Ncarter2

SWT and recently SWR are making use of assets available to them. Let not forget the lymington MK1’s would have been sent for scrap had SWT not decided to use them on the branch. Definitely more cost effective than ordering new units. They then got rid of the 170 turbos for replacement 158’s so they had a standard diesel fleet rather than mixed. The MK1’s being non standard on the fleet would alway eventually become a problem and I think it’s fair to say they paid their dues but needed to be replaced. So what to do? She’ll out for a brand new EMU on a very lightly used branch or with better utilisation of its fleet allocate one of the 2-cars already in the fleet, diesel or not. As for getting rid of a new fleet, there has been published reasons on SWR reasons for doing so. They are able to order a new fleet and lease them cheaper than keeping the 707’s. SWT wanted to retraction the 455’s SWR obviously don’t want to keep these units, and that is their choice. As has been pointed out, the TOC’s are not here to please enthusiasts, or our views. They are running businesses with small margins so why shouldn’t they get the best deal available?

Excellent news, can’t wait to see what happens next.

Dave, Off the back of the 74 project, how are things stacking up for the 92? I have two on pre order with deposits paid etc, and while your page shows small revisions, this has been the case for some time. I guess I’m just wondering if this model in now in a similar situation or will it be pressed on with?

Also rail grade makes a big difference, especially to freight wagons. HP rail sings very well.

It was definitely striking and suited not only the HST’s but also the electrics. I have to admit that it does come second for me to the original MML livery though, but only just.

A chap I work with recently contacted Hornby due to his Dutch one being in 3 parts. The basic gist of the reply was sorry nothing we can do, well out of warranty and no spares. If you get anywhere please let me know.

Very small window of operation, it didn’t last long in service once it had been Painted in DB. Wonder if that’s why Olivia’s dropped it?

For me, no it’s not just about that. Plain line is just as difficult to carry out maintenance on, in Fact on my section there are more plain line faults with the track than those in S&C. It is a massive inhibitor, statics also show we get more rail defects con rail side as apposed to non con rail side. There is also the bigger picture, ballast regulator, currently need the con rail removed. The new HOBC is designed for 3rd rail but that’s one unit. In traffic rail grinder cannot work with con rail on. These are just a couple of issues. It’s a lot bigger than most realise.

Highly unlikely, but it does seem strange that the two lines use similar construction methods but have speed restriction differences. I wonder if the power supply is a factor.

It’s not as simple as people may think. As a manager who sends 50 odd staff out to work next to live 3rd rail every day I have to satisfy myself and my team that things are safe. There are lots of constraints to consider, more than I think most would think of. 3rd rail is obsolete, there are no plans to continue installing, it’s dangerous and a nightmare for planning and maintenance. You’d be very surprised as to how many track workers per year get injured, be it a flash up or worse, contact. It’s a separate set of competencies to keep up on also. We on P-Way regularly need to be in close proximity, be it broken fish plates, bolts, geometry faults etc. We have the conductor rail shields but they are not 100% fool proof. There are always lessons learnt, but still incidents happen. Consider it this way, Members of the public, we would like to put a 750v live and exposed electrical conductor on the pavement. If you touch it, it’s likly you will be killed but be careful and all will be ok. The pavement is an area you need to use as it’s part of your day to day life. This is what it is for us on the railway, not only that we have other safety critical tasks to do. What is here will be around for a long time as it is cost prohibitive to replace but I for one am thankful that ORR and NR have decided 3rd expansion and Infilling is done.

419 has been taken on by Trains4U I believe so not likely to be a rep loco

I feel your pain, now your no longer allowed to take a block with a Train in section my teams are lucky to get more than 3-4 min to rectify geometry faults, absolutely impossible. Been down the route of applying common sense, after all we are supposedly one team but definitely not the case. As I hold safety of the line it is now a case of protecting mine and my teams rear ends. I play the game back now, most weeks the local box is excellent but there is a couple of new signallers who are not so, last conversation went along the lines of them telling me it was not a safety of the line problem so refused access, very quickly followed by until further notice the down fast is blocked until I confirm it is safe. I do believe they are not currently working in the box pending a formal review. What has happened over the last few years is a crying shame, it’s no wonder skilled people are leaving and the knowledge gap is rising.

Oh yes, not a job any of us enjoy.

Have many fond memories of cab riding on the 87’s and 90’s used by Virgin. Every now and then we get a pair of 86’s on a freight as our engineer was keen we see how the track was with freight.

Known as LERP’s. They are used as above but they are also used around bridges with embankment issues in which the track can slip over time. We have used them in conjunction with ballast gluing for this reason. There is a different version that goes on the sleeper ends, mainly used in timber they can be used on some pre drilled concretes. The bonus with the new ones are you only need loosen the screw on the top and they then become free to allow for tamping etc, no need to fully remove.

I’m slowly finding there are some members who think that only they can have valid opinions, and others views are not relevant. I appreciate both your comments but fear that because we are not chipped to follow what others believe and have our own free minds with our own opinions we go against the grain, a big no no judging by some, not all, responses. Personally, if some one wishes to disagree then fair cop, but I encourage then to be open and accepting that not everyone will agree and we are all entitled to our own opinions. At the risk of further backlash we are Living in the modern world, not nazi Germany or the such where you will follow suit. Now moving on, got a great deal on a royal 67, let’s see how long I wait for it.

I remember when the H switch was installed at Rugby with the Hy-Drive, 125mph equal split. We all thought it was great but lasted 5 years before replacing was needed

So Hattons believe, especially as the EWS is a non runner.

That was not my aim, mearly noted that they seem to think a older non DCC 92 that is second hand is worth the same as a brand new DCC version. Livery aside.

They do have some strange ideas when it comes to pricing. Non DCC, non running Hornby 92 in EWS £48 sold as seen, New DCC ready 92 in beastie livery £49. Logic?

Going back to good old 113 or in new money 56E1. Southampton was a major S&C renewal a couple of years back, it was replaced with 113. Same for Fareham and Northam and as I say a Cen 60 layout was replaced with 113 approx two years back. Shawford junctions is planned next year, 113. RT60 and is successor NR60 is no longer the standard at least on our route, but I’m lead to believe it is also no longer going to be the preferred option for future renewals, just replaced as required under maintenance.

Thanks guys appreciate it

I have a couple of switches that last 6-9 months before completely done. It was so bad we had to get derogation to weld repair them every couple of months. Thankfully we now have a HP set, that was a massive headache getting that signed off. So far I’ve lost two turnouts back to 113/56E1.

Does anyone know if there are still the DRS 47’s at a reasonable price?