phil-b259

To be precise Wikipedia say "Following privatisation of Britain's railways, the track became the property of BRB (Residuary) Ltd, the body set up to own former BR assets that were not sold off. The track was leased for one peppercorn per annum to Serco and later to Alstom and Metronet (LUL). Following the abolition of the BRBR, ownership passed to Network Rail on 30 September 2013." Basically the only reason NR have it now is that it was given to them is because the current Government announced with much fanfare that they wanted to abolish lots of "quangos". When the BRB was abolished NR got some of the other BRBs liabilities too (bridges, tunnels viaducts, etc) although the baulk of them went to the Highways Agency. Thus my comment about the test track having nothing to do with Railtrack and hence Network Rail still stands - particularly as the current leasing arrangements were worked out when the test track was firmly under the ownership of the BRB (residuary) Ltd. In fact when they were trying to offload it after the Pendalino testing finished they did try and get Railtrack interested with little sucess - hence the very real threat of it all being dismantled.

High Markham was a mothballed colliery access line under Network Rail ownership and thus ideal for the company to try out new techniques and kit "in house" as it were. Originally used for testing various bits of "On Track Plant" like tampers, stone blowers, rail grinders, etc its also seen use as a place to test the various "High output" trains including those built to support the Governments renewed electrification programme. I believe it is easily visible from the A1 road but due to its nature as a test track train movements are somewhat unpredictable. Old Dalby was never part of Railtrack / Network Rail thanks to the privatisation process. It was bought from the British Railways board by Alstom who comprehensively rebuilt it for testing of the original Pendalino fleet ordered after privatisation. Once the Pendalino fleet was fully in service however Alstom had no further need for it and for a while it was looking like it would all be ripped up and the land sold off. Pressure was applied by various people however who pointed out it was madness to throw away such a valuable facility and Alstom eventually were persuaded to sell it on intact. I don't know who actually owns it now but the deal to keep it involved fitting LUL style 3rd and4th rails so that new Bombardier built Underground stock could be tested there after construction at Derby. NR don't and never had any interest in Old Dalby and if it wasn't for Alstom and now Bombardier it would have been turned into a footpath over a decade ago.

Being pedantic for a moment, IF Hornby were advised that the correct roof did not exist BEFORE production commenced and Hornby themselves OKed use the roof from a TSO or whatever, then technically the Chinese factory has in fact delivered exactly what Hornby have asked them to and it cannot be said to be a QC issue. If on the other hand the factory went ahead without Hornby's permission then yes the product could be said to have failed QC (the point of which is not to identify whether something is correct to prototype - QC is does the item match the specification the person who ordered them requests including any variation that is mutually agreed by both parties). The big issue here is that if Hornby are telling the truth and they deliberately elected to get the Chinese to fit an incorrect roof then the decision to do so should have been acknowledged at the time the decision was made (not months later when the models actually arrived) through their website plus a message sent out to all retailers due to receive stocks of the item so as to allow potential purchasers to make a decision whether this is acceptable to them or not. We should also beer in mind that while most modellers will obviously not wish to buy inaccurate models, and notwithstanding the fact that there are lots of modellers who had been looking forward to further Mk3s being released, certain sections of the market won't care about the issue and as such you can see why Hornby will have wished to bring the affected coaches to market and earn some money out of them.

True, but IIRC they were hardly in the best of condition which made it very easy for the anti diesel lobby to make the case that they would take resources away from more needy projects. To be fair though if Bernard and others we more open to the idea of a Thumper it probably would have happened - but they weren't so it didn't. Like I said earlier while Bernard may not be with us anymore, there are plenty of other long standing / respected members that still subscribe to his viewpoint.

The oppotunity to purchase a thumper was when (1) every penny was needed for the extension and more significantly (2) was in the period when Benard Holden was still president of the society. He made his feelings VERY clear on the matter "NO DIESELS" was his attitude and it was only once he had passed on did the railway cautiously begin to consider the possibilities that could come from them. Thats not to deny there was a point behind his thinking - as Gwiwer apply demonstrates being a guaranteed "Steam only" railway does have some advantages. Many on the railway still support this line of thinking and as a consequence its very much a case of taking things cautiously. Last years mini gala certainly drew the respectable numbers but as with last time many members will be watching the forthcoming Deltic visit extremely closely. It is worth saying that if numbers are disappointing it will definitely set back the diesel cause on the Bluebell a good five years or more..... Personally I am not particularly fussed by the idea of holding a diesel gala in general and I wouldn't object if I am restored to work down there over the weekend concerned. However I won't be making a special trip over to see or ride being the Deltics - sorry diesels just don't 'do it' for me. The main thing is it makes a profit for the railway - not a loss and that it doesn't do our reputation any harm - particularly as many of our casual visitors turn up expecting steam.

Allegedly part of the reason Bulleid fitted the first few pacifics with very narrow cabs is he designed them to fit down the Hastings line via Tunbridge Wells. Whether this was ever tested for real seems uncertain, but to my mind the bigger puzzle is why Bullied thought it necessary in the first place. After all Maunsell's schools weren't that old and didn't have any problems coping with even the most demanding trains on the route. Other thing is that the Maunsell era electric stock used from Eastbourne after the 1935 electrification was to the standard 'restriction 4' profile so I don't think St Leonards tunnel could have been quite that bad despite its later reconstruction in the 50s

Quite And people still think that giving even more control to these types (regardless of which party they are from) via nationalisation would be a good thing..... If true and the DfT have actually taken growing passenger numbers into account it should be applauded not criticised.

If the Mk3s are that bad then I imagine it wouldn't be an impossibility to mod the HST power cars to work with MK4s when they get displaced from front line ECML service.I don't see the 91s having a future in the UK frankly - The GEML is screeming out for an EMU solution to ditch the 'dead space' the loco occupies, not more hand me downs that perpetuate the same problems.

It seems as though I was mistaken regarding Three Bridges Pannel

While I can offer no definitive answer, its noteworthy that the mid 80s Brighton line resignalling made provision for them to be retained - the evidence being a otherwise completely unnecessary UTX taking the cable run under where the sidings would have joined the down line, plus the presence of two very short track circuits on the up and down lines - which are completely necessary in signalling terms and must only be there because the track circuits employed on either side are not suitable for use through pointwork. Also on the slave panel in Redhill relay room there is evidence of a crossover having painted out and shunt signals removed, however on the panel at Three Bridges ASC no trace remains (and said panel tiles certainly look pretty original in terms of colour to me). As a child we moved out of London to Surrey towards the end of the 80s and on my reasonably frequent trips to London via this route in the 90s I don't recall any sign of the sidings / pointwork back then. Certainly by the time I started on the railway in 2001 any evidence other than the UTX etc had long gone.

I believe the area is known as "the mudflats" and as can be seen the area is still used by the p-way department. The vehicular crossing is actually a on / off loading point for RRVs. Access to "the mudflats" is via the underbridge seen behind the RRV 'launching point'

Withdrawn and split up so that they could be used to bolster the Alstom built 458 units NOT the 377 fleet (which is a Bombardier unit of course) Thing is underneath that fancy nose cone they (the class 460s) were, in basic bodyshell and traction packages identical to the 458s. Thus when the DfT wanted to provide more carriages to SWT they were an obvious solution (particularly as the DfT at the time gave a very good impression of being quite happy to get rid of the Gatwick express operation if they could - after all who keeps MPs in power? international airline passengers or regular commuters into central London (i.e. VOTERS). Other factors also included a general downturn in international airline travel, a Governmental bias towards Heathrow expansion, plus the way Gatwick is now dominated by holiday and 'low cost' airlines (whose customers are far more likely to want to op for the cheaper Southern / Thameslink tickets that the premium Express ones). The upshot being that Gatwick got the totally unsuited 442s dumped on them (it was that or cease operating) plus the requirement to extend peak time services to the likes of Brighton & Eastbourne. Correct, in a couple of years time the Southern franchise (into which the Gatwick Express franchise was merged a few years ago) will itself be absorbed by the new Thameslink super franchise. The winners of this new franchise (who are the same people running the current Southern one) have committed to procure some new build Electrostars to get rid of the 442s combining interiors suited for airline travellers with 1/3rd and 2/3rd wide doorways. Not dissimilar to the 460 fleet in fact....... All in all, the whole Gatwick Express saga has been another fine example of long term Government planning...... NOT

As I said in another post, when it comes to local services the Brighton main line very much became the dividing line between ex SECR and ex LSWR stock. To the east birdcage stock and push pull fitted H tanks were the norm while to the west (and thus around Horsham) ex LSWR stock and push pull fitted M7s were prefered. Having said that various ex LBSCR tanks were still very much in evidence but thanks to LBSCR stock using the Westinghouse air brake system, most went for scrap with ex SECR and LSWR stock drafted in to fill the gap.

Yup - following the SRs standard (60s generation) EMU fleet in this regard

While I understand the gist of what you are saying, its worth remembering that where railway engineering is concerned the testing requirements etc haved actually been getting stricter and stricter as time has gone on rather than the opposite The instigator of much of this was the Clapham Junction crash which, lest we forget killed quite a lot of people. It showed that in many areas there were no national published standards and the quality of work / testing was VERY dependent on how good the person / local setup was. Where as some places were very good at training up their new recruits in other places they were shockingly bad, particularly if the area concerned head as high staff turnover or simply insufficient staff. Thus in todays railway overruns are in fact more likely to be caused by insufficient testing time / people obaying the rules (e.g. invoking the worksafe procedure) than anything else. Where as back in the 'good old days' it might well have been a case of "sling it in - if it works that's good enough for me" mentality hat certainly is not the case now. Ultimately until we get a proper report as to what exactly happened at Kings Cross / GWML we cannot comment on whether the disruption could have reasonably been forseen - which despite all the media nonsense, is the key question. Its all very easy to say "they should have had a contingency plan in place" but such planes don't write themselves. As with everything in life an assessment has to be made as to how much risk an activity presents and how much contingency planning is worth doing. Do you routinely take two sets of door keyed out with you "just in case" or do you say phone home when you have arrived at your destination? In the latter example it might be an appropriate thing to do if traveling to see friends on there other side of the country, less apropreatte if you are poping down to the supermarket.

Shades of the 60s again then...... (In that the original WCML scheme was paired back by said Treasury leaving mechanical signal boxes along the Trent Valley and onwards to Manchester / Liverpool plus the removal of Kidsgrove - Crewe from the scheme).

Yeah, but it might help if signalmen didn't keep offering us tea every time we pop up the box in the first place In any case isn't it bad manners to refuse hospitality and we wouldn't want to hurt their feelings (you never know when you might need their co-operation)

That will keep the S&T busy moving tokens from one machine to another then ;-)

Where required is the simple answer - there are no overarching requirements as far as I am aware - each scheme designer will put them where needed although minimising the overall number of cases will be important. The thing is a typical two door cabinet can hold quite a lot of relays - even track circuit ones which tend to be the largest one, so up to 8 in one case is quite doable. Alternatively it might be that all relays are placed under the signal box - or a wooden cupboard fixed to the outside. Finally, depending on the era and company, there is allways the option of small metal boxes holding a single relay mounted on a horizontal rail as seen in the first photo on this page http://www.semgonline.com/location/wlo01.html

I imagine the fuel is bought in bulk anyway and probably several months in advance so as to try and beat short term price flutuations caused by variations in the price of oil. Ferry and airlines already do this and I don't see why the likes of DBS / freightliner would be any different. One thing is certain FOCs don't just ring up a fuel company and ask for a single tanker at a time, they will have set up appropriate accounts, etc with their preferred supplier who will handle the logistics of ensuring fuel is delivered to where the FOC wants. Also its worth remembering that storing fuel, particularly brings its own hazards and costs. As with many business in the world there is lots of pressure from Shareholders to be as financially efficient as possible and to divest all non core activities to 3rd parties Accordingly the concept of buying something then keeping it stored at your own expense is, from a accountants perspective a "drain on resources / tieing up vital capital" and loco fuel is no different.

The days of needing a depot for anything other than the most serious of work are well and truly over. Performing fuelling, cleaning and even fairly significant repairs "out in the field" (via road tankers and "man in a van" options) so to speak is not only cheaper and more efficient, but also removes the need to maintain (and keep secure from vandals, metal thieves) large depot buildings. Furthermore just as motor vehicles have got progressively more reliable over the decades, the class 66 fleet for example needs the fraction of maintenance of BR designs with no detriment to its ability to keep going reliably. If anything the issue with the 66s is the lightweight bodyshell which is far more likely to have issues than the robust and reliable engineering it contains. As such the demise of Bescot depot building, or indeed any of the others that have vanished over the past couple of decades will have absolutely no effect on freight operations now or in the years to come.

Quite true. For decades now it has been perfectly possible for commercial aeroplanes to take off cross the Atlantic then, land themselves and even taxi to the correct gate with no human intervention at all thanks to advances in technology. However because most air passengers don't like the idea of relying 100% on computers / electronics no airline is willing to do away with the final two humans in the cockpit (the role of flight engineer and navigator having been dispensed with in most cases).

Indeed, however as the saying goes "every little helps" - and unlike the grocery chain that used it, when it comes to track workers that "little" can easily be the difference between a near miss / near hit (as some parts of the industry define it), and as the heath professionals call it "life changing injuries" / death (the affects of the latter spreading we beyond the individual of course i.e. - the serious mental trauma done to fellow workers, the driver, the people picking up the bits, your family, your children and friends........). Even if having yellow ends only stops just one incident every decade, they are still worth having.

Quite so - which is why I have suspicions that there is far more going on behind the scenes than we know about with respect to staff morale / management (people often forget that good morale is not simply the case of good pay). At the end of the day if the staff are pissed off then no ammount of hectoring from top management or even the general public will make a difference to someone's performance. In such circumstances it's a case of building trust and gradually getting from the "do the absolute minimum" mentality towards the "proud of a task well done" situation.

While obviously things like the state of cleanliness inside trains and indeed the quality of maintenance and servicing are within Albinos hands, to a certain extent they are a victim of circumstance. Firstly the franchise they took on already had problems dating back to National Express's tenure in charge and secondly the franchise they won was very much a case of 'holding the line' in specification terms with no requirements from the DfT to do anything particular spectacular. The third thing is that if it wasn't for the WCML bidding fiasco and a new two year hiatus in the franchising process, Anglia would by now have been let on proper terms rather than the Government doing a deal to keep it ticking over till they can do the thing properly. As to Albino staff, while not attempting to defend bad service its worth remembering that things like staff morale and general happiness with their lot will have quite an effect on how they behave to customers. Thus if the management of Albino are not projecting a positive image and seen to be caring for their staff, then said staff are more likely to be grumpy and not take pride in their work, etc. Things like on train cleaning and a proactive stance are the first to go when the staff have sunk into a "why bother" mentality. With no long term certainty as to how the franchise might pan out its easy to see how things might have ended up as they are. Finally a theme that is common on both the GEML & the BML is service disruption and how trains are regularly late. While on the BML, the London Bridge works don't help the situation, observations on the operating floor at Three Bridges ASC show that by far the biggest issue is that we are simply trying to run too many trains, particularly at peak times. Things are so tight that ANY disruption to a service always results in a late arrival and very frequently delays other services. This past week for example station dwell times have been extend because passengers are waiting under canopies rather than standing in the rain then rushing out to the train when it stops or simply all trying to board through those doors that are next to the covered portion of the platform. An extra few seconds here and there might not sound like much but if said train fails to hits its slot at East Croydon delays will snowball. Similarly the wet weather has made trains more difficult to start and stop thanks to wet rails all of which means vital seconds are lost when slowing down to and accelerating from stations. Ultimately if you want to have a reliable service with no reduction in frequency further infrastructure investment is needed. On the BML an extra platform at East Croydon plus grade separation at Windmill Bridge junction would do wonders for timekeeping and train throughput, while on Anglia, provision of 4 tracks (or length dynamic loops) from Shenfield to Colchester would do wonders when it comes to train pathing and allowing opportunities to catch up time. Similarly replacing the loco hauled stock with class 444 style EMUs would cut station dwell times as well as providing more capacity per train. However such investment doesn't come cheap and will require the Government to structure the next franchise accordingly.