemmy282 said:

I think the flat bottomed profile of the SST is to ensure that on the normal tram track is does not run on the flange. That said, the routes where the tram trains run on normal tram rail were re-profiled to a compromise to accept normal and SST tram wheels.

Yes the normal way to enable main line stock to run on traditional tramways was to reduce the gauge to 4' 7¾" (1416 mm), but there the wheels did run on their flanges. Glasgow tramways were all built to 4' 7¾", which did cause Crich a bit of a problem as they had a large number of trams from there!

I always assumed Metrolink to be a bit different because so much of it runs on former heavy rail lines (which I think were not all relaid initially although the earlier ones probably have been now). And then I don’t know what American interurbans use, but museums over there seem to be OK running old subway and electric commuter trains on the same track as them.

[RJS1977]

3 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I always assumed Metrolink to be a bit different because so much of it runs on former heavy rail lines (which I think were not all relaid initially although the earlier ones probably have been now). And then I don’t know what American interurbans use, but museums over there seem to be OK running old subway and electric commuter trains on the same track as them.

 

I understand that there has been some through working from the ELR to Metrolink for engineering purposes.

[Lemmy282]

That is true, but I think only on the former railway sections which use standard rail, not tramway rail

[009 micro modeller]

13 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I understand that there has been some through working from the ELR to Metrolink for engineering purposes.

 

14 minutes ago, Lemmy282 said:

That is true, but I think only on the former railway sections which use standard rail, not tramway rail

Yes, but in that case they must use a wheel profile for the trams that is able to run on the railway rail. And there is a video (or possibly just photos) somewhere of an ELR steam loco working on Metrolink.

[adb968008]

I dont have knowledge on track flange but when Metrolink took over the Bury line in 1991, they used the existing BR track, however they turned the rails inside out.

D2767 and others were hired from the ELR to help with this work.

it was felt this solution was not ideal for the trams longterm, but it was a cheap solution.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by adb968008

[adb968008]

On 16/11/2023 at 00:11, RJS1977 said:

 

I understand that there has been some through working from the ELR to Metrolink for engineering purposes.

D2767 did much of the work originally in 1991, right down to Victoria.

32 Gothenburg (MSC 0-6-0T) went down to a Metrolink openday at Queens Road, but it was just that.

 

In later years relaying a whole bunch of locos went down there, including at least 1 steam loco, with a tank wagon for watering, and various class 37’s.

But as opened by the Queen, Metrolink was riding on the ex-BR track it inherited, note in the pictures below, for the most part its Bullhead rail.

 

heres a few pictures of Metrolink during its testing period, note not all stations were yet painted, or signage, staff in hi-vis etc… Ive never seen many pictures published of this period, but I was quite privileged to get behind the scenes and on some early test runs..

 

apologies in advance on the quality, budget camera, out of date film, and a decade before I could afford to get the film processed..then only scanned another decade later.

 

Bury

Hagside Crossing..

 

Whitefield

Prestwich 

Bowker Vale

 

 

 

 

Queens Road Depot

 

note the tram behind 1008 is still on its delivery trailer waiting to be unloaded.
 

 

There was for a period a Metrolink tram stored in the ELR depot at Bury, as it had been stripped quite heavily for spare parts, and it was some time before sufficient parts arrived for it to enter service.

Another tram was brought to Bury Bolton St Platform 4, for an ELR diesel gala, I do recall some care and slow speed had to be paid to its movement as unlike on Metrolink, the points did not have raised edge profiles to prevent derailments, this was a mod made to the BR infrastructure pointwork during the change over period.

 

Manchester Victoria

 

 

This was taken some while later, but shows the first day of street testing..

Piccadilly Gardens

one memory I had was being invited to ride a test run one evening. We left Bury and got to Whitefield, and headed off south, suddenly the full weight of the magnetic brakes dropping on the track applied and we stopped almost like a car.

The driver spoke with control and confirmed, it was an Emergency system stop.

Apparently the Emergency system stop can stop all trams, but as no one had yet defined an emergency, every urgent stop was an emergency stop… and we sat there for about an hour.

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by adb968008

[rodent279]

Fascinating. I never got to ride on the side contact system before it closed. Is there any side contact rail surviving anywhere (obviously not in use)? Would make a great exhibit on the ELR.

[009 micro modeller]

5 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Fascinating. I never got to ride on the side contact system before it closed. Is there any side contact rail surviving anywhere (obviously not in use)? Would make a great exhibit on the ELR.

I thought the NRM were given a bit but not sure (they definitely gave some to someone as a museum item though).

[rodent279]

13 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I thought the NRM were given a bit but not sure (they definitely gave some to someone as a museum item though).

Haven't been to the NRM for a good few years now, I hope it's on display if it's there. The Dutch Spoorwegmusuem in Utrecht has a full on display about railway electrification, explaining the reasons behind it as well as going into the nitty gritty of how the wires were put up. There are examples of catenary,  contact wire, insulators, pantographs etc. That's the sort of education the NRM should be doing.

(And maybe it is, I haven't been there since about 2005).

[adb968008]

37 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Fascinating. I never got to ride on the side contact system before it closed. Is there any side contact rail surviving anywhere (obviously not in use)? Would make a great exhibit on the ELR.

The NRM has a piece, and the shoegear.

I helped load it onto the pallet at BQ depot to send it there.

There was also a pair of Ex LyR bogies in the depot, used as an accommodation bogies, it was scrapped on the last day and skipped.

I read online there was some debate about whether this was a myth, but heres the proof…
 

ive zoomed up really close but you can just see the spoked wheels here..

After the line closed the third rail was ripped up, dumped on a scrap pile with all various signage from the stations at Whitefield, this was later weighed in.

 

The line will have various LMS /LYR and BR ceramic pots, as these weren't collected and simply discarded, they were dumped all along the line.  Most likely they are still there hidden under weeds.

 

Somewhere in the  ELR archives it has a full maintenance history of every Bury Unit, in Yellow “Electric Multiple Unit” ring binders, and also the Met Cammell units built in the 1950’s including right down to the delivery notes, which listed included fuel and extinguishers… I salvaged those from the skip and took them to Bolton Street, took me all day and several trips. I have 1 maintenance book and 1 yellow binder myself.

Sadly I suspect they binned them as I’m not sure they wanted them and they moaned at me somewhat for doing it.

 

 

Heres a few of the last day..

 

 

Also a few weeks earlier (apologies for the quality of the Hag Side signal box. Gremlins are eating the slide.)

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by adb968008

[009 micro modeller]

5 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The line will have various LMS /LYR and BR ceramic pots, as these weren't collected and simply discarded, they were dumped all along the line.  Most likely they are still there hidden under weeds.

 

Somewhere in the  ELR archives it has a full maintenance history of every Bury Unit, in Yellow “Electric Multiple Unit” ring binders, and also the Met Cammell units built in the 1950’s including right down to the delivery notes, which listed included fuel and extinguishers… I salvaged those from the skip and took them to Bolton Street, took me all day and several trips. I have 1 maintenance book and 1 yellow binder myself.

Sadly I suspect they binned them as I’m not sure they wanted them and they moaned at me somewhat for doing it.

Strange that these things didn’t go to the NRM with the shoegear. I’m not sure how it would fit into a display about electrification though as somehow it seems oddly specific, compared to something illustrating the differences between AC and DC electrification, for instance. It would be a good comparison with top contact though, even though side contact was very unusual in the UK (was it used anywhere at all, other than the Bury line?).