lyneux Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Does anyone know the extent of the collaboration between ARC and Yeoman in the 1980s? Watching this video: it shows 56033 with a number of ARC PTAs, followed by Yeoman PXAs and then Yeoman PTAs. Is this an ARC or a Yeoman flow? Is this simply a case of ARC loaning Yeoman some additional PTAs for use on their flows? Of course, the ulterior motive here is to run Yeoman stock on my model of Whatley! Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonhall Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I think it was the stone contracts for second Severn crossing that pushed the collaboration. Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastwestdivide Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The video: could it have been a reallocation of wagons from one to the other? They both leased from Procor I think, so a change in requirements/contracts could have resulted in the need for a transfer of wagons before there was a chance to repaint (or just paint out the logos). Only a theory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Or the quarry - Acton pathway was a BR-operated service that both companies could utilise.........sort of Speedlink for stone ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lyneux Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Some good theories there! Jon, I think you are right about the origins of Mendip rail being in the collaboration on the second severn crossing. However, work didn't start until 1992 and the video above was purportedly shot in 1986 (believable from the early Yeoman livery on the PTAs). There was definitely re-allocation of wagons between the two companies - for example some of the PGAs that ARC used retained a base colour of Yeoman grey with just the blue Yeoman panel painted out in ARC mustard, e.g. in this shot from Huw Millington (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hmillington/2034858893 ): Looking at the video more closely they look to be empties heading back east towards Westbury. I'm going to see if I can find any more examples from around the same period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 28, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 28, 2014 Or the quarry - Acton pathway was a BR-operated service that both companies could utilise.........sort of Speedlink for stone ? No - they had separate paths due to the loads. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shed Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Great video Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBMRG Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Hello. Interestingly from the clip, it looks like the last wagon was a PTA 'inner' with buffers? Or are my eyes deceiving me? I have a feeling their was no mixing of Mendip - London stone services at the time. I have not seen any reference to the PXA wagons being used by ARC, they were a Yeoman / Procor creation to maximise the wagon fleet size. I always thought Yeoman had some large contracts around this time, but it may have been the timing of their services up and down the B&H compared to ARC! Always happy to be corrected. GBMRG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lyneux Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 Interestingly from the clip, it looks like the last wagon was a PTA 'inner' with buffers? Or are my eyes deceiving me? Looks like a PTA outer to me (out of interest: what features made you think it was an inner?). I have a feeling their was no mixing of Mendip - London stone services at the time. Me too, which is why I posted the video... it seemed to disprove this! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium JDW Posted January 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 12, 2015 Interesting video, and handy for something I've been working on recently too, thanks! No idea about the ARC/Yeoman collaboration, but the rear wagon does look to have [round] buffers, doesn't look to have a [lit] tail lamp to me though - or is it just very dim? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivercider Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I can not be sure but there must have been occasions when the train plan went awry that it would be in the interests of both parties for two trains to be combined with their agreement. After Acton Yard was heavily rationalised there was very limited capacity and I would suspect an empty set left there effectively blocking a road would be a problem. Better then for the next mendip bound service with capacity to clear it as far as Westbury, where nearly all trains called for relief, and detach the set in the yard there to be tripped to the other quarry later. cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.