Ncarter2

Got to say that VT 90 looks fantastic. Was the first 90 I got to cab when based in Rugby. 87’s were always the preferred when heading North from Euston, but if 90012 was in, I’d pick that. I do miss them days of proper locomotives. Units just done have the same appeal, says he who is now based in EMU country!

After all the effort it is a shame and a huge waste, but what use is a fleet when there is no work for it. I do wonder if the traction package will be recovered from them or the 455’s for that matter. Hey, at least we get to keep the FABULOUS and FANTASTIC 458’s, every cloud! I wonder if they will be returned to 100mph units, especially if they are being moved away from the Windsor’s.

I now have one of each, however, I am very tempted to get another of the original and sell on my compass version. Always been a fan of the original livery, and now I have the 33’s I am very torn. I guess I could always just get the third and convert one in to 20301 or 20305, that was the first DRS pair I ever saw.

Those 90’s are looking great Jerry! Great work as always.

With minor tweaks to the infrastructure, alterations to Cant, and maybe platforms towards the London end, I think it’s very reasonable for the PSR to be raised to 125. There will be a handful of locations that it’s not possible, Weedon for instance, but the impact would be minor.

I think it’s fair to say it no longer is. I started my career at Rugby pre-Pendo, I remember cab riding in the 86, 87 and 90’s as well as the odd 321. Nothing like the Pendolino’s or Voyagers. I’ll never forget my first cab at full line speed with tilt authorised, entering Linslade tunnel on the Down Fast was the first time I felt nervous, as we rounded the curve, all you could see was the wall, the Pendo righting itself at what felt like the last second! But for me, the best part was approaching Rugby, doing 125 through the rat hole down to Trent valley junction, and not dropping speed all the way till just south of Colwich Jn. Amazing bits of kit and definitely needed for some of the infrastructure challenges, but I think the limited number of locations which would still need tilt will be acceptable given how limited the benefits would be. Interestingly, Weedon curve was never cleared for 125, 115 being the maximum EPS for Pendo’s and 105 if memory serves for 221’s. It was a great ‘gimmick’ by Mr Branson, it sold the railway, sadly short of it’s actual potential due to the Signalling issues. I think the Pendo’s will be around for some time yet, when it does come to finally replacing them, it won’t be a tilting train. Will also save of the cost and upkeep of the TASS system. It will be interesting to see the new fleet times against that of the current.

Those 50’s are looking good Jerry. Once the 90’s and 66 are done I may need to send some of mine over to look more realist! They are far to pristine!

Strikes me as a lack of understanding and management around the requirements of ALO and COP0032. The process and subsequent briefings/site visits should prevent it from happening. As a previous SM, if any of my staff didn’t understand or could not reassure me they fully understood, they didn’t work. NTS and TS have also been brought it to further assess suitable individuals for training in specific competencies. With all the requirements needed, and process, if it happens then there is a serious issue. Any one that puts staff out to work has the responsibility to make sure they are under full understanding of what is required of them, contract staff or direct. The signs are great, routes I have worked in and my current, have these. As for the map, as good as the signs are, complex layouts just won’t fit, hence the use of detailed track diagrams and 5-mile diagrams. All ES staff I know use these as part of their briefings. Accessing at the correct location is down to the individual being sure they are in the correct location. Thankfully most access points now have suitable signage, those which don’t tend to be the lesser/minor access points. If your not sure, why would you even consider accessing?

On the southern there was a spate of PSS staff putting protection in the wrong place. The ODMs are out most nights doing assurance checks, very few issues arise now. What it highlighted was the use of staff unfamiliar with the area. A diagram is great, but trying to interpret that at 0100 around Waterloo, with no previous site visits, hardly a surprise it goes wrong.

Having planned and used RRV’s, I don’t get how that happens. If the RRV can foul the adjacent line, it has to be blocked, even if it’s just for on/off tracking. If after taking a LB of an open line and the machine is put on the wrong line, I would seriously question those who briefed the team delivering and those carrying out the duties. To get to a point a RRV is on an open line says a lot for a section.

Should have hit Marker Boards or at the very least Stop Boards and dets. If not and they end up on a line not under possession that raises concerning questions.

Or drive the Canters and Landrovers straight on.

Given it saved £40m and as stated by NR, it is developing the solution and exploring applications nationwide. Given the purse strings are facing some tough challenges ahead, it’s fair to say this will likely become the preferred option for suitable structures. Internal communications around it seem favourable. I was impressed with the total overall reduction, 90mm. In the video I saw, the pantograph is barely raised.

Will be interested to see if there are proposals for low bridges to be treated with the new paint recently used on the western route. It allows the gap between the structure and wire to be reduced and also the gap between the top of the train and wire. Saved a multimillion rebuild of a bridge so could be a way forward for other locations which have restricted clearance.

Jerry recently completed 90224 for me, fantastic work, got another two commissions for 90’s in with him. He also done 58033 for me many months back now. Slowly getting the fleet together, though for what I have planned I need a few more 90’s.

Made the mistake of going to the website! Those DB 90’s look very nice indeed. Just trying to work out how to justify one!

Concept is good, but as per, those we have are not really fit for purpose. Lack of thought in the design stages and poor project management, results in a expensive train that can’t even carry 60ft rails. While I was SM, I was sold in how it would speed jobs up, revolutionise how we do things, in the end it delivered three defects and even then I had to send a team back to finish one. Our routes one didn’t last long, being mothballed before being else where. Last I heard was it was being used for spares, how true I do not know. All the staff who went to work on it are now back in maintenance, most say the same thing. I’m sure some will like it, I am sure some will sing it’s praises, personally, it didn’t work for us and despite best efforts, it didn’t really deliver, hence it was got rid off from the route.

Agreed, there was a very slight misalignment, it looks worse due to the joint being dipped and me having used a bit of zoom.

It wasn’t that much fun, that feeling of making very little progress! The I will dig out my report to see if I noted it, but the last age of road report on our system identified that there is bullhead rail from 1924 through to current. By comparison, flatbottom seems to be from the late 40’s on.

First is Sandown, 2nd is approaching the Tunnel from St Johns.

From around the depot

Both of these are from the tunnel.

It was a workout walking along it! Myself and a colleague covered the full line in two days. We were sensible and started at Shanklin so were walking down grade. I was under the impression the clearance was ok through the tunnel, but I will double check the documents. Surprisingly, the tunnel was not too bad, sleepers and rail both in good condition. You could see previous evidence of water levels on the walls. I’m not sure how often it floods, but given new lubrication units have been sighted with the tunnel itself, I’d be very surprised if the issue is a severe as it has been previously. During my February visit, the weather was very poor, the pier was shut to trains. Unfortunately for me, I then had access to inspect, great as there was no time limit, not so good due to the amount of sea showers I received!

Hi Jonathan, Interesting and insightful. Unfortunately for me, I can only go on fairly modern, by comparison, standards. That said, having been subjected to many an old video during numerous training courses, I do believe that there was an engineering basis applied, while I don’t disagree with your statement on using differing lengths in the early days, I do think when 60ft was settled on, there was a form of judgement for it, in addition to the logistical one. The calculations we use today are not much changed from years gone by and days of old. I vaguely remember one the the training videos showing how the LNER completed a relay and working out the gaps required to ensure correct JCT’s were achieved. Indeed, JCT’s play a big part these days, and length between joints will affect them. This then affects the CRT’s. Simplistically, 60ft jointed would be preferred to say 120ft, this due to the cumulative room for expansion over more joints. While the longer length offers better ride quality and in theory lowers maintenance cost, it also presents a more challenging engineering risk. Think of it like this, at a set rail temperature, with a set gap in the joints, the JCT will be higher the smaller the length of rail is. This in turn means the CRT will follow suit. So from a modern day perspective, 60ft is preferred. 15ft is the normal minimum rail length that can be installed, however in S&C this can be reduced, there are several locations I know of where the rail length covers 3x sleepers. The attached is the best I could find, but it shows what I mean. The gap is 8mm at 10degrees. As each gap reduces to zero you see roughly what temperature that would be at. As you can see, the shorter the rail, the higher the temperature it can handle before the gap closes. This of course is why prior to hot weather, there is a program of works to get the track ready, hot weather preparedness. This will consist of a joint gap survey, calculations being made to assertion JCT’s/CRT’s and then a decision on if rail adjusting is required. If adjusting is undertaken, a further joint gap survey is completed to confirm the correct gaps have been achieved. JCT- joint closure temperature CRT-critical rail temperature

I think it’s targeted locations, I can’t see them replacing near 8 miles of shingle for ballast. Even if they are aiming to, unless the replace the bed as well, the issues of stability will still exist.