Mike_Walker

2 hours ago, Kris said:

Apparently a GWR train from Penzance to Paddington was misrouted yesterday and had to reverse. It had started heading towards Bristol. I assume that this happened at Taunton. I suspect there are some red faces somewhere and an investigation happening. 

 

Sorry about the dire page the story is on. 

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/local-news/penzance-paddington-train-reverse-along-8866914?fbclid=IwAR3mn0rgu6YaP_7YqnxpmEsi9OHXbNv7xwqJrrIOQMxdBv1-iQpYd6qE0rc

I thought we only did that at Swindon Panel!  Don't feel so bad now .  😀

This example was at Wallingford a couple of years ago but I think it might have been scrapped since.  I was told it was ex-Royal Navy.

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

So what happens when a TOC is merged/demerged into or out of another? How are drivers all placed on a level playing field?

 

Or are they? Are there drivers out there still on T&Cs dating back to the first TOCs set up after privatisation?

 

As an aside, one of the unspoken aims of the original privatisation of BR was to reduce the power of the unions, yet they seem to be if anything more able to dictate terms now.

(Any diehard union members please don't take that the wrong way, it's just an observation, not an anti-union rant).

In the case of GWR as an example, until recently they had three grades of driver:  HSS basically those originally employed but GWT/FGW;  LTV, the former Thames guys and West, the former Wessex guys.  They all basically retained their former T&Cs.  The latter two have now been replaced by a new, single grade called "GWR Driver" with enhanced conditions but HSS lives on although no new drivers will be appointed to the role so it will eventually die out although I'm told that might still take 30 years!  As HSS vacancies occur the roles are filled by GWR Drivers.

4 hours ago, Robert Shrives said:

Unlikely in its present format.  Removal of route knowledge means drivers only work regular work routes and can do more frequently so less required. From the operator`s bean counters this is a win - win as most diversions are a result of NR issues- direct failings or been the fall guy for external issues- bridge bash by HGV driver , suicidal person and trespass as most common problems.

 So trains stop and await timetabled route, operator wins delay minute revenue and can off cost bus cover if trains terminate short.  Operator saves on non remunerative driver pay as well. 

 

The only person who suffers at the time is the passenger or freight customers and they suffer again as the compo comes from our tax pot - either directly or due to loss of resources another vital service is compromised. 

As an operator it is very frustrating to see trains standing with fully available diversionary routes for on the day incidents and worse for planned engineering works seeing the profit grab by road operators, when a viable route is available but crews no longer sign.   The  rail driver is in a win as well - stood spare and not driving means can do no wrong, bar put on weight perhaps, while road driver moves passengers in a more stressful environment.  Also his pay clock clicks on while standing waiting NR to restore route.

 

The old adage a moving train is a happy train and an empty station is a happy station  is still true today.      Robert 

All very true but in the case of GWR it's the result of a rare incidence of the DfT getting its way over the operator.

15 hours ago, CWJ said:

Just the weight I believe. They're RA5, so the effect on any unsuspecting elderly underbridges is like a string of speeding Class 37s several times a day.

The braking curve of a 185 is inferior to that of the other DMUs covered by the SP restrictions due to the extra weight which is why that doesn't apply.

15 hours ago, 47164 said:

Tpex and 68’’s……….Just a minor observation in respect of wider franchise awards…..why are the First Group ever let near railway operations, their track record seems very poor in general……maybe they are just the only ones continuously putting their heads above the parapet.

That comment is grossly unfair.  First have a varied record I'll grant you but in some cases, GWR for example, they are generally excellent as are their two open access operations, Hull Trains and Lumo.  In the case of TPE, and to a lesser extent Avanti and SWR,  most of the problems are directly attributable to those clueless civil servants at the DfT micromanaging those businesses and countermanding the franchise management decisions.  These civil servants think they know how to run a railway and those that do, don't whilst their ministers are even worse.  The last SoS we had that knew anything about railways was soon moved on - anyone who's watched "Yes Minister" will know how it works.

Like many businesses, not just on the railways, a lot depends the on local management.  GWR (or FGW as it then was) was a real basket case until late 2008 when Mark Hopwood took over as MD.  His in depth knowledge of how to really manage a railway and, equally importantly, manage and relate to his staff at all levels has seen the company turned around.  You'll now find a high level of customer satisfaction and staff morale and the company has won many prestigious industry awards including Train Operator of the Year.  Yes, things go pear-shaped more often than is desirable but it's rarely self-inflicted but more often the result of infrastructure, weather and PHBT issues plus, of course, the failure of sHitachi to deliver a daily fleet of fully operational trains preferring instead to take cover in the most obscure clauses of contracts written by the DfT - without operator involvement, naturally. 

After an unprecedented 15 years in the post (he's the longest serving TOC MD by a wide margin) he's now the go to person for advice.  Chris Green once told me that he thinks there isn't a senior manager in the industry that doesn't have him on speed-dial to seek advice.  Mark, remember, was seconded to SWR a couple of years ago to sort it out before handing over to his protégé Claire Mann.  They wanted him to do the same at Avanti but he resisted!

It also helps that Mark is one of the few managers in the industry prepared to stand up to the DfT and tell them where to go.  The DfT influence on GWR is considerably less than with other TOCs as a result.  It is noticeable that those TOCs that have been taken under the arm of DOR don't seem to suffer so greatly from DfT micromanaging.

Mark says when he retires he's going to write a book - it will be an explosive read I can assure you!  We jokingly say it will be called:  I Too Tried To Run A Railway.

23 minutes ago, OnTheBranchline said:

 

in theory, could he have not just bought a better in shape Western and put Western Yeoman on it? 

Which is exactly what he did with D1010 masquerading as D1035 for some time.

42 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I don't think they're as severe as that 45 vs 75  but there are certainly a few of them. Although I've got a vague impression that the 185s that use that route can't use the SP speeds anyway. Waiting for a correction from someone who actually knows what they're talking about!

Correct.  The SP applies to classes 15x, 16x and 17x but not to class 185.  This is because of their additional weight and braking performance. 

Given that the DfT have instructed GWR to remove Taunton to Bristol from the route cards of Plymouth HSS drivers even though it causes chaos if the WoE line east of Taunton is closed I can't see them wanting to pay for refreshers over multiple routes.  They actually want to stop all diversionary route knowledge!  But then they are simply clueless civil servants who think they know how to run a railway and that those that do can't be trusted.

9 hours ago, woodenhead said:

The problem is the coaches were procurred due to a flawed process - TPE wanted quick results so ordered three types of 'Nova' trains when all they actually needed was one fleet of IEP derivatives.

 

So we have a a series of coach rakes with a DVT designed around the interior driving position of a class 68 that had no purpose other than being something they could order and get delivered rather quickly.

 

In other words they are an answer looking for a question and here we are looking for that question and coming up with blanks because there is no case for a locomotive/coach combo any longer for daytime express passenger service in the UK.  What we do have are special cases like the Sleepers or re-allocation of existing loco/coach combos - TFW or LNE Mk4s.

No, it was the DfT that required a loco-hauled fleet in the ITT for the franchise.  They saw it as an opportunity to redeploy the 442s as hauled stock but First, having had won the contract, were understandably wary of those and proposed new build instead.  CAF Mk5s having been created for the sleepers were the only viable option.  If it had been left to First the there would only have been 397s and (more) 802s for TPE which, ironically, we've ended up with under DOR (DfT) control backed up by the 185s which will be retained when originally they were to be given up by TPE.

12 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

Most types of train got through. Voyagers are always stopped from voyaging in the area when it’s rough but the IETs were supposed to - and were claimed by Hitachi and GWR - be “Dawlish-proof”. 

It was sHitachi* that claimed the 80x would be Dawlish proof not GWR, they were only repeating what they'd been assured ahead of delivery.

I can tell you GWR are not happy about the situation particularly as they have identified a quick fix that can be implemented during such times but sHitachi refuse to allow it preferring to rewrite the software which they say will take 2 years to implement and, presumably, creating another nice little earner.

* How the company is known within GWR - or at least one of the more polite ones!

For several summers the mis-named (as I always point out to MH) Atlantic Coast Express to Newquay was a 2+9 as an additional TGS was included solely for the transport of surf boards which were stacked across the seats.  Can't do that with an IET of course and now GWR have been forced to refuse carrying surf boards altogether and turn business away as a result.

It's called "progress".  Other words spring to mind...

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I mean units with numbers 152 xxx.

No, you mean 150 2xx

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

152 not 150, different cabs. 

You mean 150/2 (gangwayed cab) as opposed to 150/0 or 150/1 (non-gangwayed)

Sorry to disappoint, but my usually reliable sources say there is no truth in the rumours that the Mk5s are coming to Chiltern. 

11 hours ago, Hesperus said:

I can see battery wagons becoming a solution to problems like Marylebone.  Either looking like a converted DVT or a bit like a diesel brake tender. 

 

Another place they could be really useful is in container terminals.  Electric hauled freight arrives, couples up to the portable battery (in the siding where it's charger lives) and then travels around the sidings as if it's a diesel.

It should be remembered that for the past month battery equipped EMUs have been operating successfully in passenger service in the UK.

The recently opened 1 mile extension to Merseyrail from Kirkby to Headbolt Lane is not electrified.  The 777/1 sub-class are used which have batteries which are kept charged up when running on in this case the 3rd rail (but it could be OLE) and provide more than enough power to make the round trip.  If successful, as so far it's looking good, then Merseyrail are looking at other possible extensions to its network using the same system.

There's no reason why such technology can't be used elsewhere such as accessing Marylebone and no doubt it will be although the prospect of an IET running from Newbury to Penzance on batteries isn't likely to come off even if a set is converted as an experiment as is currently being developed.

Went today.  On of the best shows I've attended in a long time with a superb selection of excellent layouts and great to see so much of The Master's (Iain Rice) work to in one place.  Congratulations to all involved in staging it 

15 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Or maybe close Marylebone, divert services to Paddington and then wire the route conventionally for the outer suburban trains.

 

It's not like there won't be a glamorous but under utilised fully electric line opening up in a few years that could more than handle the services to Birmingham.

Not possible.  Paddington doesn't have enough capacity to take all the Chiltern line trains and in any case how would the Aylesbury/Amersham trains get there?  Additionally, the New Line has been severed at the OOC end and the trackbed is to be used for turnback and stabling sidings for those EL trains which currently terminate at Paddington and reverse at Westbourne Park which will be extended to OOC.

Remember too that the Chiltern Birmingham services don't just convey end to end passengers but also pick up and set down at stations like High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Bicester, Banbury, Leamington and Warwick.

Again, some years ago Adrian Shooter explained that electrification of the Chiltern lines is extremely difficult due to clearances in the tunnels outside Marylebone.  They were built cut-and-cover so there is no chance of raising the roof without breaking into the properties above and likewise lowering the floor would break into the canal and in any case there would be too much of "hump" over the WCML.  That bridge was raised for the WCML electrification and already has a notable hump when viewed from the cab.

In future it might be possible with a switch to battery operation in and out of the terminal.

The residents of those flats that overlook the approach to Marylebone have been a pain in the wotsits ever since they were built.  Adrian Shooter told a story of how when the first residents moved in they were outraged to find a working railway outside and threatened legal action to get it closed!  Adrian told them it had been there since 1906 and if they hadn't noticed it when purchasing their flat then tough and to go away.

Another related but even more off topic story concerns the number of complaints Chiltern started to get from residents near where the Chiltern line crosses the WCML between the tunnels over the sudden increase in the loudness of train horns.  Chiltern were mystified as nothing on their fleet had changed.  Then the penny dropped: this was the time Virgin were introducing the Pendolinos which do have louder horns than those that went before.  The complaints were acknowledged and forwarded.

The HSTs may look good to the lineside observer but underneath they are really showing their age with corrosion both in the power cars and coaches.

Confirm it's Twyford East and the train is on the Up Main.

Be careful, David.  The signals changed (ouch) at Princes Risborough depending on who was responsible for S&T at the time.  Sometimes if was the GWR/BRW at others the LNE/BRE or BRM and the signals were changed to the appropriate type s you need to check photographs of your chosen period.  The signal in your photo reads: top arm to Watlington or Thame Branches (there was another signal further on to take you to the actual line) lower arm onto the Down Platform Loop.

The second is looking north from to bridge towards Laira depot and shows the rinsing plant I mentioned above.

Likewise the new bridge and formation for the Princes Risborough - Aylesbury branch is designed for not only double track but also 90mph operation on what was only a 45mph line that's never likely to need higher speeds or double track.  More wasted money but, hey, the magic tree will provide...