Mike_Walker

Yes, it is the carriage servicing platform for Laira depot and is on the course of the old line to Mount Gould Junction and Friary.  The tracks now end just beyond it.  In addition to the wash plant visible here, there is another for rinsing on the other side of the bridge.

Sorry but I don't have any pics.

56 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I'd love to now hw many trains they'll have to take out of the timetable or considerably  decelerate in order to call there.  But who on earth do they think is going to use Old Oak Common for a connection to anything?   Liz Lne connections at Paddington are simple and can be made quickly so there'll be little gain, if any, in changing at Old Oak apart from overall slightly extended journey time.  And westbound evening peak and any long distance passengers will inevitably continue to use Paddington in order to get a seat!.

 

And if any possession is longer than 72 hours (maybe 96 hours for ohle work added in?) - for connecting the slued track, the engineers involved need to go back to school and learn that the first principle of such jobs is yo minimum. disruption to booked train services (which also saves a pile of money).   Phillip Rees, the former WR Chief Civil Engineer, will be rotating in his grave.  The world is run by  those who clearly don't understand how to do that sort of job with minimum disruption..

 

Incidentally from what you've posted they didn't look at the most logical place of all which has been used twice in the past for diversions when genuine major engineering work meant that trains couldn't get to Paddington.  No need to electrify anything for long distance services although that's no use for the 387s of course.   PS the answer to that one will cost them if they're not bright enough to see it for themselves..

 

I presume that, just like the polished turds, the umpteen millions this is going to cost will be dumped onto the HS2 billl?

Sadly, Mike, the railway today is a very different one to that you worked on.  Twenty years ago Mark ruefully showed me a diamond crossing at Wilmslow and remarked how many weekends it had taken to replace.  He said he commented to Railtrack that when he joined the railway they would have replaced it between trains.  The reply came back to the effect that you didn't have H&S back then.  Possessions today take longer to set up, conduct safety briefings etc., and take down than they do for actual work done.  But, the number of injuries and, worse, fatalities has fallen greatly.

OOC will provide interchange between HS2 and GWR services to the West.  It will also provide an easier interchange between GWR semi-fast services and the EL than at Paddington.  A simple platform change by the transfer deck, not having to navigate your way around the station then two lengthy escalators as you do at Paddington.  London Overground also have aspirations for two new stations to feed into OOC.  If they come to fruition then it will be a western equivalent of Stratford.

I presume the alternatives you have in mind for diversions are Olympia or Marylebone.  To access the former you still need to go via Willesden as you can't hang a right at OOC East anymore and in any case, if you could it would be in the middle of the worksite.  Euston, whilst not ideal, has better onward connectivity than Olympia.  Marylebone is not an option as it no longer has capacity and it couldn't handle 10 car IETs - and the Chiltern Line isn't currently cleared for them although that could be addressed.

I can assure you that everything will be done to keep disruption to a minimum.  When Reading was being rebuilt, NR wanted to operate a 2-track railway for TWO years through Reading.  This was totally unacceptable to GWR but NR said there was no alternative.  That was until GWR submitted a plan that involved keeping a 4 track railway with two massive blockades during which trains would run to Marylebone and Waterloo.  The former involved a bonus of signalling improvements at Banbury that improved operations there for "normal" GWR services and Chiltern.  And as a result, Reading was finished early and under budget!

On 07/10/2023 at 12:42, The Stationmaster said:

OOC looks to me to be an ideal place to do some trimming of HS2 expenditure.  I wholly understand the reason for a Liz Line interchange as it's about the only sensible interchange that could be made there.  Although a Central Line interchange wouldn't be too difficult a ptoposition if there was a new station where the formation passes under the GWML.

 

But all that is needed at Old Oak on the GWML is an island platform on the Relief Lines, no need for anything on the Mains.  So that part of the scheme could be taken out tomorrow and would save millions on something which is basically completely useless.  Line occupation on the Mains is running on 2-3 minute headways so unless trains are taken out of the timetable stops cannot be made on the Mains at Old Oak.  In some respects it is a similar argument - but far, far, worse - to the potential timetabling impact of providing a 'Chilterns Parkway' station on HS2  without extended high speed platform loops

 

The only logical reason for having a platform for the Mains is if the Reliefs are closed for any reason.  But if that did happen apart from the lack of paths for Liz Line trains they would not be able to get back onto the Reliefs westbound until Southall West Jcn so couldn't serve Acton ML. West Ealing, or Hanwell.  And there wouldn't be paths for them to call at Ealing Broadway or Southall unless the Liz Kine service is decimated.  So even if there were ML platforms they'd still be of almost no use for LIz Line trains.

 

So while the various luminaries continue their daft ideas abour saving millions long after they'r retired maybe they really ought to look at a practical one which would save real (borrowed) money.in the relatively short term.

AIUI from the most reputable of sources, ALL GWR services will call at OOC both in and outbound which is why platforms are being provided on all lines.

There will be a couple of major blockades for this work which will close Paddington completely.  Last week Mark Hopwood took colleagues from GWR, Avanti, SWR, NR and the DfT on a special train that ran from Maidenhead to Euston, Acton Yard, Waterloo, North Pole depot (using the connection off the WWL disused since Eurostar moved out) and finally back to Hayes & Harlington to look at the challenges that will be faced during these blockades when GWR services will be diverted into either Euston or Waterloo (not sure what the Liz Line will do, it doesn't concern us).  It is to facilitate the diversions into Euston that the Poplar Lines at Acton are being wired.

9 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

If (and it's a big IF) we believe HM Government, then electrification of this stretch might be a little closer to fruition. Sydney Gardens, Bath, in today's warm October sunshine,

Sadly, it had disappeared when the "official" Government document was published on Thursday.  To be fair, on Wednesday they did say "could be" rather than "will be".

Why would you want to rate your own postings anyway?  🤔

3 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

Given that the £37 billion being saved only starts sometime after 2030 when they would have needed to borrow it to fund  section 2A, where are they going to find the money for all these replacement schemes that Rishi says will be done quicker, and some papers were reporting as a blitz on transport fixes? If the money is readily available they could have accelerated HS2 instead of deferring/cancelling it.

And there you have it.  None of these proposals are likely to come to fruition - even the Government's own documentation says "could" rather than "will be" - it's simply a desperate last ditch attempt to buy votes and remain power.  Thankfully, the people have now seen through them.

But how many of these smaller projects will ever get built?  They will quietly get cancelled or forgotten about.

4 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

But if everyones on a HS2 train, surely you need less EL trains as passengers wont need to connect, or change ?

 

Besides the HS2 stock hasnt even been designed yet…. so why is this so hard ?

 

Does it need to be a HS Orient Express with luxury dining, when its less than an hour from Brum.. ?

EL takes longer than that from Reading… its a high speed “commuter” train we are being fed on according to the hype… lunch in London, Dinner in Manchester and all that tripe, it certainly feels like a tube train looking at all the tunnels.

 

 

 

The Elizabeth Line carries heavy traffic already between the Thames Valley, central London and the eastern suburbs.  The WCML makes little impact on it today.

Actually, not only has the contract for the HS2 trains, Class 895 from a Hitachi-Alstom joint venture, been let but design work is already advanced.

Without wanting to be political, we can only hope that if there is a change of government then HS2 to Manchester will be restored.  

Not holding out any hope for Tavistock benefiting from HS2 as it seems the money is to be used for other schemes in the north and Wales.

Here's an ex-LNER (Thompson?) 6 wheel brake at Didcot in 1974.

On 13/08/2023 at 17:50, BernardTPM said:

I've had trouble with gmail addresses since last November when they apparently made changes. I can receive messages from a gmail addresses but I just can't get a reply back to them, they're always rejected, nor send a new e-mail to them. For me a gmail address is useless.

I have that trouble too but I find that if you send it as a "bcc" it goes through.  I understand gmail blocks messages from certain sources which it deems "hostile" but it seems it doesn't spot blind copies.  Strangely, there seem to be no problems with "googlemail" addresses.

57 minutes ago, Ben B said:

 

Looks like it could do with a pass by the weedkiller train!  On a serious note, I don't like scenes like that, as I think that for people who don't understand railways, it can encourage missuse when it looks neglected.

When I was in Wales a few years back, I got into a row with a couple of fishermen who were walking along the Cambrian Coast line as a shortcut; they were tourists, and their 'justification' was they thought it was a closed railway because the tracks were rusty and it was very overgrown. Admittedly it was a Sunday, so hardly any traffic, but I pointed out that it was technically an open railway, appearances to the contrary...

Actually not too bad compared to some parts of the network these days!  I note the image is dated June 2023 so perhaps the temporary railings are a first sign of the proposed upgrade.

From here the line makes almost a 90 degree turn which is why there's the 10 mph limit.  Once clear of that, it's a blistering 20 all the way to Gunnislake apart from Stop and proceed at another open crossing, Sandways.  It's 15 from here back to Calstock station where there's a foot crossing between the platform end and the viaduct.

An interesting detail:  if you follow Streetview up the crossing you will see a narrow upright box between the railway and road on the Gunnislake side.  This contains emergency "sand sticks" used if the train has adhesion problems.  There is another 3/4 mile further on.

There are probably others on the network like that.  Kings Sutton, south of Banbury, was like that with only a foot crossing for access to the Down platform on a 90mph line with a curve but now has a non-accessible footbridge.  Such places continue to exist under "grandfather rights" but such arrangements would almost certainly not be tolerated for new works which is how Bere Alston would be considered.

10 minutes ago, AMJ said:

Perhaps the leasing companies are making money from operators having stock for such short times.

Not really, they are expensive assets which become even more expensive liabilities sitting out of use in sidings.

2 hours ago, Kris said:

If a 2 platform option is too expensive as has been suggested, then why not look at at platform arrangement as found at Penryn. If the loop went round the Gunnislake part of the platform then it could work.

But Penryn has passing loop and is fully signalled it merely solves the access problem to the second platform.  Bere Alston would have to be the same with signalling, axle counters, etc. all connected up to Plymouth Panel.  Knowing something of the eye-watering costs of such things then a second platform complete with footbridge, track alterations and a new ground frame would probably come in much "cheaper" although "cheap" in a rail context is not how you or I might define it!

24 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

There is precedent just around the corner, theres a tiny lane completely concealed visibility on one side of the line, crossing the line just after Calstock.

 

The train has an actual hard stop, at a stop board, sounds horn then crosses at 5mph, not that the train travels much faster going to Gunnislake anyway.

visible here from Eric road

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.4991215,-4.1964441,3a,65.968155y,0.089202h,90.085854t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s9VI5tIDsFVKv8tXLUDUntw!2e0?lucs=,47071704&g_ep=CAISBjYuNDkuNBgBIIGBASoJLDQ3MDcxNzA0QgJHQg%3D%3D&g_st=ic&g_st=ic

 

I understand those crossings are due to be upgraded to ABCL with barriers.

28 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The ('el)L of a MesS

 

On the Western the Southern was still calked 'the tramway' well into the 1990s.  

My views were rather different but I was amused to find when I got involved with the former SR in the 1990s that it was basically still three somewhat separate Pre-Grouping companies where some of theh staff in all of them had low opinions of the other two.  And when I was filling newly created posts one of my staff said of one chap - 'Oh, he's alright, good bloke - he's off the South Western' 

 

However we do now have trams running on the GWML - painted in a TfL livery and calling themselves the Elizabeth Line.  Their riding is now getting to a lstatel, especially over pointwork, where they wouldn't be given house room at Crich although oddly they seem to ride much better when they're underground.

Back in the day there was a door in the building on the old platform 4 at Reading marked: "For the use of SR traincrew only".  When this was mentioned to a WR Divisional Manager the reply came back: "Well we don't want their tram drivers mixing with our blokes."

As for the riding of the 345s underground, well there's only a few points down there, they are still new and haven't been subjected to continual pounding by 3000 tonne stone trains!

I have two that run on DC only and are as sweet as a nut.  I actually told Dapol that they unrealistic models as they were so reliable! 😁

12 hours ago, Clive martin said:

Sad to see them go ,a real classic design i dont think they have dated a bit in the 40 + years they have been in service ,it s just a shame that the trains replacing the hst fleet are inferior in terms of comfort ride quality etc, just a thought i wonder if the railways had not been privatised what British Rail might have  had to offer as a replacement for the hst fleet ?

It's an open secret that FirstGroup, GNER and Siemens had been jointly working on what was called "HST2".  It would have been a loco-hauled push-pull train with a driving trailer at one end and a loco at the other.  Various options for the latter were planned, straight electric, diesel, bi-mode and even consideration of gas turbines!  The design had been worked up to a point where orders were about to be placed and metal cut.  The the DfT intervened and said that the train operators didn't know how to design/specify new trains but their civil servants did.  The companies were blocked from proceeding with HST2 and we got the IET instead led by a now departed civil; servant better known for drawing atlases who thought he could rewrite the laws of physics among other things.  As it turned out, IET took so long to come to fruition that had HST2 gone ahead it would have been in service and coming due for its first major overhauls before the IET finally entered service.  The latter ended up being the subject of so many design changes that it went way over budget and is so complex that it is becoming an operational nightmare for both the operators an Hitachi.

History will record the HST as the high point of British train design.  Conceived as a stop gap during development of the APT, it went on to revolutionise the industry and public perception of it.  It is no exaggeration to say that it probably saved the industry.

There's a joke in the industry that there's a chair reserved for the Japanese ambassador in the SoS's office.  "The answer is Hitachi, now what's the question?"

12 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

The Manchester Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway (MS&L) became the Money Sunk and Lost when it built the main line down to Marylebone and changed the name to The Great Central Railway.

 

Brit15

Otherwise known as Gone Completely.

On 25/09/2023 at 12:38, adb968008 said:

Twittersfear is starting to reveal Mexico images..

 

(Twiiter url)

 

Sharing the line with some 1950’s stock too..

(also twitter url)

 

and some tram / train stock

(another twitter url).

 

seems a bit hotch potch.

translated comments on twitter read positive about the HST coming, with some comments marking even the US hasnt got long distance trains of this speed.

 

 

video here, you can see the hst (with red light in the cab) literally  dwarfed in size by El Presidentes inagural train

 

 

I wonder how passengers will get onto the HST ?… the other stock has low floor, or steps.. HST has neither.

Those '1950s' cars are actually Amfleet cars built around the same time as the Hosts.

But that is Devon ÇC document which might be based on outdated information.

40 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Signalling is assumed into the project.

 

Stop using it as an objection for your thoughts..

 

There will be signals... its mentioned 10 times in the business case.

Trainspotters might not be civil engineers but they can read and interpret business cases… they arent all unintelligent.

Even though there are references to “double track at stations”, i’m taking that to be a loop at Bere Ferrers, but its unclear, indeed vague.

 

The idea, at least the preferred one,  looks to be less kebabshoponomics than your suggesting.

 

two train operation of 4x car (2*150) with 4 car platform at Tavistock.

 

 

The second option to me reads deliberately to look less appealing than the first option ( which is often the case when business cases are prepared) as you want the first option. But I suspect as stated before that a middle ground between the preferred and fall back could be found,.. and yes it will require signalling.

You are looking at proposals made several years ago since when all costs within the rail industry have escalated at a rate far greater than the national rate of inflation and at a time when the willingness of government to fund such expenditure is under pressure.  I doubt that if those plans were reviewed or created today they would be accepted.

A few years ago, GWR worked up a plan to reconfigure Bourne End station to permit 2tph all day from Maidenhead through to Marlow.  It was costed and the required funding secured but delays were encountered in the final design work by which time the estimated cost had increased by around 500 percent making it unviable and it was abandoned.  And that was before the present squeeze started 

I don't think you appreciate just how expensive anything related to the railway is today.

Tom Windsor, when he was the regulator, asked: "Am I the last person in this industry who thinks £1 million is a large sum of money?"  How long ago was that - it would be billion today!

45 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Those are NOT signals!

 

Although they look like signals ALL they do is confirm that the points have properly moved over to the correct position and are not standing half way position to derail the train. They are NOT interlocked with the token instruments or track circuits like true signals are! Hence the need for the supplementary plate reminding the driver they must be in possession of the correct token before proceeding.

Agreed but I was trying to keep things simple.  They look like signals but act purely as 'points indicators' as described indicating which way the points are set even though those at the actual junction are right under the BE1 PI and perfectly visible from the cab.  Even some of the drivers had difficulty getting their heads around it initially!