Mike_Walker

And SWAG.  I know which I'd much prefer to attend.  

Hint: means I head down the M4/5 not M40/42...

BTW  I will be very surprised if ASLEF don't take the opportunity to announce strike dates during this period as soon as the booking period closes.

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

Yes it must be desperately difficult to get by on £60K+ a year.  I don't know how they manage so I think it is only right that every tax payer digs deep to help these impoverished individuals and their noble fight against this outrageous injustice.  Greater love hath no man than to pay more tax to help someone who already gets paid far more than them.  

 

The desire for public ownership oft bellowed at full volume by rail unions comes with consequences. 

£60k is the average basic pay.  I know of drivers who are taking home over £100k PA with overtime etc. (before tax) and still claim poverty! 

For the record, I have no sympathy for them but it's a highly skilled job; far more so than the lay observer might think.  This was demonstrated on Friday when members of our club spent the day on GWR's IET simulator.  Just making it go and stop is challenging never mind the route and rules knowledge drivers have to have in the real world.  A few years ago a school chum who drove the Oxford Tube coaches claimed his job was more difficult than train driving - he had to steer for a start.  I got him a session on the old HST sim which very quickly changed his mind!

7 hours ago, Ken.W said:

At Wooton Bassett,  one of their trains came within 30 seconds of a high speed head on with an HST which would undoubtedly resulted in a major casuallty toll, the outcry from which could well have had all heritage mainline operation shut down. Although it was the driver responsible for isolating to override a TPWS application, it was the company's safety management culture (ie lack of) which permitted it to happen, no driver on a properly managed company would ever consider such a thing.

Slight correction here.  The HST in question was an Up South Wales service coming off the Badminton Line under clear signals.  Tangmere was on the Up Main and passed the signal protecting the junction at danger.  It came to a stand across the junction.  Had either the HST been a few seconds later or the special a few earlier the latter would have sliced into the side of the HST rather than head-on but still with consequences frankly too horrific to contemplate. 

As others have said, WCRC should have been permanently banned then given their cavalier attitude not just to the circumstances leading up to the incident but also their response to it.

No, they didn't have to as initially the service continued to run into Paddington but via West Ealing instead of Park Royal.  As there were no intermediate stops, the service was in effect unchanged.  However, when Crossrail started running its services in the Thames Valley into Paddington Main Line the Chiltern service was terminated at West Ealing to free up paths on the GWML and platform space at Paddington.

19 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Shouldn't it more correctly run for either East or, more appositely, North Acton to West Ruislip in order to more closely parallel the rail route on question?  As it currently runs all it is doing is paralleling an existing train service as far as Greenford and then it only parallels the disused route between Greenford and West Rusilip.

 

And technically even North Acton misses a small part of the route so perhaps it should start from even further back towards the east?

This service is run to replicate the Chiltern rail service in its final form which ran nonstop between West Ruislip and West Ealing.  Therefore there is no need for it to serve East or North Acton.

Originally it was operated with a minibus then Stagecoach Oxford operated it using the luxurious Tube double decker coaches but it would appear that one of the London operators are now doing it.

The 5' 8" 4-6-0 did eventually materialise: the Grange class which, on paper at least, incorporated components from withdrawn Moguls.

Quite right.  Considering Network Rail is so starved of cash by the government its Wales & Western region can't even afford to maintain the 125mph main lines to a standard to prevent three broken rails in as many weeks then don't expect them to fund something cosmetic like this.

15 hours ago, Wheatley said:

Gilbert Harding, when presented with the question "Is it your intention to overthrow the government of the United States by force?" allegedly answered "Sole purpose of visit". 

I had a friend, now sadly passed, who always wanted to put that but he always chickened out at the last minute!

Under the present Cornwall resignalling scheme Liskeard remains but Lostwithiel, Par and Truro will be replaced by a workstation in Exeter PSB.  On the Newquay branch, St Blazey and Goonbarrow Junction will survive although as Tim mentions, the proposed new loop at Goss Moor for the Mid-Cornwall Metro project could change that 

BTW the box at Crediton is known to many GWR crews as "the other TVSC" - the Taw Valley Signalling Centre!

But today's Chiltern is very different from that of the glory years when the late and lamented Adrian Shooter was in charge.  Since DB in the shape of Arriva have been in charge morale has gone through the floor.  Lots of long-serving managers and drivers have moved on in disgust.

It was best summed up by the Turbo which emerged from Aylesbury depot one day with it's branding amended to read: "sadly a part of Arriva  a DB company".  It managed to run around for several days before it was spotted and the order came down to restore it to normal!

11 hours ago, Goodnight Sweetheart said:

140 running on the ECML had a fifth aspect added to signals another green.

 

So you’ve get GG G YY Y R as a normal sequence of signals for a stop, or GG G YY FYY FY G + Feather for a crossing move, I think there was one junction up north somewhere set up for very high speed crossing so the sequence would be different probably with primarily route indicators in addition to the crossing sequence of signals.

No, it's a flashing green followed by steady green then double yellow, yellow, red.  This allowed a standard 4-aspect head to be used.

6 minutes ago, The Pilotman said:

Signal T2865 Newbury East Junction, the route from Down Westbury to Platform 3 (bay) is a position 5 junction indicator. Not flashing aspects but definitely “feathers.”

Agreed.  I know of many locations where the route into a bay or other dead end line is indicated by a "feather" on schemes implemented over a wide period of time, from the 1960s into the 21st century although I know of no other situation with a flashing approach as at High Wycombe which is probably unique. 

@WillCav's assertion that feathers are no longer permitted into bays seems decidedly odd to me.  If this is the case what indication is given to the driver that he is going into a dead-end?  If it were applied at High Wycombe, for example, then would they see the same single yellow at ME139 for both the bay and continuing along the Down Main and platform 2 to ME151 if that were displaying red.  The distance from ME139 to ME151 is considerably further than to the blocks on the bay line so different braking would be required and the driver needs to know.

I have recently come across some new works where a standard alpha-numeric indicator (SI or "Theatre Box") is provided at some locations which remains dark unless a specific route is selected which is therefore presumably the new standard for situations such as High Wycombe and Newbury.  

By the way, before anyone asks, the dark indication is not an issue and cannot be mistaken for a failure just as in the case of a dark feather.  As part of the detection and interlocking, a signal will not clear to a proceed aspect if the system detects the required route indication has failed to display.  If you are fortunate enough to be observing a signal as it clears you will see the junction indication illuminates a second or so before the main aspect clears.

1 hour ago, WillCav said:

Flashing aspects and/or feathers are not permitted into bay lines.

Which is exactly what I was taught but I know of at least one exception.

Unless it's been altered in the last couple of years, signal ME137 approaching High Wycombe displays a flashing single yellow when ME139 is showing a yellow main aspect and position 1 route indicator to take you into the bay platform.  Always caused a comment from drivers.

Chiltern already operate Class 68s with their Mk3 sets.  The difference from the TPE Class 68s + Mk5 combos is that Chiltern use a modified AAR MU system (a throwback to when they used 67s) whilst the TPE sets use a dedicated CAF system.  The easiest solution would be to swap the dedicated Chiltern 68s with the TPE ones. 

As for other solutions, there are Class 175s currently looking for a home although despite being in theory 100mph units, the Chiltern line is largely subject to SP 100 speeds which Class 175s are not permitted to run at - they have to run at "ordinary" passenger speeds, in this case 75mph.  However, as an exception is made to allow the 68s and Mk3s to run at 100mph too, a case could be made to allow the 175s to operate at SP speeds too.

13 minutes ago, simon b said:

So Chiltern have a tender out for replacement of the mk3's, the way it reads I'd say that is definitely where the mk5 sets are headed to.

 

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2023/W51/813170912

Not necessarily, it says they can be either self powered or hauled and requires that they be quieter than the existing 68 + mk3 combinations.  Given that the Mk5s need 68s it's hard to see how they'd be any quieter.

On 25/12/2023 at 10:21, Claude_Dreyfus said:

I do wonder if matters such as this would be helped by reducing or removing working from home by staff at the Department for Transport. If they had to experience for themselves the consequences of their decision making, then things may be a little better for the rest of us rail users...

Except that when you have a senior civil servant at the DfT living in Austria and flying to the UK when he decides to visit the office and presumably gets met at the airport by chauffeur driven limo ...  And he has done more damage to the industry than anyone else I can think of.

No, they are on the southern side as shown here looking from the cab of the Railmotor when it was operating on the branch.  It is looking towards Brentford.

A Merry Christmas and happy New Year to all on RMweb and thanks for all the banter and inspiration.

I've been told she was on around £330k and claimed £10k for commuting air fares last year alone.

11 hours ago, russ p said:

Was she the manager driving the unit that the driver did an impomtue pan swap in a load of pointwork 😄 

That's a cheap shot. 

The train in question was being driven by a driver manager and the investigations have shown the incident was caused by component failure within the OLE and had nothing to do with the actions of the train crew - the pan was certainly not being raised and the train was on electric power from Paddington.

Ironically, it had been diverted to another line at Ladbroke Grove as its booked one had been closed due to the poor condition of the track caused by further "wet spots".

Ms Handforth was previously head of the Aberdeen Harbour Board and still lives in that city and, as the OP notes, has been commuting by air since her appointment in August 2020.  I understand that she took the decision to resign herself as she had concluded she was not up to the job and her resignation letter went in before the Ladbroke Grove incident.  She was not "forced out".

Long distance commuting isn't unusual - I'm told there is a very senior civil servant in the rail section of the DfT who lives in Vienna and commutes to London!

West Hill Wagon Works do some magnetic ones designed for Bachmann Voyagers or Hornby IETs which you might be able to modify to ft into the stowed position rather than making your own.

Yes you would.

Here's the original conversion showing the basically unaltered 47 front.  Just to be awkward the other end had the former headcode box removed and plated over but with the same arrangement of lights etc.

Compare with the revised front applied to the 57/6 and 57/3 originally.  The Dellner couplers on the latter were retro-fitted.

A closer view of the Dellner coupler in the stowed position.  When not being used these were often covered over with a yellow bag.

The Dellner couplers were found on the 57/3 only and were retractable, folding up into the recess on the cab front when not in use.  They were specified by Virgin who used them a Thunderbirds to rescue disabled Pendolinos or Voyagers or to pilot the former over non-electrified lines.

The original 57/0 conversions for Freightliner were pretty much similar to 47s in appearance apart from revisions to the exhaust, radiators and roof hatches to suit the EMD power unit.  Both the 57/3 and 57/6 have remade flush cab fronts incorporating modern (for the time) headlights, the difference between them is that the 57/3 has the large cutout for the coupler whereas the 57/6 is smooth.

Imagine having to paint that "District Line" scarf!  🙂