RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted May 16, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 16, 2011 As will become apparent very soon, I am selling off most of my stuff (not the Widnes stock of course ) and yesterday DBS and Freightliner gave some very welcome assistance in positioning some 66s ready for the sale And the week before, another positioning move (I will post these in serious threads soon !) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 must admit i thought 5 66s was the maximum allowed "light engine" the freightliner pic proves otherwise Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 They can move more but it has to run as a 0Xxx out of gauge load with the accompanying paperwork. Nice pics as usual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Does that mean "buy one get five free?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted May 17, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 Does that mean "buy one get five free?" Sure does - price for one = £300 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted May 17, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 They can move more but it has to run as a 0Xxx out of gauge load with the accompanying paperwork. Nice pics as usual. Ta, they actually ran as 0Y02 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 must admit i thought 5 66s was the maximum allowed "light engine" the freightliner pic proves otherwise Why is that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 Why is that? Could be due to some sort of braking 'constraint' or weight - can't be anything to do with drawbar strength or tractive effort Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 i think its to do with the braking, cant be sure but that rings a bell paul: do they have to have a RT3973 form? the most i've moved at once was 5, 3 fastline, 1gbrf "barbie" and a drs livery one, a colourful combination Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 Ta, they actually ran as 0Y02 The OOG headcode was used to alert Signallers to a train described as a light loco move, 0xxx, being overlength so they didn't stick it away where it didn't fit. I think the braking set up may also be an issue but we don't deal with that. There might be a dispensation locally where they don't have to describe it as such as all sidings are long enough, then it can run as a normal headcode. Light locos show no consist on TRUST unlike a train so you can't just look up the length. page 27 of the booklet, not the pdf http://www.rgsonline...1%20Iss%208.pdf We have a similar issue with the NMT which is physically out of gauge on one small part of our patch but runs on the rest of the area as a 1Qxx. We argue that that doesn't allow for emergency diversions and have been proved correct as if it hadn't been me on who was curious about which test train it was and saw the HST stock in TRUST then we could have had a incident. Personally I think that anything that requires any special attention anywhere on the area it runs, including possible diversion routes, should carry the X headcode to alert signallers instantly to pay special attention. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 paul: do they have to have a RT3973 form? Sorry Jim I don't know what the OOG gauge notices number is off the top of my head and don't have any in the file to check if that's the current number. The OOG notice is one of the best forms we use though as it's very specific about where the restrictions are and covers diversionary routes. Well thought out and easy to use . . . . . really ought to get the person who did it to look at the rest of the forms Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Harvey Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Are you up for buying one Dave? Is that why you selling your models? lol Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 The OOG headcode was used to alert Signallers to a train described as a light loco move, 0xxx, being overlength so they didn't stick it away where it didn't fit. I think the braking set up may also be an issue but we don't deal with that. There might be a dispensation locally where they don't have to describe it as such as all sidings are long enough, then it can run as a normal headcode. Light locos show no consist on TRUST unlike a train so you can't just look up the length. page 27 of the booklet, not the pdf http://www.rgsonline...1%20Iss%208.pdf We have a similar issue with the NMT which is physically out of gauge on one small part of our patch but runs on the rest of the area as a 1Qxx. We argue that that doesn't allow for emergency diversions and have been proved correct as if it hadn't been me on who was curious about which test train it was and saw the HST stock in TRUST then we could have had a incident. Personally I think that anything that requires any special attention anywhere on the area it runs, including possible diversion routes, should carry the X headcode to alert signallers instantly to pay special attention. Possibly paying the price of privitisation and some , hmm, 'less than experienced' folk in planning roles. In BR days if it was in anyway out-of-gauge or overweight it had to have a BR29973 (not that signalboxes received the Form but the train's route would have been on a notice quite possibly with a 'not to be diverted from booked route' comment where there were restrictions). Alas lots of people didn't seem to fully understand the BR29973 system or that trains carrying one had to have either an x or z headcode if loading gauge issues were involved. It's sometime since I saw one but the RT 3973 was more or less an exact copy of the BR 29973 form layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 I agree a X or Z headcode always works to alert you. As to the form the 9973 is maybe the train prep rather than running form then. The lack of railway knowledge (through experience or interest) is a problem in many things as they aren't actually written down anywhere. The instruction to make sure the driver lifts the shoes on an ED for example, some off the street Signallers have no idea what an ED is when looking at a consist on TRUST and I've never been taught it just know it from the models, so it's been put in the box training pack to make sure new entrants know. Unfortunately if you tried to put everything in the rule book it would end up 5ft thick rather than the current 1ft! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Pannier Tank Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 17, 2011 As will become apparent very soon, I am selling off most of my stuff (not the Widnes stock of course ) Is a GWR BLT in the pipeline? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Griffin Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 five or more light locos coupled can run as a standard class 0 on certain network rail approved routes (without additional paperwork), doncaster to whitemoor being another one. as is peterborough to toton tmd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted May 17, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 Is a GWR BLT in the pipeline? More of a post Beeching BLT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 Sorry Jim I don't know what the OOG gauge notices number is off the top of my head and don't have any in the file to check if that's the current number. its been a while since i've had one myself but 3973 seems to stick in my mind for some reason, dont need them on 165's!! i used to use RT397 HAW(heavy axle weight) on the Flask trains, certain RHTT's on the cambrian, the ones with where we were running RFS class 20's on as they are a higher RA than the brush ones so were subject to more restrictions also we used HAW forms on loaded coal trains with fastline and RT3973 CON on the container trains where there were restrictions on certain containers (9"6') iirc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
40044 Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 RT3973/EXL is required for more than 5 locos, so the move should, by default, run under an 'X' headcode. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted May 18, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 18, 2011 never seen an RT3973 EXL, i take it it refers to exceptional load? is it a braking issue as to why they need dispensation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
demufounder Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 According to wnxx.com this consist ran yesterday from Imminghamm to Doncaster as 0X04 66109 66024 66015 66105 66008 66075 66103 60084 60071 and 60074 No photos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Found a pic of a similar working from Feb http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanpadley/5458443179/ Not quite as good, but check the pic on the last page http://www.rharchive.info/Issue268.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.