Mike_Walker

6 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Is there no longer one on the Up Main at the other end?

Nope, apparently not.  There is a GPL (E661) on the DM up at Cowley Bridge but that's for up direction shunt moves to the UM and/or Down North Devon.  I've just checked my pics of the Panel to make sure I haven't missed something - I haven't!  🙂 

Err, but why would there be a LOS on the Up Main at the London end?

£120k restoration and sold for £72k.  Someone's got a bargain.  Reminds me of the economics in "Bangers & Cash, Restoring Classics"!

It's to indicate to the driver when he can start the train not simply when the signal is showing a proceed aspect.

The only Limit Of Shunt in the St. Davids area is on the Up Main in the rear of E35 signal and has been a double red GPL since the Panel related resignalling in the early 1980s.  All the GPLs would have been showing red/white when "on" when first installed but, like the rest of the country, were changed to double red in the late 1990s.

Simply superb.

A few years ago much myrth was created when the automated CIS at Maidenhead was informing passengers that services on the Marlow branch were delayed due to a "points failure" at Cookham.  There haven't been any points there since around 1970!

20 minutes ago, 37079 said:

Does anyone happen to know (or have any suggestions how I might find out) which 28xx still had inside steam pipes in the early BR era?

 

I found a list (on RMWeb) of those that never received outside pipes, but i believe some may have been converted post 1948.

 

I am especially interested in when 2811 and 2827 received them as they are the numbers I happen to have in stock already! I have found pics of both with outside pipes in the BR era so I know both were converted...but not when.

 

Thanks in anticipation,

 

Mike

According to the RCTS "bible", 2811 got outside steam pipes in 2/43 and 2827 in 12/52.  Others that were converted in the BR era were:

2801   6/54

2804   10/50

2822   3/48

2826   6/50

2838   3/51

2840   11/48

2846   3/53

2856   5/51

2857   8/48

2859   6/52

2860   1/51

2861   3/52

2864   8/50

2865   10/48

2866   8/49

2867   3/50

2869   11/53

2870   2/49

2875   5/58

2876   6/59

2878   5/51

2882   12/50

Others were converted in GWR days but no dates are given for 2805 2815 2818 2825 2863 2868 2871-2874 2877 2879-2881 and 2883 which suggests they retained inside pipes until withdrawal.

19 hours ago, Rugd1022 said:

Jus tread that Par 'box is grade 2 listed and will be kept on for training purposes...

 

 

 

Well, sign of progress there!  They've marked where the new signal CL5839 will go!

20 hours ago, Rugd1022 said:

I wish Ian! Although I know the Cornish mainline like the back of my hand, I don't actually sign it, sadly. It was nice to revisit old haunts yesterday though, another dose of instant nostalgia to keep the railway mojo on song. I've been told that Truro, Par and Lostwithiel 'boxes are definitely going, but Liskeard will survive for some time yet.

Yes, that's the plan and it was scheduled to take place over this Christmas/New Year but my GWR colleagues tell me the project is running late so they may get a brief reprieve.  I saw some recent shots of Lostwithiel which had no sign of any work having taken place.

Just to let those planning to come by train and bus that Arriva have revised their routes in High Wycombe this week with little advance notice!  

The useful cross-town 32 has been withdrawn and replaced by a new route 2 which starts from the bus station and then basically follows the old 32 route to Cressex and Booker.  The bus station is quite a hike from the rail station but there are still buses from the Castle Street stop to the bus station where you will have to change.

The old 32 has been in operation for more than 90 years having started with Amersham & District in pre-LT days and was always popular for cross-town journeys - being in a valley, High Wycombe's centre is long and thin - but Arriva don't take passenger convenience into account.

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

A lack of enforcement is a completely different issue as to whether a measure may be desirable in terms of the laws of physics! - and that is what ultimately is driving the push for lower limits, be it to reduce air pollution, reduce noise pollution or the desire to continue to reduce KSI stats.

 

But surely these 20mph limits increase pollution.  When I drive through one I really need 3rd gear and the engine as a consequence is revving faster that at 30mph in 4th.

14 hours ago, ba14eagle said:

Ah, the good old days of Swindon Panel - proper signalling.

Which can still be enjoyed at the Didcot Railway Centre.

This Gresley full brake (?) was photographed at Whitemoor Yard on October 1991 by a now passed away friend.  Can anyone identify it?  The Commonwealth bogies are an interesting addition.

W9135E was one of a handful of Gresley buffet cars which survived in traffic into the 1970's.  It is seen on the 'Hymek Swansong' tour at Hereford on 22 September 1973.  Built at York 1937 for the GE section as 650, Lot 761 Diagram 167, withdrawn 1977 and preserved by the NRM. 

I keep hoping for the original Austin A50 Cambridge, Dad had a black 1955 one that went for years (until Mum crashed it into the back of a coal lorry) and I'd like to have one representing it on my layout - on holiday.  Fords and Vauxhalls along with the contemporary Morris Oxford (before the BMC badge engineering era) from the period but not the Austin which was equally common.

The sort of thing Ron White of Colour Rail loved, along with telegraph poles sticking out of chimneys etc. 

12 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

I think reference to Aluminium is a red herring.

 

all Turbos, Electrostars, Aventra units are aluminium shells - that is a lot of units 

 

CAF got some detail wrong around brackets and that’s caused cracking on the 19x family, 397s and and MK5s. new brackets & attachments have been implemented.

 

Captain Deltic has written a lot in Modern Railways about the difference in philosophy between U.K. and EU. U.K. under BR invested heavily in bogie technology to overcome rough track. EU invest in good track and rely less in bogies. Through EU wide acceptance rules, we now have inferior EU bogies running on our inferior U.K. track. Our track does seem to be getting worse though as even BR built units (with sprinter type bogies) are lurching and banging around alot more than ever before.
 

Correct.  It's not the use of aluminium that's the problem it's issues surrounding the design which is compounded in the case of the IETs by the use of an inappropriate grade of material - there is aluminium and aluminium, not all grades are suitable for all uses.

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

@Mike_Walker when say cheap, I mean compared to a new build, Chiltern were the first to employ power doors onto hauled Mk3s.

And what a sorry story it was.  Which is why the converted HSTs have sliding not plug doors but even that didn't go as smoothly as some had hoped!

Remember too, that when the TPE franchise was let, it was pre-Covid and the industry was still in an expansionary mode.  A large part of the 185 fleet if not all was to be replaced by the new TPE fleet.  Everything has changed.  Timetables are retrenching, the full 185 fleet is being retained and with only 4 Mk5 sets in daily service they can be eliminated and the rest of the fleet deployed to cover.  This also allows huge simplification in training requirements.

At the end of the day it's all been a huge waste of someone else's money - yours and mine - so what does it matter...  We are just the mugs who have to pay up.

7 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

I think they underestimated the amount of noise Class 68s produce!  When there was a furore about it on Look North, it was said that noise protection had been put up on the 'town' side of the depot but the people complaining were on the other side of the valley!  Having heard them roaring away on the buffers in Platform 2 at York I can understand it; it is impossible to hold a conversation inside the York Tap at times.

 

 

I think that was all they needed to do, and I wonder that too.  But I have heard that Hitachi couldn't produce enough trains quickly enough for the complete fleet replacement (well, nearly - it was always intended to retain some 185s), so as well as the Hitachi 802s they also got the loco hauled sets and the Class 397 EMUs from CAF.  I think that was the root of their problems, having more types of new trains than they needed to, and think as well as First Group for proposing it, the DaFT should take some blame for accepting the proposal.

 

The reason why First went for 68's plus Mk5s was that the DafT wanted to use the redundant but expensively refurbish 442 Wessex EMUs as hauled trailers rather than send them for scrap.  However, it could not put such a rigid demand in the franchise tender documents so instead it was just that 5 car loco-hauled trains had to form part of the bid.  First were not enthusiastic about 442s (wonder why?) and so went down the 68/Mk5 route in their bid.  I'm not sure if the other bidders went down the 442 route or if there were any, but for various reasons the First bid was the one accepted.  Were it not for this stipulation I understand there would have been a larger IET fleet.  CAF were selected to build the coaches as it was a no brainer, having created the Mk5 sleepers they were the only rolling stock supplier who could deliver in the timescale required and a type already basically approved.

6 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Chiltern got the Mk3s cheap as they were going off lease rather than buy new, at the time only the 67 was available so they went with that for a leisurely journey that Chiltern customers appreciate (as fast is via BNS and the WCML).  But the 67s were being worked hard on gradients and the class 68 offered a more powerful option, also quieter than a 67 which residents in some areas appreciated but not people in Westminster who hate them.

 

Chiltern went with the old stock refurbished route to market, but those Mk3s are now old, there are less and less of them on the network and the next time round for stock replacement will likely be unit driven.  Don't forget in just a couple of years (or maybe a couple more 🤭) there will be a new kid on the block for Birmingham services, the DFT will not be needing old LHCS services to Moor St when there will be more than enough capacity on the WCML for stoppers and express services via Old Oak and they will want income to begin repaying those billions.

 

Like I said earlier, last time there was a big upgrade to the west of London, Marylebone lost it's long distance trains, I can see the same happening again.

Chiltern's Mk3s were initially acquired for the Wrexham & Shropshire operation and it was only when that folded - largely because of behind the scenes DafT actions whilst publicly supporting OA operations - that they passed to Chiltern.  They may have been bought "cheap" but a vast amount was spent upgrading them not least with the power operated plug/sliding doors.  I was closely involved in the WSMR saga and Chiltern so I do know something about what went on behind the scenes.

16 minutes ago, Gatesheadgeek said:

I think part of the problem may be that NR have certain permitted development rights on their network that mean that they don’t have to consider things that normal planning applications would, such as noise. It doesn’t force them to consider what are fairly obvious issues. The money spent on the Scarborough stabling point is pretty much wasted now.  Am still surprised that no one thought about noise nuisance though. Maybe they did and assumed they could get away with it. 
 

It’s quite possible that DfT actually had EWR in mind for this stock when telling TPE to get rid of them, as it would solve a problem for them and they seem a decent fit. There’re certainly very few self-propelled alternatives available. They just need to find a decent non-residential location for a stabling point if they use 68s! They could even move to 93s or 99s as future traction options if they electrify parts of the route. GBRf have options for at least 20 more 99s.

 

I’m not aware that the cracking issues on the Nova 3 sets are significantly worse than those in the Hitachi 80x trains, which are being fixed. Pretty sure it’s a similar cause. I doubt they’ll go for scrap as CAF can’t afford that hit to reputation. 
 

PS with Chiltern in the frame to operate EWR and already using loco hauled stock with 68s, this seems like a good fit. They even have depot facilities for the 68s. 

Except that the Chiltern 68's differ from the TPE ones and are not interchangeable.  In any case, the future of Chiltern's LHCS operations is under review and may be ending in the not too distant future, their use has already been reduced.

Regarding the noise issue, when Chiltern operated 67s there were complaints about the noise overnight from those living near to Stourbridge Junction depot.  Before the use of 68s was confirmed 68002 was sent to Stourbridge and its lower noise level compared to the 67s got a thumbs up from the locals.

I had heard that EWR will be operated by "spare" LNwR class 198s no longer required due to the post-Covid reductions.

Possibly, yes.

Reminds me how Henry Crun and Minnie Banister got stuck down there in the Goons' Last Tram.  Bluebottle got "deaded", naturally.

11 minutes ago, darrel said:

Could the mk 5s be converted to sleeper coaches and used on the GWR sleeper services?

Not without huge expense and you can't see the DafT agreeing to that and you have the training issues alluded too previously.

2 minutes ago, Gatesheadgeek said:

 

Do 68s have to haul them? They’re readily available but are there alternatives? I lose track.

 

The HSTs are just old I guess. Refurbishment only goes so far. The toilet and door upgrades add new points of failure to the rolling stock too.

The only possible alternative would be Class 67s but they are also RA8 and would need modification to work with the Mk5s (as indeed were the 68s).  None of the remaining earlier BR types come anywhere near being suitable.

Both GWR and XC operate HSTs modified with power doors and accessible toilets without any apparent issues.

One small snag with that.  Class 68s are RA8.  can they work over all the routes operated by the HSTs?

And why are the Scottish HSTs so unreliable?  No one else seems to have had much trouble over the past 40+ years.