Strange train at Salisbury

[griffgriff]

I stumbled across this video, recorded on 19/4/93, on Youtube.

 

 

seen at 1:40 onwards.

 

 

I was wondering what this eye catching train was ... It looks like it went off to be turned on the Odstock Loop before departing westwards.

 

The plated over Mk2's and the MK2 Brake First look very straightforward and the 'Inspection' vehicle looks ever so familiar ??? But check out the livery!

 

I'm sure that you would agree that it would be a very appealing modelling subject.

[keefer]

presumably an early 'test train' livery, i'm sure i've seen photos of it on the plated over 'brake force runner' coaches before, but not on an inspection saloon!

 

EDIT: had a look at departmentals.com and 999508 is the railtrack/serco/network rail one (as opposed to a 'normal' everyday saloon)

 

http://www.departmentals.com/photo/999508c

 

977773 is interesting, ex-5182, one of the disc braked edin-glasQS push-pull mk2s

 

http://www.departmentals.com/photo/977773a

 

as is 977802, ex-5176

[cromptonnut]

At 1:50 you can catch the number DB977802 from one of the vehicles which shows up in 2001 on the Serco test train which is probably more familiar to you Was it Hornby that did a 'pack' including two of these and a box van a few years back? Departmentals.com shows it as a 'brake force runner'.

 

Using a similar method, the inspection saloon is DB999503, a 'QXB' Inspection Saloon.

 

Agree about the bizarre livery though; reminds me of the "Jaffa Cake" livery but with blue on the bottom instead.

[kintbury jon]

As a kid I remember seeing this train. At the time I painted up some beaten up coaches in this livery using IC dark grey then warning panel yellow and NSE blue. Probably wasn't accurate but it looked good to me at the time!

 

Love the bit when 33116 pulls in. How I miss those WoE loco hauled services.

[PaulRhB]

Thanks for the link, one minor thing it's Laverstock Loop, Odstocks the Hospital

[Edwin_m]

I worked at Derby RTC at the time and don't recall seeing anything of that livery there, though it could have been there in a different livery. So I think it must have been based somewhere else, at that time at least.

[Grampus]

Gracious me, 07:08 on a Saturday? Couldn't you sleep either?

 

Great bit of a footage: loved the sequence of 47 706 - could she have been any tattier? Feel some modelling inspiration coming on. Mind you, the big red one('535) looked good on NSE stock, too. What a nice find - happy days!

 

Paul

[The Stationmaster]

I think it was a CCE 'owned' train and as already noted above the plated over vehicles were brake force makeweights (to allow it to run at linespeed).

[Phil R]

Hi

 

Believe it was the Western Region Civil Engineers Track recording/assessment train based at Old Oak Common. The livery is interesting, wonder if they just used up the paint that was available?

 

Phil

[keefer]

possibly a case of wanting a certain 'fixed' set to operate with that track/inspection saloon, i.e. if it's all the same livery we know what's being worked together and we know how fast we can go, where we can go etc etc

as opposed to just a cobbled together test set of available vehicles - what brakes are they, what brake force etc.

 

if it's all the same livery, then you know them's the ones you want!

[griffgriff]

Thanks for the link, one minor thing it's Laverstock Loop, Odstocks the Hospital

 

 

It was the place of my birth.

 

Sorry and thanks in equal measure

[griffgriff]

Thanks very much for all the information so far. I didn't think of departmentals.com.

 

The livery is very eye catching and I think it would be great to see as a model (not the start of a wish list I'm telling myself that!)... it certainly would clash really well with NWSE

 

Looking at the time codes it doesn't look like it went to Exeter? So I'm guessing it was an out and back turn along the Wylie Valley which ties in with it being a Western Region Inspection train... but still it's a lot of coaches for an inspection run isn't it? But still compact enough for a nice little train, the only stumbling block would be modelling 999508.

[griffgriff]

I think it was a CCE 'owned' train and as already noted above the plated over vehicles were brake force makeweights (to allow it to run at linespeed).

 

Thanks... that leads me onto another question...

 

Would fewer coaches mean a lower line speed? As I said above it's quite a short train. Presumably there is an equation that is used to calculate speed/(route?)/brake force needed and therefor number of vehicles (braked axles?) required?

[The Stationmaster]

 

Thanks... that leads me onto another question...

 

Would fewer coaches mean a lower line speed? As I said above it's quite a short train. Presumably there is an equation that is used to calculate speed/(route?)/brake force needed and therefor number of vehicles (braked axles?) required?

Yes - according to my count it only has a total of 4 on which means (without checking the table and working from ancient memory) 10mph below linespeed, which could have been quite satisfactory for what was being recorded.

[Edwin_m]

The issue here is that "heritage" diesel classes had less brake force in proportion to their weight than coaches do. So a short train or a light engine has less deceleration than a longer train and has to run at lower speeds so as to be sure of stopping within the braking distances allowed by the signalling. I believe this does not apply to more modern locomotives, which have brakes capable of decelerating at the "standard" rate.

[big jim]

if i remember right the only "modern" diesel where the braking force rule doesnt apply is a class 67 with mark 3 day coaches as it has both disc and clasp brakes.

 

trains comprised of 4 vehicles run at reduced speeds, ill have to double check the speeds but i think its if the line speed is 85 or less then speed is reduced by 10mph

 

light engine wise its certainly 75mph where linespeed is 90 or above and 60mph where it is 75 or below

[griffgriff]

Thanks... come to think of it there was a recent thread where a poster mentioned that engines running light had to run with a speed restriction due to low brake force. It would be useful to find out (from a rule book of one kind or another???) what the exact calculation was...

 

I know this is now going off the topic of my original post a little but my interest is in this particular train.

 

I was wondering why this inspection saloon required a brake runners (I know it's a higher running speed, I've got that bit cracked). It looks like the train could do it's work at higher speeds - the clue being the matching livery - I've only ever seen an inspection saloon run singly? Running slower so you could actually see the track etc. your inspecting. What made this train special?

[griffgriff]

if i remember right the only "modern" diesel where the braking force rule doesnt apply is a class 67 with mark 3 day coaches as it has both disc and clasp brakes.

 

trains comprised of 4 vehicles run at reduced speeds, ill have to double check the speeds but i think its if the line speed is 85 or less then speed is reduced by 10mph

 

light engine wise its certainly 75mph where linespeed is 90 or above and 60mph where it is 75 or below

 

Our posts passed in the mists of time... thanks that's one query answered.

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks... come to think of it there was a recent thread where a poster mentioned that engines running light had to run with a speed restriction due to low brake force. It would be useful to find out (from a rule book of one kind or another???) what the exact calculation was...

 

I know this is now going off the topic of my original post a little but my interest is in this particular train.

 

I was wondering why this inspection saloon required a brake runners (I know it's a higher running speed, I've got that bit cracked). It looks like the train could do it's work at higher speeds - the clue being the matching livery - I've only ever seen an inspection saloon run singly? Running slower so you could actually see the track etc. your inspecting. What made this train special?

There was a table of speed reductions and 'go'/'no go' conditions in the General Appendix but I don't think it's about nowadays. The rule also applies to HSTs which must run with a minimum of 5 trailers to be able to run at line speed (and I know that one is accurate as I had something of a 'debate' with test engineers when the NMT HST was being put through Safety Validation and I was not inclined to accept their theoretical calculations for brake force when Mk 2 vehicles were used and insisted on testing - I won't gloat over the outcome ).

 

As far as this particular train was concerned I think it was kept in the same, or roughly the same, formation all the time and thus might have been used for inspecting as well as testing and nobody would bother to reduce the formation. Inspection saloons run for all sorts of reasons, the last one I went on was a bubble car which was used to show various non-railway folk work that was being done in connection with Channel Tunnel connections and facilities for freight trains running off the old Western Region while the one before that was looking at various freight facilities between Oxford and Bletchley and then down to Aylesbury but also including Akeman Street - and the reasons for various people being on that varied from wishing to look at particular features on the route to the fact that various people thought we needed to look at Akeman St because they'd never travelled over that line previously (which also explained why we went to a particular place at the east end of the flyover at Bletchley).

[Edwin_m]

As Mike probably knows already, NMT would be a special case not only because of use of Mk2s but also because track recording coaches have at least one unbraked axle. I guess the other issue with short trains in general would be the need to isolate the brakes in the event of a fault - I think this can only be done per bogie and would obviously have more relative effect with a short train.

[The Stationmaster]

As Mike probably knows already, NMT would be a special case not only because of use of Mk2s but also because track recording coaches have at least one unbraked axle. I guess the other issue with short trains in general would be the need to isolate the brakes in the event of a fault - I think this can only be done per bogie and would obviously have more relative effect with a short train.

My professional concern with the NMT safety Validation was the temporary substitution of Mk2 vehicles pending completion of work on several of the Mk3s. The Mk2s have different braking characteristics and in a train which was already going to be slightly deficient at certain times I was not happy to sign off from an ISA viewpoint. In the end practical high speed braking tests were carried out on the ECML because of my doubts (and, according to others, awkwardness) and the rest ... as they say ... is history. Although in practice I understand that the train has rarely operated with Mk2s in the formation.

[newbryford]

But still compact enough for a nice little train, the only stumbling block would be modelling 999508.

 

Britannia Pacific Models do a kit, available from Charlie Petty at DC Kits/D&E Videos.

 

On my workbench, with lots of other stuff as always

 

Pete Harvey may also have an input on this.................

 

Cheers,

Mick

[griffgriff]

 

Britannia Pacific Models do a kit, available from Charlie Petty at DC Kits/D&E Videos.

 

 

 

Pete Harvey may also have an input on this.................

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

.... and cheers to you.... I thought it would mean slicing and dicing some pieces of (expensive) brass

[newbryford]

 

.... and cheers to you.... I thought it would mean slicing and dicing some pieces of (expensive) brass

 

No pieces of brass were sliced in this model - the kit comes with the relevant sections of sides and a resin moulding for the infill.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[griffgriff]

 

No pieces of brass were sliced in this model - the kit comes with the relevant sections of sides and a resin moulding for the infill.

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

Lovely B)