Fat Controller

Conflat Coke were the ones that worked from Derwenthaugh to Wakefield Cobra- these went to potash/salt traffic from Teesside. I haven't heard 'Conflat Sand' before...

Certainly that is what I've always understood from following the discussions from the early days of the ECML upgrade in Modern Railways, and from following my wife's studies in Railway Systems Engineering. Regarding the question about driving 'Shuttles'- I don't! As my nom-de-clavier suggests, I tell Thomas, Gordon and all the others what to do (or more accurately Marie-Christine, Mark and many others what they're supposed to be doing). I've only driven two locos, and they were both steam-brake only- it solved my constipation!

As I mentioned on Ully-Pug's blog, there are photos of orange containers with blue sheets on this traffic- I remember them from working in Avonmouth in 1976/7. They'd presumably be for a flow which would have been too small to justify a even a small ship from Cornwall. There's another shot in one of the more recent Larkin books, page 86 of 'Wagons of the Early British Rail Era'. The wagon in this case was B947880, fitted with cast bogies. Wagons recorded were:- B947861/5/8/80/95, B947946/86 Larkin reckons the traffic finished in the early 1980s- I wonder if these wagons ended up on the containerised fertilizer/salt traffic from Boulby afterwards, as did so many others?

To give some idea of the effect of an Electro-Pneumatic control system on maximum speeds, due to braking distances:- The trains I work with have a normal service maximum of 140 kph with EP available on all 28 vehicles. If 3 wagons have the EP isolated, and only have the normal air brake working, then the permitted speed is reduced by 10%. If more than 3 vehicles have EP isolated, or there is a problem with the control gear for the EP on the loco, then the train may run at 100 kph maximum. In practice, this means you sideline the train as soon as possible, as you start get knock-on delays to other services. A colleague went over to Red Team as a driver-leader, having spent more than ten years driving Shuttles. As part of his conversion course to driving on a 'real railway', he drove the 'Jumbo Train' from Westbury to Acton, at a maximum speed of less than 80 kph. He called me later to say that even that seemed too fast, as the brakes seemed to take an eternity to apply (as he's an ex-Para, with a colourful command of English, I've paraphrased that last bit...)

Sorry- finger error- I meant 125 mph. I had been up since 03:30......

The Mk4 stock was designed to do 140 mph under what was effectively '5-aspect' signalling- there was intended to be a flashing green aspect as well as the normal 4. This would have increased the braking distance, which is the governing factor for the speed, by 25%. In the end, it was decided that signalling sighting at 140 mph was not certain enough, and that this speed would only be permitted with some form of cab-signalling. As to the difference in HST vice loco-hauled performance- it's because part of the electronic system is in the trailing HST cab, and so the brakes are applied from both ends simultaneously (or at least as close as makes no difference outside the field of particle physics...). The Mark 3 loco-hauled stock was designed to be hauled (DVTs arrived later), and the trains included Mark 1 stock- gangwayed brakes were used as no Mark 3 Brake vehicles were built- so it wasn't thought necessary for the stock to be 125 mph-capable. It might have been possible to retro-fit the stock once DVTs became available, but there probably wasn't enough spare stock to enable whole rakes to be taken out of service to be fitted. It only became feasible to fit the equipment once the stock had been displaced by the Pendelios, by which time it wasn't seen as a priority. It's one of these cases of 'If only we'd thought of that' or 'we should have employed a Systems Engineer' which bedevil so much of industry. Mind you- the converse situation of specifying and fitting equipment which is rarely if ever used can also be problematic...What you really need is a reliable crystal ball, and an unlimited budget!

I knew I'd seen something... Page 86 of 'Wagons of the Early British Rail Era' by David Larkin has a photo of B947880 taken at Avonmouth in Febuary 1976. Containers described as orange with translucent blue sheets. The wagon is on cast bogies. I wonder if the other livery had been applied to the boxes used on the short-lived Par to Park Royal Freightliner service, which mainly conveyed clay for John Dickinson (Basildon Bond) at Croxley Green.

How tall are the boxes on the Conflat Clay- 4'? I remember seeing them at St Andrew's Road (Avonmouth)when I used to get the train to work in 1976/7. Were some of the boxes also another colour? I seem to recall orange with blue sheets. Brian

No- that stopped ages ago.

It's not directly to do with the wiring, but because of the system of brake actuation (not sure if it's a variant/development of electro-pneumatic braking), which applies and releases the brakes within an entire HST set at once, rather than the lag one gets between the application of the brakes to individual vehicles. On the basis that 'The ability to stop gives the right to speed' this means that HSTs are allowed a higher maximum top speed, as they can stop more quickly.

As it's a brand-new design, from a manufacturer with no experience of supplying the mainline UK companies, I would have thought that it would have had to have gauging checks, EMC and braking tests by one of the Vehicle Acceptance Bodies before being allowed to run under its own power.

A quick glance at David Ratcliffe's new book throws up 33 70 7890 124-2 at Coalville open day in June 1989 (in pristine condition) and 33 70 7890 120-0 at Crewe in February 2000. These were the ones to BR Dia E708 for Tiger Rail in 1989 by ANF. These were the wagons branded for Caledonian Paper At the same time, Arbel-Fauvet built 120 vehicles to E719, numbered 33 87 7898 000-119 These were divided as follows:- 000-039 to Locatransport 040-079 & 100-119 to NACCO 080-099 to Oeva. The NACCO ones worked internal flows in the UK for ECC, whilst the others worked mainly on traffic from Vise, near Liege, in the Belgian Ardennes. Brian

I can't think of anything that Thrall built that was that long- there were meant to be some new steel-carriers for EWS, which might have used a similar underframe, but they were never built. Brian

Have a look at some of the photos on Mike Cubberley's site:- http://mike6874.fotopic.net/c821529_1.html Though there are none of loaded MBAs, the weathering on the inside should give an indication of where the load comes up to when loaded with stone. It's some distance short of the top, as otherwise the wagons would gross out at about 130t. Even when loaded with scrap metal, the load is some way short of the top of the wagon as this shot shows:- http://ukrailrollingstock.fotopic.net/p14386072.html Brian

1988/9 according to Martin Buck and Mark Rawlinson (Freightmaster)in their 'Wagon Recognition; Volume 1' Brian

They got everywhere- just not very quickly....They would presumably have been delivered originally by rail- I've seen shots of the flat trailers used with them on Lowfits, but never the tractor units. I happened upon the cab of one, along with several Scarabs of varying pedigree, when visiting my spiritual adviser, the Rev Lewis, in Swansea a few weeks ago. They were 'stored' (using the loosest definition of the term) in the old Aluminium Wire and Cable works, just off Fabian Way. Brian