bobster Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Hi All Just had this sent to me by a Family member in Cornwall http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Furture-Cornish-steam-train-tours-doubt-St-Blazey/story-21089594-detail/story.html I am sure that many of you are aware of this anyway, but thought that it must be worth a mention here to try to get as many signatures as possible on the petition that has been started here http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/st-blazey-turntable to return the turntable to use. Don't want to see another turntable scrapped Cheers. Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-CRS Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 I came across this yesterday on Facebook and voted straight away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted May 17, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 17, 2014 As I understand it, this has been out of use for some time now, but our very own Captain Kernow is on the case. Regarding the article, well... The Great Britain tour that they said would not go through Cornwall with steam power, did. One of the Castles took it from Falmouth, double heading a West Country class pacific. Have a look in at this page post 46 for a photo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 17, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2014 Might I suggest that setting up a fund to 'restore' the table (with NR/DBS agreement) would be considerably more helpful that just collecting a list of names from people who might, or might not, be prepared to put in a few quid. I don't blame DBS in the least for not maintaining the asset if they don't need it and if they aren't being paid an acceptable sum for its use and to be honest that is nothing new in the industry - the Charter train section of InterCity made use of an awful lot of infrastructure which was paid for by other businesses until we reviewed the use of everything in 1992 and offloaded all that we did not need (and InterCity found itself with a much larger bill for maintenance as a result. Sorry but that's the way it is, and has been for a good while, in our railway industry. If users of the St Blazey turntable had paid an economic rental for using it maintenance would presumably have continued, now it is a case of 'rescuing' it from a worse position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 My trip on the Royal Duchy on the 15th June has been cancelled as a result of this - most annoyed!! (especially as I was taking the new girly on her first steam trip!!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted May 17, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2014 This is a tricky one, but if anything can be done, I will report back. Things may have started to move behind the scenes with non-railway industry parties, who would like to see the turntable kept operational and thus keep main line steam in Cornwall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobster Posted May 17, 2014 Author Share Posted May 17, 2014 This is a tricky one, but if anything can be done, I will report back. Things may have started to move behind the scenes with non-railway industry parties, who would like to see the turntable kept operational and thus keep main line steam in Cornwall. Many thanks Captain, any news, will be greatly received on here I'm sure - Lets hope a solution is there to be had. Cheers, Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted May 17, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 17, 2014 This is bad news! But like Mike has said probably not entirely unexpected. DBS are after all here to run a business. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been preferable for DBS to charge past visiting loco's owners using it a fee for its upkeep until waiting until its falling to bits! It will be a great shame if it succumbs for good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobster Posted May 17, 2014 Author Share Posted May 17, 2014 This is bad news! But like Mike has said probably not entirely unexpected. DBS are after all here to run a business. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been preferable for DBS to charge past visiting loco's owners using it a fee for its upkeep until waiting until its falling to bits! It will be a great shame if it succumbs for good. Hi Gary - Good point, I wonder why Fee's were not charged ? - We are charged for everthing in this day and age, (even 20p to use the station loo) so why not the user's of this turntable - Maybe they did not want the hassle of keeping it open - Running a business is ok, but don't forsake your customer's whoever or how small they may be. Cheers, Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted May 17, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2014 This is bad news! But like Mike has said probably not entirely unexpected. DBS are after all here to run a business. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been preferable for DBS to charge past visiting loco's owners using it a fee for its upkeep until waiting until its falling to bits! It will be a great shame if it succumbs for good. The one thing that would irritate me considerably is this - these things don't usually deteriorate that quickly, they wear out or start to break down gradually, over a period of time. What would have been preferable would have been for someone with the appropriate technical knowledge and authority to say - 'look, this is wearing out. It's still fit to use, but we estimate that it will have to be signed out of use in x months/years time' - that way no one gets a sudden/nasty surprise and funding for repairs might possibly be planned for in a more measured and structured way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 18, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 18, 2014 The one thing that would irritate me considerably is this - these things don't usually deteriorate that quickly, they wear out or start to break down gradually, over a period of time. What would have been preferable would have been for someone with the appropriate technical knowledge and authority to say - 'look, this is wearing out. It's still fit to use, but we estimate that it will have to be signed out of use in x months/years time' - that way no one gets a sudden/nasty surprise and funding for repairs might possibly be planned for in a more measured and structured way. Regrettably - and speaking from bitter experience - turntables can go 'bang' just like that (and not just because some halfwit drives onto or off one when it isn't aligned properly) and unless the table is in frequent use it is often difficult to see the 'bang' coming, and even if it is in heavy use failure can sometimes arrive as a big surprise at just the wrong time of day. In the case of St Blazey however I am more inclined to suspect that it might be 'out' of some sort inspection or certification dates (e.g. has it got a vacuum tank - because that could be covered by the Pressure Vessel Regulations?) because usually the only way you find out that it's broken is when it gives up the ghost while an engine is on it or driving onto or off it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Maybe DBS see this as a way of reducing the inconvenience of steam specials to them. Their past history with involvement in charter train operations has been sub-optimal to say the least! XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterbournecm Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 TheY used to turn the clay vehicles to prevent wear on one side, I dont know they last did this though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted May 18, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 18, 2014 Maybe DBS see this as a way of reducing the inconvenience of steam specials to them. Their past history with involvement in charter train operations has been sub-optimal to say the least! XF I won't 'disagree' with you XF, but I will disagree with the above statement as far as the current DBS management is concerned. They are very committed to the current charter programme, as evidenced by the amount of planning going into current charters that I am aware of. I would be extremely surprised if there were to be some kind of 'conspiracy theory' at work here, to reduce their input into steam charters - as far as steam is concerned, the St Blazey turntable has generally seen more regular use by WCR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 TheY used to turn the clay vehicles to prevent wear on one side, I dont know they last did this though. The CDA's are "directional", all of the wagons the same way round, so they won't be spinning them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted May 31, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 31, 2014 I was told by a colleague that this turntable situation is political as DBS have apparently lost a charter train crewing contract. Is there any truth to this? I do hope not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 31, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 31, 2014 I was told by a colleague that this turntable situation is political as DBS have apparently lost a charter train crewing contract. Is there any truth to this? I do hope not. I believe that DBS have indeed lost some charter work to, I think, West Coast but that was a while back and well before this 'blew up' (if that is the correct phrase). As far as I know the Access Conditions do not necessarily guarantee any operator access to another's facilities such as depots or some yards etc and if they wanted such access it would have to be the subject of a separate contract with the owner of the facility. No doubt a very easy way to upset some facility owners would be to plan a movement onto their property without asking them first or without agreeing a charge but I haven't a clue if that happened in this instance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peak experience Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 is track in depot confines the responsibility of the depot owner as opposed to network rail? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted May 31, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 31, 2014 is track in depot confines the responsibility of the depot owner as opposed to network rail? Depot owner. DBS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I was under the impression that NR were in the process of re acquiring control of the key yards. Contracts came into force on the 31st March whereby 100 sites ceased to be controlled by DBS, Freightliner etc with full hand over by 31st October. With nearby Burngullow now in NR hands, is the possibility that the list may be extended to include Blazey a reason not to bother fixing it? https://www.networkrail.co.uk/Freight/acquisition-of-freight-sites/ Mike Wiltshire Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted May 31, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 31, 2014 I was under the impression that NR were in the process of re acquiring control of the key yards. Contracts came into force on the 31st March whereby 100 sites ceased to be controlled by DBS, Freightliner etc with full hand over by 31st October. With nearby Burngullow now in NR hands, is the possibility that the list may be extended to include Blazey a reason not to bother fixing it? https://www.networkrail.co.uk/Freight/acquisition-of-freight-sites/ Mike Wiltshire I don't get involved with such matters until it needs refurbishing, aka a long way down the hierarchy but as far as I know, St Blazey being primarily a T&RS maintenance depot would not be on our remit unlike for example Riverside Yard in Exeter which as we know has been taken over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 The rush to condemn turntables, remove crossovers and lift sidings, will be cause for regret NR and the TOCs. Already steam locos travel miles in non revenue service to turn around, likewise diesel hauled trains have the same problem to run around their trains. It is getting impracticable for steam tours to travel west of the Laira triangle which precludes Cornwall, which is an attractive destination, in their itineries. They learnt the lesson well from BRs hasty removal of this kind of facility years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom J Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 I pushed a loco round the table at Blazey more than once during 2012. It was in a state back then. Unfortunately, nobody with the resources or clout to challenge DBS on this has any interest in doing so, from what I can see. St Blazey is not on the kind of lease that NR can alienate them from in the way they did others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 2, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 2, 2014 The rush to condemn turntables, remove crossovers and lift sidings, will be cause for regret NR and the TOCs. Already steam locos travel miles in non revenue service to turn around, likewise diesel hauled trains have the same problem to run around their trains. It is getting impracticable for steam tours to travel west of the Laira triangle which precludes Cornwall, which is an attractive destination, in their itineries. They learnt the lesson well from BRs hasty removal of this kind of facility years ago. It will only be a case for regret if it loses them revenue and more importantly if it is revenue which results in profit/net contribution. Basically BR got rid of track and facilities it no longer needed and could not afford to maintain or renew and we were where we were with no large handouts from anyone to keep stuff which could not be justified against a business case (which was the state we reached in the early 1990s although we hadn't necessarily hung about on the way over the preceding decades). If someone can find a use for the turntable at St Balzey they have the very simple option of paying for it - paying for it to be put into working order (even if it is only sorting paperwork) and then paying for it to be kept in working order and charging others who might want to use it. That, like it or not, is the way most of the railway now has to work. If operating steam trains, for example, into Cornwall is such a rip-roaring financial success for the operators then they can afford to pay for the facilities such operations need - but if they're not prepared to pay why should someone else? And I'm not really sure what sort of lessons we learnt from removing various facilities in the BR era to be honest (having personally given up or listed for removal all sorts of features we could no longer justify); taking them out simply meant we could no longer do things we hadn't already ceased to do, we couldn't work then on the basis of what the railway would be like 20 or 30 years hence. And don't forget we also put things in - against proper business cases - and as far as I was concerned it meant in the early 1990s making the case to get back something I had seen taken out when i was on the other side of the fence 30 years; despite appearances the railway and its infrastructure is not a fixed feast previously. Mind you having specified electrification clearance signal structures on a major thing I did get back/altered I'm now very happy to seem them justified nearly 25 years on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted June 2, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 2, 2014 ........................ And I'm not really sure what sort of lessons we learnt from removing various facilities in the BR era to be honest (having personally given up or listed for removal all sorts of features we could no longer justify); taking them out simply meant we could no longer do things we hadn't already ceased to do, we couldn't work then on the basis of what the railway would be like 20 or 30 years hence. And don't forget we also put things in - against proper business cases - and as far as I was concerned it meant in the early 1990s making the case to get back something I had seen taken out when i was on the other side of the fence 30 years; despite appearances the railway and its infrastructure is not a fixed feast previously. .................... I spent the first half of my career largely taking out facilities, the second half putting them back as fashions and political climates changed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.