phil-b259

4 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

I did a bit of work associated with the Bourne End to Marlow renewals a few years ago. That branch of course also has a reversal with a very short train length limitation. I don't think it's even long enough for two 66s top-and-tailing one ballast wagon. Even so, there were some loco-hauled infrastructure trains to Marlow during the renewals, but they were short and probably a faff to shunt.

I think Bodmin General is a bit better than Bourne End - I estimate Bodmin General to be able to take about 5 Mk1s and a loco (leaving space for it to run round)

A single Voyager unit or one of the shorterned HST sets opperated by GWR would fit too as would 2x 15X or 16X units

Oh and just to say I know Padstow was a LSWR / SR terminus but even with the best rose tinted specs you can buy there is simply no way in the world the North Cornwall Railway via Camelford etc would have remained open even with the most optmistic hindsight! You cannot dis-invent the motor car nor expect the UKs road system to be perpetually stuck in the 1920s....

If Padstow did keep a rail link it would be in the form of trains to Bodmin Parkway connecting with GWR services not to slow trains meandering through sparsely populated Cornwall and Devon to Oakhampton / Exteter / Waterloo....

6 minutes ago, KDG said:

Thanks for the reply Phil. In my utopian world, the thing that ended the Padstow branch and other parts of the network didn't happen, and the UK needs and want trains. So the real world constraints you reminded me of aren't there.... in my admittedly contrived plan.

The biggest constraint you have (strategic decisions aside) is the need to reverse at Bodmin General on every trip.

Even if you plot a different course in terms of politics and rail strategy etc then that constraint isn't going to vanish - its a physical constraint rather than the result of a policy decision and still rule out long trains like full sized HSTs...

OK you can imagine infrastructure improvements happened but the more you deviate from reality the less like a model of Padstow it becomes....

If you want to model longer trains (and trains with more variety)  then to be honest the Newquay branch is a far better bet if you are looking for a real world location to model.

3 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

 

Or are things better in the south west than they are in the north west?

I get the impression that pre Covid / DfT imposed cuts / Industrial relations collapsing (due to DfT meddling) GWR did actually care about its SW branches plus the condition of their fleets and the management / staff would do their best to put on a decent service using the 15X fleet.

18 minutes ago, KDG said:

A what if.....

 

What if the Padstow branch had remained open, was still connected to Network Rail?  Which services would still arrive and depart? Would there be any remaining freight traffic?

 

I'd like to think First Great Western would roster a sleeper service from Paddington, perhaps arriving on weekend mornings. Twice daily HST's from London, Voyagers from the NW / NE, Sprinters from Plymouth and Penzance.

 

In my mind, there's a weekly freight flow of dredged sea sand in box wagons too.

 

Anyone else have any ideas, thoughts, or suggestions? (don't fret about the finances of it)

Given the need to reverse at Bodmin (General) and the constrained station there you can rule out pretty much everything other than 1st or 2nd generation DMUs and ceratinly no through trains*

* Though a Voyager might fit you need to remember that before them you had HSTs and 7 coach Mk2 rakes - neither of which would fit at Bodmin. HSTs (and now IETs) to Newquay were (/ are) only possible because the branch infrastructure could cope with them from the outset (i.e. no need to reverse at a short station on route)

In 2024 it would be worked by the same units used on the St Ives branch (i.e. a15X DMU) - and in fact given the popularity of both resorts the amount of custom would probably be similar 

In terms of freight - its the same story, the need to reverse put significant limits on train lengths while the tightly curved China Clay branch to Wedford Bridge would not accept long wheelbase wagons. Thus the only non-passenger workings you would see would, as with the St Ives branch, be the occasional visit by a weedkilling train in the summer.

As such it would be a relatively boring  model, but deffinatly one which would have been worth keeping open  - unlike some of the other routes in the area...

4 minutes ago, ColinK said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if WCRC are trying to get The Scottish Govt to fund CDL.

Thats up to the Scottish Government and Scottish voters.

How they get the money to fit CDL is largely up to them (though a grant from a Scottish Governmental body could be challenged by other charter operators as an illegal subsidy unless carefully structured) - the main thing is making sure they are not allowed to operate non CDL coaching stock on any of their trains.

3 minutes ago, keefer said:

What I meant was, the ORR are stating the 'what' but there's no mention of the 'why'.

A few lines mentioning exactly what WCRC did to lose their exemption in the first place, and the result of the JR would hopefully let the general public see that this whole situation is entirely of WCRC's own doing.

I think it's in everyone's interest that the WCRC 'poor me' defence is shut down and shown exactly for what it is - a complete sham.

They are going for every ounce of sympathy and will no doubt mention all the real folk who are going to suffer as a result of this, while carefully failing to mention the serious safety breaches (and further subsequent refusal to comply), by them, that led us to where we are. 

Given the ORR is a supposedly an independent regulator it cannot be seen to be singling out one entity or taking sides - and believe me thats what WCRs lawyers would love to as the minute there is any hint of bias then it would form grounds for another Judicial review / legal action.

Hence the rather dry and procedural nature of the ORRs response - one which doesn't bring up mentions of WCRs past regulation breaking and confines itself to 'WCR didn't apply in time' (which of course neatly side steps any talk of what the outcome of any application for a derogation might be)

1 minute ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Now featured on the BBC News App. Essentially it’s become a PR standoff with WCRC portrayed as the wronged party by “ a spokesperson “ . No response as yet from the other side.You have to wonder exactly how such a response ( should there be one ) would read. Pure gamesmanship. 

The BBC News article has been updated 5 minutes ago to include a response from the ORR

3 minutes ago, keefer said:

Notice too in the BBC article, there is no mention of:

a) Why WCRC lost their current exemption.

b) WCRC taking the ORR to court and losing.

Still peddling the 'innocent victim of unreasonable beaurocracy' line to the media, despite being on the wrong end of about three separate (but connected) legal processes 🙄

 

There is now - the ORR have responded with their response added to the article.

29 minutes ago, arran said:

It did have a negative effect last year when it all kicked off.

 

I hope this year works a treat for all involved this season 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7z6xnpyn6o

And before all the WCR apologists start saying how terrible it is maybe they should pause to consider that had the ORR inspector found that the requirements were being fully compiled with by WCR last year then its likely that an exemption for this year would be granted.

6 hours ago, WCML100 said:

 

add the FEA's to that list too

Technically we still don't know whats has happened to the tooling for the Genesis coaches either as Rails have made it pretty clear they don't own it and Accurascale say 'generic' stuff is not what they do either....

6 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

A bit like the Mam Tor Road then. The council just kept levelling that up with more stone for about 50 years.

 

Indeed they did, till it got to the stage that someone realised it was a waste of money. Fortunately in the case of Mam Torr the road could simply be closed thus solving the issue - not an option for the railway network alas.

You could argue the same is happening now with potholes where councils apply a short term fix rather than do a proper dig down and rebuild / full re-surface because a lack of funds but a need to keep roads open.

Mind you as I said pre-grouping / the big 4 were just as bad - they loved using loco ash to rear bank slips (because it was free) rather than do a proper rebuild of earthworks....

5 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

"The usual London Terminus for GWR when Paddington is inaccessible is Reading."

Rather a long walk to the nearest Tube station.

Seriously, are those in charge trying to drive traffic off the railway? A few years ago a way would have been found to continue using Paddington whatever engineering work was going on.

I assume the change is partly because of the foolish decision by NR to ban all work near live railway lines after the incident in South Wales where its staff ignored the rules and were killed. So send people on the roads instead, where there are several deaths every day.

Jonathan

Although that move to ban ‘live’ working was indeed foolish (given the staff involved in the south Wales incident deliberately ignored lots of rules and procedures which would have entirely prevented the incident from occurring) when you get to large remodelling schemes involving alterations to OLE and signalling as well as track layouts and civills, an all line block is actually sensible and ironically reduces the chances of screw ups as well as being cheaper and quicker to deliver.

The added complication with Old Oak is the site is effectively rail locked by the IEP depot and the HS2 worksite meaning that the logistics of delivering it are actually quite awkward.

Moreover it seems like the industry is working hard to ensure that as many trains as possible get into London as they can - hence the use of Euston, Waterloo and Ealing Broadway and NOT simply dumping everyone at Reading.

On 10/03/2024 at 20:11, TheSignalEngineer said:

Looking at the pictures of the Wellington - Oakengates slip there's about four times as much ballast below sleeper level as when I used to work along there in the 1970s. That would be about 3 - 4 tonnes more stone per metre of railway, plus the extra weight of concrete sleepers and heavier rail.

In one sense that’s not a problem - adding more ballast to restore the profile is something that goes way back to the pre-grouping era and not simply a modern phenomenon 
 

However repeated topping up of the ballast does suggest the embankment had been slumping / sinking for quite a while and has long been in need of repair work.

6 minutes ago, ian said:

Our surgery is also a dispensary. The doctor likes it that way beacuse the practice makes more money. They point blank refuse to have any truck with electronic prescriptions to third parties - if you want a paper prescription you have to go in and collect it.

 

Things issued by the pharmacy come, where appropriate, with a repeat prescription slip request slip to be returned to the surgery. The on-line system simply offered an alternative on-line request form.

 

 

That in itself is surprising given the many initiatives being pushed out by the NHS / Whitehall to widen access to services, promote competition and give pharmacists a more active role in the healthcare process.

Certanly requiring to attend the surgery to pick up a prescription or the necessary medication would be incredibly frustrating (not to mention downright inconvenient) for those whose work / childcare patterns rule it out as a viable option...

6 minutes ago, fulton said:

Just to add, I travel with Eurotunnel every couple of months, sending this from Germany, did once have my car Xrayed, seemed a novelty to the Frence Police as well, my van sometimes gets pulled over looking for stowaways, I travel on an EU passport, so it just gets scanned, UK passports get stamped as well, but that will be changing sometime when all the tech for finger prints is in place.

So not scanned every single time (as happens to all Eurostar passengers and their baggage)

So still double standards when it comes to how the rules are applied to the railway versus road based travel*....

*Though adb968008 has made some interesting observations as to why this might be the case.

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

Does that mean you're not allowed to not have a mobile there?

Or maybe just that if you have a phone with said app on it then you no longer have to carry round a physical ID card.

In other words its a physical ID card or a phone (fully charged up and able to open the required app) is required for compliance with the law.

Also given mobile phones are equipped with security measures like requiring a face scan, a fingerprint or a numerical pass key to be entered before a user can do anything then in actual fact they are a far more secure way of  carrying your ID around!

Thats because if its stolen then (1) the theif will not be able to get access to the ID app and (2) if you have registered your device with your network provider than they can send out a 'kill device' message which immediately turns the device into a worthless paperweight once it has logged onto a mobile phone mast.

If a thief makes off with a physical ID card by contrast there is no way being able to obscure / destroy the information printed on it.

21 hours ago, ian said:

 

So for me it is BOTTOMS - Back on to the old manual system.

 

When I picked up my last prescription I immediately dropped the repeat prescription slip in the box, along with a note explaining why, and will carry on doing it that way. They can have the order cluttering up the pharmacy fridge and reception shelves from now on.

Which is all very well until your repeat prescription is not issued because you have not gone through what in now considered the 'correct approval process'

It would be something of a pryic victory if your refusal to change how you do things only ends up having a negative effect on your health.

14 hours ago, melmerby said:

Which ones?

 

Both

14 hours ago, melmerby said:

 

In fact, which ones have the spare capacity to do that?

Nieither basically  - which is why a mix of Euston, Waterloo, Terminating at Ealing Broadway and of course the usual turnaround at Reading options are being worked on.

I suspect that they will be split by service groups - South Weat of England services may well use Waterloo, Bristol / South Wales services use Euston with the balance that cannot be accomadated spinning at Ealing Broadway / Reading 

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

Double standards ?

 

We used Eurostar last year and we passed through security and French passport control very easily and quickly, just like any international airport with the exception that on Eurostar you can take bottles of liquid with you

 

The return journey was much the same in Paris other than both French and British passport controls

 

If anything we were treated better than we have been treated at airports.

You miss the point.

If you were travelling through the port of Dover or on a Eurotunnel shuttle would you expect the contents of your car to be x-rayed and all persons get out and March through a scanner?

Eurostar is a train NOT a plane, stop treating it like one!

As such the security measures which apply to Eurostar (or any competitor) should totally match those in operation at Dover or Folkestone when they process motor vehicles because (1) the countries connected by both services are identical and (2)  and their occupants because a sane analysis of the threats to life due to terrorism (or indeed the risks of smuggling) will show there is no meaningful difference between the two (in many respects transporting motor vehicles provides even grater opportunities for smuggling).

Foulounoux has highlighted that checks at the likes of Dover / Folkestone are primarily intelligence led - not the lazy and systematic detailed examination of everybody and everything before boarding used by Eurostar - and that is the sort of approach which should have been adopted rather than this ‘strip everyone of everything metal and walk them through airport scanners procedures.

Comparisons with airports (with respect to security needs) are largely invalid - airports deal with flights from a huge number of countries whose risk levels vary widely - very different from a facility which only deals with travel to EU countries (Dover, Folkestone, St Pancras) and can, broadly speaking, assume a certain level of risk applies to all those who pass through the facility and taylor what they do to that narrow passenger base.

And I repeat a bomb going off on a ro-ro ferry could cause just as much loss of life as a bomb set off in the channel tunnel and a car stuffed with drugs will cause much more harm that a person carrying them in their suitcase will…..

3 minutes ago, arran said:

and while everyone digs in their heals the local economy suffers 

Stop making excuses - rules is rules!

Lines have to be drawn somewhere. There is substantial profit to be had from the Jacobite operation so if WCR don't want to lose out on lots of revenue they will find a way..... Its not as if their entire coach fleet consists of Mk1s after all.....

7 minutes ago, Boris said:

I did find WCRCs refusal to fit CET toilets disagreeable, railway folks shouldn't have to be playing in aerosolised poo in 2024.

TOO RIGHT!!!

51 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

so is this about shutting wcrc down, or making them cdl compliant ?

 

It should be about making them compliant - however given there is hard evidence they cannot be trusted to abide by any interim measures the ORR may require then it entirely reasonable to turn round and say "you have had your chance" and ban any unfitted WCR stock from the national network.

There is a saying " your reap what you sow" and the fact WCRs attitude to safety requirements being ignored - particularly with its actions with last Summers Jacobite means they only have themselves to blame for this.

And that is NOT WCR bashing - its simply due process. If there was evidence that Belmond, the folk at Tysley etc had shown similar disregard for the ORRs mitigating measures then I would be calling for their stock to be kicked off the mainline until it was CDL fitted too.

26 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Belmond has been going nearly 50 years, only has 1 rake and is still running.

whats there excuse ?

 

Tyseley is less than 10 years, given they also knew from their conception and a mainline operator, what excuse do they have for not complying back in 2014 ?

 

SRPS also could have complied years ago, as could Rivera etc…

 

truth be known, none of the rolling stock operators have been on the ball here.

If they were then theyd all be 100% done by now.

the difference was wcrc chose to challenge it, they lost but it doesnt open the door for vendettas, they should be falling in line like everyone else, and thus treated like everyone else.

 

The easiest way would be for ORR to blanket set a new final date, no excuses, over riding all other agreements made.. potentially starting from right now… that would be fair, and end this loophole farce that they are all exploiting… the deadlins gone years ago.. they are all using it, some louder and wider than others.

 

bottom line legally the ORR has to treat all equally, without preference or prejudice, even if some are easier or challenging to work with.

As far as I know an ORR inspector has never turned up twice in the space of 3 months and found legally binding agreements were not been met!

The whole point of the ORR issuing derogation is they can have confidence that any conditions the ORR specify will always be complied with. That goes for anything being inspected by the way - be it a food inspector and a restaurant which is repeatedly found to be overrun by rats / mice, a nightclub found routinely chaining up emergency exists or even a TOC who repeatedly fail to fix their depot lighting / remove hazards from authorised walking routes even after the owners have insisted such things will not happen.

Granted the entire charter train industry may not have been progressing as fast as the ORR would have liked with respect to CDL - but if operators can prove 100% compliance with any mitigating measures the ORR insist on then, from an inspectorate / regulation point of view the risks are obviously being controlled / managed properly so -  it follows that requests to defer fitment will have been far easier to accommodate.

And that is the nub of regulation - TRUST! Its impossible for inspectors to be everywhere at once - so their is an implicit requirement that the regulating / inspecting body has to be able to trust those who it works with. People who are complaint and helpful can expect to be trusted and subjected to less scrutiny / restriction than those who cause problems - its as simple as that.

Once a company is shown not just once but twice not complying with the regulations then the regulator is quite within their rights to take a harsher line.

As such WCR have bought this on themselves by their sloppy operating methods - had the ORR inspectors not found any issues with the way the Jacobite was being staffed the first time they visited last year then WCR might well have found the ORR more amenable to a more flexible timeframe. As things stand the ORR have every right to not trust a word that WCR say and that will onl;y change when WCR proves itself worthy of being trusted again! Running to the courts does nothing to change that fundamental truth - if anything it makes it worse.

On 16/03/2024 at 13:34, kevinlms said:

But it can hardly be in Hornby's interest in having failures in their product range. Testing ought to be done straight off the production line and any faults identified and fixed, BEFORE they go into boxes and sent half way around the world.

 

You miss the point - modern manufacturing methods are NOT built around not testing everything which comes off an assembly line.

It instead relies on reams of paperwork (which is supposed to show that the manufacturer has processes in place to check and correct defects themselves before the items leave the factory) and some random sampling of the products when they arrive at their destination.

This is because inspecting everything is labour intensive (thus adds considerable cost to the manufacture of the product) plus risks the possibility of damage during the examination process.

Now obviously the exact percentage of the shipment which is inspected will vary is determined by a number of factors -  the perceived value of the item (or more accurately the profit that will be made from its sale) and crucially whether there have been problems with that manufacturers products in the past being key drivers here.

If the items are from a new supplier then the sampled number might be quite high - if its an established supplier with a good record then the sampling number will be low.

It also needs to be remembered that once a item has been unpackaged for inspection that may mean it cannot be sold as 'new' - particularly if additional assembly is needed, plus the factory who made the item can always try and claim that the defect (e.g. a broken detail part) occurred as a result of clumsy handling during inspection.