Mike_Walker

12 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

Which is why a separate rail body is needed to manage it. The problem with politics is ideology - if, back in '92 BR had been required to start contracting out services the process could have been managed much more strategically but back then the political footballs were big, privatised utilities such as BT and British Gas (anyone remember Cedric the Pig?). So, much in the same that Brexit became ideological, the shout went up that privatisation must mean privatisation, with BR smashed into a million pieces and the contracts awarded to cuddly plucky local operators. Of course this was never going to be sustainable which is why the only people who could end up affording the franchising game were conglomerates (in many cases backed by other states). Meanwhile, like a supertanker slowly drifting, the long term strategic management capability of the industry has been lost. The DfT cannot fulfil this role, and bizarrely they assume that TOCs can do it even though both operationally and under Competition Law it is not possible to fill that strategic gap. The long delayed Williams (Shapps) review and White Paper is likely to point in the direction of needing strategic oversight.

Meanwhile, there is a whole generation out there who seem to think that by magically making something publicly owned it becomes well run. It doesn't matter who owns it provided it is properly structured, managed and capitalised.

As for those people that think public ownership means lower fares, higher wages, a better service, well that's what happens when the majority of the population was born after the 1970s..... 

Which of course we had, briefly, in the form of the Strategic Rail Authority.  Unfortunately it made too many good decisions - like the 20-year franchise award to Chiltern - so it had to go.

13 hours ago, lmsforever said:

With the high expenditure due the current pandemic I would think that bringing back BR is the last thing on the governments agenda. If private operators are willing to take the risk let it be .I agree about the scots governments track record its not good but doubtless people will agree with them.

In the post-Covid world the English rail system will be run on concessions rather than franchises.  There will be no "risk" to the operators as in future the government will take all the revenue and reimburse the operators for their expenses plus an agreed profit margin.  This largely follows the model currently in place for London Overground where TfL contracts with Arriva Rail London as the operator.  The same applies with Crossrail and MTR Elizabeth Line.  The difference is that in both cases TfL specifies the service it wants and agrees the the terms then allows the operator to get on with it - there are heavy penalties for non-compliance; not just late or cancelled trains but also for things such as cleanliness and uncleared graffiti.  The fear is that in the case of the national network the mandarins at the DfT will not be prepared to take a similar arm's length approach but will micro-manage the operators even more than they do currently.

Remember, we have a privatised rail system in name only.  The actual operations may be by private companies but even under the franchises the level of service and most aspects of the day to day operation is directed by the DfT.  The public don't fully appreciate this which is why the operators get so much flak and that suits the government and its ministers and civil servants just fine.  Don't take the blame when you pass the buck.

As the weather seems to have forgotten it's supposed to be spring I've been gardening indoors rather than outdoors and made a start on the cottage garden.  I use the term lightly as it would seem the signalman was no Monty Don or Percy Thrower!

Still some details to add, more veggies and a line of washing whilst the telegraph pole needs to be more ore less buried in junk - mostly old planks of wood.

7 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Oddly I have ridden in Azumas in Japan and the seating as I recall was comfortable and that was just “cattle class” not first, so just who is deciding on the seating spec?

The DfT pure and simple.

Ah! The GWR leather first class seats - absolutely superb.  The intention was to have something similar in the 802s.  They sourced a leather that was ground up, mixed with some chemicals and then rerolled as sheet which not only met the fire resistance specs but excelled those reached by the material used on the 800s.  But, of course the DfT were having none of that and insisted they were the same as the 800s.  Boxbrownie is only one of many customers lost as a result.

Without revealing too much "behind the scenes" and confidences, I count amongst good friends some of the highest and most respected managers within the industry and therefore have been told the truth on these matters.  These "ironing board" seats were indeed specified, at least in the case of the 800 and 801 IETs (and 700s) by the civil servants at the DfT, not Failing that would be beyond his (in)competence.  I've been told both from TOC and Hitachi sources that they went for the cheapest.  The "fire risk and crash worthiness" comments were just a smokescreen to provide cover.  The idea that the lack of padding ensures it's fire resistant is laughable - are not bus, coach and car seats subject to standards and fire resistant?  Why not go further and have all metal or fibreglass seats?  They'd be even better in that respect! 

When one of our TOC owning groups decided to order its own fleets of 80x trains it originally specified they were to have much better seating but when the DfT found out they were instructed they had to be the same as the DfT specified trains so they didn't show those up and the public don't start asking questions.  Threats of sanctions against the owning groups were made by the DfT if they did not comply.  It seems that this is spreading to other types of TOC specified trains.  EMT have recently said their forthcoming 803s will have better seating; we shall wait an see - don't hold your breath!

The GWR 800 fleet did receive replacement seat covers early on when it was found the originals, which were a perfectly smooth material, soiled very easily and couldn't be cleaned.  The replacements are a ribbed material which are regarded as a slight improvement in comfort.

Sadly there is little prospect of these seats being replaced in the short term.  Under the EMAs, EMRAs and forthcoming concessions the iron grip of the DfT becomes ever greater and the TOCs reduced to mere contractors.

It's no good complaining to the TOCs, their hands are tied and their contracts with the DfT prevent them from publicly telling the truth on such matters which is why you get meaningless or evasive answers.  This suits the Government; allowing the "private sector" TOCs to be painted as the villains not ministers or their civil servants.  If you want to complain to anyone then make it your MP.  Perhaps if they complained enough something might be done.

PS  The driving seat in an 80x is the most comfortable seat I've had the privilege to place my bum on anywhere!  Presumably it meets the fire/crash regulations too...

On 06/03/2021 at 12:31, The Stationmaster said:

The Severn Tunnel has long had.problems with signals.  IB signals were installed in the tunnel i during the war (1942 I think without checking) but were in trouble almost from teh start because track circuits would b not work reliable in the tunnel.  these signals were removed at the earliset oppportunity.  Signal were again installed in the tunnel during the 1970s Newport panel extension scheme and hit exactly teh same problem so they too were taken out after a fairly short life. due to the high incidence of track circuit failures.  Axle counters might be more reliable but I doubt there is much need nowadays for the additional capacity signals in the tunnel would offer.  

 

I know the Mersey rail tunnel suffers an excessively high rate of rail wear due to atmospheric conditions so I wonder if it too might have suffered track circuit reliability problems?

 

There is also a lineside signal in the CTRL tunnel approaching St Pancras - it's the commencement of lineside signals and the transition from TVM.  It caused a lot of headaches during SPAD risk assessment for the St Pancras signalling because it is approached on a rising gradient, it is at the end of the changeover from TVM, and originally 'somebody'. had planned in a neutral section about 100 yds in rear of where the signal would have to be sited.   The reaction of the latter 'planners' when they were called to the SPAD risk meeting was fascinating to say the least, especially when they started talking about APC magnets associated with the neutral section.   Needless to say the neutral section was moved a considerable distance.

The current arrangements within the Severn Tunnel is that it has axle counters  throughout.  Both lines are signalled for bi-directional operation and there are "distant" signals on both lines at both ends referring to the signals found outside on leaving the tunnel, NT1014 and NT1616 at the London end and NT1029 and NT1625 at the Welsh end.  There are also emergency signals on both lines which are normally dark but can only display red when activated.  These are at 12m 15c in the down direction and 14m 10c in the up (the tunnel portals are at 11m 01c and 15m 29c).  There are also "change of gradient" lights which can be spotted from train windows if you are observant.  These are blue lights and comprise a single light roughly 1/4 mile from the point where the descending gradient flattens out and a double light at the actual point where the change occurs.  These are repeated on both lines in both directions.

The original "unicycling lion" faced front on both sides of steam locos and left on main line diesels and electrics.  The same initially applied to the later "ferret and dartboard" until the College of Heralds pointed out that as a heraldic device, the lion had to face left at all times.  

2 hours ago, SM42 said:

In Banbury South the Down Relief line had, I believe, the last surviving Spagnoletti block instrument in use on Network Rail.

 

Indeed it did. Go back to my post on page 3 and you'll find a photo of said instrument.

5 hours ago, Poor Old Bruce said:

Sudbury, North Staffordshire Railway, 14 Oct 2009.

 

 

If I could make a note for the indexers, the Sudbury 'box shown in Grosvenor's photo on Page 28 is this one on the North Staffordshire Railway in Staffordshire, it is not the Sudbury in Suffolk in Great Eastern Land. Could be taken as a hint for posters to try and give a bit more information, if known, when posting.

 

Carrog on the GWR Ruabon to Barmouth line, now the Llangollen Railway. Not sure whether it is original or new build.

 

 

 

Further along the same line towards Barmouth is Llanuwchllyn, now home to the Bala Lake Railway, seen on 13 Aug 1991

 

 

This 'box labelled 'Pwhelli West Frame' at the Cambrian Railways terminus, had seen better days, seen on 9 Sept 1991

The Knotty on the front of Sudbury is a nice touch.

Carrog appears to be a like-for-like replacement built on the base of the original.  The upper part came from Houghton Halt with the frame from Green Lane, Chester.

Those last two pictures are simply divine.  I thought my own efforts were pretty good but they pale to mediocre compared to these.

3 minutes ago, Chris M said:

Thanks for the nice comment and yes indeed it is my best effort at Dawlish Warren. Here are a few more photos that I don’t consider are quite worthy of this thread but may be of interest in showing just a little more of the layout.

 

 These couldn’t be taken as being real rather than being a model so don’t qualify as being top drawer realistic. On the other hand they do portray a recognisable replica of a real place so maybe that makes it realistic in a slightly different way.

 

 

 

Chris, I think you are doing yourself a disservice. Given that it's N gauge l think this is excellent.

Slight variation.  My old but now sadly no longer with us pal Jim Boyd whilst editing Railfan magazine in the US was asked by a "general" journalist why "the British collect train numbers".  Without really pausing for thought Jim replied: "Because the locos are too big to take home!"

As we seem to have escaped these shores, here's a few from the Long Island Rail Road.

Jay Tower at the west (city) end of Jamaica station.

Hall Tower at the east end of Jamaica station.

B Tower at Bethpage with a nice gantry of PRR position light signals.

PD Tower at Patchogue where the Montauk line enters "dark territory".

Engineer Reggie Tonry scoops up train orders from PD operator Joanne Sunderland.

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

Probable that the upcoming IETs for the MML will have to run on diesel between London and Bedford too as the OLE is only good for 100mph and the upgrade shows no sign of happening for some time if at all.  

 

All hail the infinite wisdom of the DfT for whom running tens of thousands of diesel operated train miles per week on electrified railways, and following the twinkly rainbow towards hydrogen and other wholly unsuitable niche technologies, passes for logic. 

To say nothing of Bionic Duckweed - Roger Ford's preferred fuel source of the future !

30 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes.  Kennet Goods Loop was the previous loop and was commissioned in Stage 1 of the Reading - Hayes MAS scheme (Reading ML East - Twyford) over the weekend of 11 -13 February 1961.  It replaced the Down Refuge Siding at Sonning Sidings.  The footprint for the new loop was created by widening the north side embankment towards the river and the Up Relief was slewed on to the new embankment - where it subsequently partially gave way under a Pressed Steel dmu which was only saved from going down the bank by an adjacent signal post.  The previous Up Relief was reconnected at each end to become the Down Relief and the previous Down relief became the Down Goods Loop.

 

In the more recent Reading alterations things were changed again and the Down Loop (relaid at long last) became the Down Relief while the Down Relief became the new passenger loop (which I have actually travelled over in a passenger train on one occasion).  Thus the Down Relief is back where it was prior to February 1961 and what was the Up Relief back then is now the site of the current passenger loop.

 

Noting 'Olddudders' comment the various Slough - Iver proposals came to naught.  What had been proposed there was to reinstate the former Up Goods Line between Dolphin Jcn and Langley and make it the Up Relief while turning the existing Up Relief into a bi-directional line between the Up & Down Reliefs.  I know that one of the ideas envisaged taking this arrangement through to Iver (which would mean demolition of Langley station building) plus rebuilding the overbridge west of Langley as well as embankment widening but I don't know if that part was ever a really serious idea.  A similar sort of idea was also talked about for Iver to West Drayton in connection with Crossrail with the existing Up Goods becoming the Up Relief and the former Up Relief becoming a bi-directional line - I've an idea that one might even have got a mention in 'Modern Railways'.  Neither of them were really practicable ideas because it was very easy to prove (which I did for the latter one) that the distances involved were far too short for dynamic overtaking or even dynamic looping of a freight train which is what the proponents of the idea were suggesting.  Making it a bi-directional goods loop would have made a bit more sense but the time cost fira. freight train would have been less than palatable.

I'm not sure this correct.  I've reviewed the NR Scheme Plans for the Reading project (I prepare train crew route diagrams for GWR and other TOCs) which make no reference to altering the alignments of Relief lines and Loop at any stage during the project only alterations to the signalling and designations.  On scheme plans, new works are shown in red, items to be recovered in green and unaltered remains black.  On all stages the lines in question are shown in black and, personally, I don't recall the present layout being changed at any time during the works.

Regarding the Slough - Iver area back in 2014 Mark Hopwood and I drew up a scheme to provide a 5 track passenger railway all the way from Farnham Road (west of Slough) all the way to Hanwell Bridge Junction.  The additional line would have been on the Up or north side and would require considerable rebuilding of all the stations and many bridges although replacing the Wharncliffe Viaduct was seen as a step too far!  The idea was to provide additional capacity to accommodate Crossrail and would make the present Up Relief bi-directional  with "tidal flow" operations, used for Up trains in the morning peak, Down in the evening.  It was submitted to NR by GWR as part of bids for CP6 but failed to fly.

2 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Did the final retirement of the Heathrow Express Class 332’s go without mention on here?

If so I must have missed it.

 

I’ve read that some units have already gone for scrap.

 

 

 

.

They last ran on 28/12.  All have gone for scrap at Sims Metals except for three cars of 332001 which are to become "gate guardians" at Siemens' new assembly pant at Goole.

The five Class 360/2 Heathrow Connect units have been acquired by Rail Operations Group and moved to MoD Bicester for storage pending conversion for their planned logistics operations.

The OOC HEx depot is now being cleared and will be vacated by Siemens by the end of this months allowing demolition to take place during March.

24 minutes ago, St. Simon said:

 

Hi Phil,

 

Yep, there is a loop between the Up and Down Reliefs, although it is described as Kennet Loop on the signalling plan, but Kennet Passenger Loop on the Sectional Appendix, and I'm sure I've seen it described as Kennet Down Goods Loop somewhere, not sure where!

 

The Loop is sort of Bi-directional, both Up and Down Direction trains can enter it, but only Down Direction trains can leave it. . Up Direction Trains can enter the loop from any of the four lines on the country side, but are stopped by a squat fixed red at the London end of the loop. It is primarily used for storing trains turning back at Reading to save Platform Space (although generally not very often and even then only for a few minutes), freight can be looped in there, but I think the preference is to hold freights on the country side of Reading, as there's more space.

 

Simon

Kennet loop was upgraded from Goods to Passenger standards as part of the Reading project.

On 16/02/2021 at 10:26, John M Upton said:

Didn't somewhere in Spain actually buy AEC deckers new or was that Portugal?

Portugal was a good AEC customer.

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Cross Country trains are still running in both directions along the sea wall but the signallers are queueing the trains and sending them two or three in sequence each way between Teignmouth and Dawlish Warren, there are less signals controlling the bi directional working and trains travelling south are running a lot slower in that direction.

 

Signal DM203A at Cockwood Harbour.  Not caused directly by the weather, but by a boat moored in the Exe Estuary which broke free and was driven ashore colliding with the signal.  As a result all Down traffic is being operated over the Up line between Exeter West and Teignmouth with pilot working.  The UM is not provided with bi-directional signalling except between Dawlish Warren at Teignmouth and the layout of crossovers means that once a Down train crosses to the Up at Exeter West (By the Exe relief channel bridge) it cannot regain the Down line until it reaches Teignmouth.  As a result there were severe delays and cancellations.

XC services terminating at Exeter in extreme weather conditions is normal, the Voyagers do not like passing through the "Dawlish Train Wash".  The IETs aren't too happy either despite assurances from Hitachi that they would cope...

3 hours ago, timdunn said:

The replica loco is still there - the tender was cut up but the wheels from it made their way to the Bluebell eventually as part of a new-build project based there.

 

 

My apologies, I stand corrected.  Could have sworn it wasn't there last time I passed through although I wasn't looking.

Back in the old days before the station was "rationalised" and the King Edward Court shopping centre built (now Windsor Yards), American tourists would arrive by train, jump in a taxi and ask to be taken to the castle. The cabbie would oblige and exit via Goswell Lane, drive round town for a while and drop them off outside the castle opposite Central Station.  The AM Slough and local council were forever getting complaints!

Great Western Journal 35, Summer 2000 has a reproduction of a Swindon drawing for a "GWR standard 6' x 6' corrugated iron hut" dated Feb 1904 if that's of use.

In addition to the Nationals that Jamaica film also shows many Leyland-MCW 'Olympic's.   Here's an example of the early "Home Range" version "deskinned" for Weymann's official photographer.

Apparently they had 150 Nationals.