Ncarter2

I had the DRS 33/2 in DRS and purchased 33029 to pair with it, but side by side it stood out like a sore thumb. 029 went back, 207 was sold and I got 030 in EWS instead. Really disappointing, I really like the DRS original livery and it suited the 33’s. Still, at least I now have a reason to get a 31 sprayed into EWS.

The 159’s are vastly more comfortable than the 800 series also.

Dynamic data that was available didn’t give indication of significant gauge spread issues/concerns. Static measurements where consistent. Short of removing the screws or there being some other significant indicators like excessive shuffle that appears fresh, all screws leaning to the direction of spread or there being gaps under the baseplates, it’s a hidden failure that the inspection process wouldn’t have picked up on, this being reinforced by having the same individuals walk the track each week. There exists a differing design, for such locations, and that is the AS HT screws. There is currently a national requirement for all track sections to review S&C in the scope and identify issues not initially obvious, including replacement of the screws with the correct type if required. Night time inspections are not as bad as is made out. It’s like anything on the railway, reluctance to change or adapt, we have always done it that way so it’s the right way or the best way. Example a section was struggling to complete 053 inspections during the day, train service made it near impossible, moved to nights and straight away the inspector is moaning. After the 2nd round of inspections he could not sing the praises of night inspections. He was not rushing and was able to give the inspection the time it needed. The reliability of the particular S&C increased, defects fell. Don’t get me wrong, some locations have such poor asset condition that nights is not viable, but it’s comparatively small, these sites are risk assessed and if they are not able to be done at night, they are not. There is a lot going on with the DFT to get the day time access where it is necessary.

Chances are the would be carrying a span-puller type tool, or at least they should. It’s possible you may notice a difference, but it the screws are being held firmly, without giving them a good whack, it’s negligible. The failure mode surrounding the Eastleigh derailment resulted in development of tactile testing of suspected failed housings, not all failed the tactile, and short of getting some bulky equipment to apply a significant load, how else do you test? I have seen shears AS screws before, but at the same time, I have seen 30year plus S screws still in the track as intended. It has to be said, there are some issues that need addressing and the local teams need to be clear on what is required of them, there is enough support out there to seek guidance from if they are not sure.

I don’t think it’s as clear cut. The section of track is older track construction, timber S&C on a low speed layout. Depending on the track CAT, will depend on what BVI and SVI regime is in place. Dynamic recording of all track is what you want, but it is known and accepted that it’s not always possible, stations being a location where dynamic recording can and does suffer. There are non dynamic methods that are used, as written in the standards which NR works too. Due to the complex layout of Sheffield, they created the plan for the MPV to try and get dynamic assessment of all track, it needs to be remembered that this is not a requirement and as such is above what is needed. Indeed, the TRC Will miss sections due to trains being stabled in platforms, rather than moved into depots. I have long argued that a regular patroller is not a good thing, fresh eyes and all that. As is alluded in the report, the non regular patroller identified the shuffle, however, the supervisor followed up on this and dismissed there being an issue. I have held various track inspection competencies for the last 18 odd years, indeed, in my current role I often visit sections to review how they are performing and discharging the duties required of them. No doubt, experience was lost, and the railway suffered, but complacency breeds content, I see it all too often where the inspections identify no new faults or no actionable defects, yet I can them do a site review with the team and suddenly they start to point out all host of issues. A diligent, competent inspector will not knowingly take risk, sadly too many do and all too often it’s in plan sight.

During my time as the Track SM for the area, we had them operate at weekends for two consecutive summers. Was nice to see them, shame they were in FGW Blue with a MTU hum, it would have been great to hear a Valenta roaring up the gradient from Weymouth to Dorchester.

Having had one try, and fail several times to work on my old section, these things are a big white elephant. The concept is great, the reality not so. Some teams love them, but when you consider what these were designed and sold to do, against what they are actually capable of, it’s a waste of precious money that could have been better spent. I know of one that was sent to be used as a source of spares for a while when the route it was on didn’t want it anymore. Others are used to provide shelter for staff doing tasks like re-padding, hardly the best use.

Perfect, thank you.

I would say that it’s a wheel was, not a weigh bridge.

Evening all, I have recently found interest in the US railroad scene and I have managed to acquire some fantastic models from Athearn, Broadway and soon to be delivered Scale Trains. My developing layout will be sufficient to have double headed trains while still looking reasonable. My two most recent purchases are the UP AC6000 & the SD90MAC-H phase II. Would these have ever been operated on the same trains? I’m aware they had relatively short careers with UP while fitted with the 6000hp prime movers.

They are being trialled on video inspection, predominately through S&C. Currently the MPV used cannot cover what is required. With the current desire to move from physical inspection to train borne, these will prove very useful.

Following the bridge bash in Winchester last September, the driver has been sentenced. I have been to far to many of these in my career, the last one prior to this being in Christchurch. https://apple.news/AiM7wIujXQtapt44vDI1tCw

That would make sense. As I say, I don’t recall the issues, I just remember them Not being favourable units, based on discussions with what we’re SWT staff. Time will tell I guess.

So decided to do some digging as it was bugging me. The following is a quote from Ian Walsmley of Porterbrook. Being 5 cars they will only operate in pairs rather than 3 x 4 cars and that means we can allow each unit to draw more current for a bit more performance. [...] but with an increased load, more vehicles and more frequent stops the motors will be working a lot harder and getting a lot hotter. The low average speed means that the fan on the motor shaft will not pull in enough air to cool it on a warm day and we will see motors overheating. [...] we could disable regenerative braking to solve that but that wouldn't be environmentally friendly. So the best answer is to re-gear the units from their unnecessary 100 mph to 75 mph. This means the motor spins faster for a given track speed and stays comfortable despite its harder life. It’s been a while since I spoke with the ex SWT guys, so if I get chance I will try and catch up with them to see if they can give any more details on the technical issues the units had.

It would be good to see the traction packages reused rather than say gathering dust. Hopefully under the 458’s.

Prior to being reformed as 5-car units, when they had 100mph capacity they suffered from traction problems, while I’m not fully aware of what, I do recall one issue was overheating of the motors, but this was one of many problems. These issues were part of the reason for dropping their speed to 75mph. There primary route is to be the Pompy directs, while not 100mph, it also isn’t 75 or below for most parts. Aside form discussions with colleagues within NR, especially around SWR’s proposals for these units, discussions with ex SWT staff would support they didn’t seem suited to speeds over 75. Personally, I’m not convinced it’s confidence in them, these units were destined for scrapping. The debacle that was the 442’s, has clearly played a major part in the change of heart, the 458’s were not part of the SWR plan.

It will be interesting to see what is done to the 458’s traction wise. They were well known for not being suited to sustained 100mph running.

Great concept, shame there wasn’t input from those who actually work on the track when it designed and signed off.

How different this scene is! Many fond memories of real trains before the multiple unit and 66 take over. Even evidence of the pneumatic s&c.

You would be correct, it sure did. There was a crossover at the Rugby end of the tunnel, about 2/3 hundred yards in front of the portal. When I was still on the route, there were lengths of old jointed rails in the the two large ventilation shafts. The tunnel was littered with on materials, fish plates and chairs, both Flatbottom and Bullhead. The HNR’s are the Northampton loop lines. Hanslope Junction to Rugby via Northampton. Each line of route has a ELR, engineers line reference, the lines each have a track ID. As the HNR’s were mainly two lines, the Up, from Rugby to Hanslope and the Down, from Hanslope to Rugby, the track ID’s were 1100 for the up and 2100 for the down. Where more lines exist they had their own track ID. On the LEC’s, London Euston to Crewe, it was broken in sections. My patch had LEC1, this covered Euston to Rugby and the LEC2, Rugby to Stafford I believe. Prior to the the 4 tracking of the Trent Valley’s, the LEC2’s were three lines, Down Fast, Up Fast and Up Slow. The track ID’s were 2100, 3100 and 1200. The reason for the Up Fast being 3100 and not 1100 was because it was Bi Directional and used weekly as such. Sorry for the drift.

003 does make some interesting noises. Last time I seen it in Eastleigh yard shunting away it was popping good. I think it’s fair to say they’ve earned their keep all these years. Time for some much deserved TLC.

Rugby was completely remodelled, but we had lengths on the RBS1 and LEC’s. Before we could get sign of to increase to 125, they had to be removed. When I left for the Wessex route, other that the slips in Rugby, Kilsby, Crick and Watford lodge were the only sizeable sections of wood sleepers. The road bridge at Long Buckby had about half a length per road. There was a section about a mile long between Watford Lodge and Long Buckby on the Up. It was sat on poor formation and when everyone finally realised that even after Stoneblowing, the top didn’t last, it was renewed in G44’s I believe. As for Jarvis, during the upgrade of rugby we constantly found issues, the most serious being when they left a rail out! Some good guys worked for them, but they also had a lot of incompetent and lazy staff who were frankly dangerous. We were not sorry to see the majority of them go.

Prior to the WCML modernisation, on my old patch (Rugby) we had miles of timber CWR. The HNR’s had sections that got changed for steels, what a pain of a sleeper! Down in Wessex, following renewals, I have added short ended woods as a snagging item for replacement to concrete, much to their dismay.

I believe it was de-lamination issues with the early trials. Tests with the new materials has proven positive and results from real life use in other countries has also show good results, North American Railways being a user. The flat crossing at Newark on the ECML was recently renewed, the bearers are now composites instead of the usual hardwood.

Depends on where your talking. There are still vast stretches of Timber CWR across the network. It’s a mix of Hardwood and Softwood sleepers, mainly a mix of Pan 11 or similar, but also a sizeable amount of the dreaded Pan 8 still in track. Alignment and protection from buckling etc is a combination of things, correct CRT management and SFT in CWR or JCT in jointed. Ballast shoulders/levels play there part in the stability also. Timber is mainly used for weight saving purposes. Shallow depth concretes are in widespread use these days, you can even get bespoke made short ended versions. Wheel timber bridges generally have a length of timber either side and there are locations where a concrete equivalent still is not available. I was recently on a briefing in which from some time this year, possibly July, new softwood sleepers will no longer be available for ordering by NR. It will be hardwood or composite only. Personally, there are locations and certain types of track construction that just performs better with wood over concrete.