Mike_Walker

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! 🙂

Reminds me of how a couple of bods turned up at Cookham one day to survey the 'Box for "modernisation" and asked the BO clerk where it was. A passenger overheard and replied "It'll be a big job, they demolished it twenty years ago!"

Why would you want Chiltern to replace their Mk3s with their comfy seats and smooth riding with Mk5s which have a reputation for rough riding, ironing-board seats, structural and reliability problems. As I've said before, there is no prospect of electrification in any form at Marylebone and in any case, modern regulations make the installation of new 3rd rail schemes almost impossible. Chiltern have aspirations for a new fleet with battery capability.

However, Chiltern are only operating two daily diagrams with their 68's/Mk3s plus a single extra one-way trip on weekdays so they certainly don't need the whole Mk5 fleet.

It does beg the question: would the toilets be useable if there was no power supply? Gone are the days of a simple door with a bolt and a simple flush. Today they are as complex as the rest of the trains!

The DfT had no part in specifying the 803s, they were acquired by First Group for their open access operation. They do have a battery capability to limp to a suitable place for evacuation should the main power supply fail.

Mike, as I mentioned above, the 802 was able to maintain hotel power throughout and get itself back into Paddington but not until the OLE had been made safe and debris removed from the roof of the unit. NR have very detailed maps which not only include details of the railway but also all the emergency access points to the railway which are easily accessible to all staff.

Quite a few like that have been installed in recent times. Not sure I approve...

Questions are already being asked within GWR as to why a whole generation of electric trains have been provided by Bombardier (and others), 345s and 387s, that have no form of back-up supply to at least keep the lighting, a/c and pa working when the main power goes down. At least the IET had auxiliary power available and was able to get itself back to Paddington once the OLE had been isolated, made safe, and removed from its roof!

In this case it was dark, the train would have been travelling at up to 60mph which would make it difficult to spot any OLE damage. GWR DMs are fully qualified drivers in their own right and are just as familiar with the route. I understand the person involved in this incident was a former Bristol HSS driver of long standing, promoted due to his abilities and would therefore be very conversant with the route. Please don't cast aspersions about the abilities someone you do not know. Bear in mind too, that Driver-Managers at all TOCs routinely take the seat to maintain their own competency and licenses. This has absolutely nothing to do with cost savings. It is just another tiresome example of ASLEF trying to justify their indefensible (in)actions.

Yes, the 68s can be noisy especially when accelerating away from the High Wycombe stop with a down train - you can hear them right across town. Strangely though, when they first appeared one was taken to Stourbridge Junction and allowed to run on a train in the yard for local residents, who had complained about the noise from 67s, to give their views and the general view was the 68s were quieter and acceptable.

After the northern section of our branch line closed in 1970, BR started making claims about how much the remaining section was losing. The local passengers' group managed to get accountants within its membership to look at the books. This revealed some interesting "accounting". Only tickets sales for journeys wholly within the branch (not even to the main line junction station) were counted against the branch, sales beyond (which were the majority) generated no revenue for the branch. Also, rebuilding works carried out after the closure were being charged as an annual, 100%, cost! Once these were tackled the branch was shown to be either breaking even or making a small loss. Makes you wonder how such practices were used elsewhere to justify closures.

I'd take that with a very large pinch of salt! Chiltern are under pressure to get shot of the 68s by Citizen Kahn and the neighbours around Marylebone.

Beacon own both fleets. The locos are leased to DRS who sub-leased them to TPE whilst the train sets were leased directly to TPE. At the end of the day, the deep pocketed UK taxpayer financed both as DRS, being part of BNFL, is 100% state owned although the locos are used commercially and will, hopefully, be redeployed on DRS's other work.

Wrexham & Shropshire took customer care to great lengths and was highly regarded in that respect and much missed. It would have been most unusual for a W&S service to be cancelled without warning and I suspect it was probably as the result of a mechanical issue. The fact you still managed to get to London earlier than expected proves the point about them being disadvantaged by being denied access to the WCML.

Which is not much different from what the first company offered with such disastrous effects on its bottom line! If the new one goes down this route it will be making exactly the same mistake!

Having been somewhat involved with the setting up of the original Wrexham & Shropshire, I wish this new venture well but fear for its ultimate success. The biggest issue the original company faced was that it was barred from serving the lucrative West Midlands market, Wolverhampton and Birmingham in particular, and not allowed access to the WCML and Euston due to protective clauses in the Virgin franchise agreement at the time. It did not go to Marylebone simply because it was associated with Chiltern. There were other issues; the high track access charge which came with the use of loco-hauled trains and the excellent on board silver service dining unfortunately lost a fortune due to the way it was conducted. The biggest issue though, was despite market research that showed a demand for a through service to London from Wrexham and Shropshire, it simply failed to turn up and ride. What the reason for this was isn't clear. It might be that folk said "yes" when asked but didn't actually need to go to London or that the number of trains offered and journey time was unattractive. I know of one resident of the Oswestry area who found it more convenient to drive to Wolverhampton and catch Virgin from there rather than W&S as it meant he could get a prompt service home when his business in London was concluded. He was probably not unusual. At the close of W&S I remarked to MD Andy Hamilton that the problem was: "They were trying to run a Pullman service at EasyJet prices to a market that didn't actually exist". Andy thought for a moment and replied: "Agreed, but we gave it our best shot." On paper, the new plan addresses many of the original short comings. It will go to Euston, hopefully with a shorter journey time, but will still avoid calling at New Street although it will at Wolverhampton and Walsall whilst with just 5 return trips each weekday the frequency will be no better than the original W&S offering. The use of Class 221 or 222 units should reduce the track access charges and I very much doubt the on board catering offer will go anywhere beyond a trolley service. But the crucial question remains: Is there actually sufficient real demand to make such an operation viable?

The Cumbres & Toltec has a balloon track at Antonito and has built another at its mid-point, Osier for turning trains. There's a wye (formerly Biggs Junction) at Chama where the tail is actually the remnant of the old line to Durango and is long enough to turn a train. The other leg is the old Tierra Amarilla Southern down to Brazos, NM. The Durango & Silverton has a balloon loop at Durango encompassing the roundhouse and a wye at Silverton that is used to turn entire trains. This is a remnant of the former Silverton Railroad which climbed up to the mines above the town.

Have NR been doing their famous raised crane jib trick again?

Looks to me rather like Broad Gauge bridge rail.

For years the ATSF Employee Timetables and those of today's Grand Canyon Railroad contained the instruction: "On arrival, trains will turn on the wye and reverse into Grand Canyon". Given the location of the tail track in relation to the chasm I've always had this mental image of a train disappearing over the edge! I'm not sure how many trains the ATSF operated over the line but its "Grand Canyon" streamliner wasn't one of them.

Wow! That's the most realistic modelling I've seen for decades! 🙂