The Stationmaster

Which is highly relevant in the case of WCRC and its somewhat poor (to say the least) record of wider lack of compliance with various very basic procedures. I've missed a lot of the preceding pages but irrespective of one's views on risk assessment, various legislation & regulations, the ORR, the Railway Inspectorate, and downright basic railway safety & common sense, the simple fact is that WCRC have shown over the years a continuing cavalier attitude to such things and have come very close to killing people as a result. I don't think the leopard is suddenly about to change its spots and its present actions seem to me to confirm that. They know what they need to do in order to comply and they have (or can afford to borrow) the money they need to do it (after a loss of £923 600 in their FY end March 2021 in the following two years the company made total retained profits of just over £3.5 million; WCRC has plenty of cash and the controlling group has even more). incidentally its book value of its locos and rolling stock is only £2.4 million. Incidentally as far as its coaching stock fleet is concerned it is many years since I passed Carnforth but it used to give a very good impression of siding accommodation for withdrawn, deteriorating, coaches with a large number sitting there quietly rusting away. Are they still there and do they count them in their total fleet to be fitted with CDL?

Remembering back to coverage of it at the time I think it was very much an idea rather than getting anywhere near to any sort of reality. I've a recollection that the idea was presented in a film of some kind but basically using what amounted to cartoon animation to show how it would work - complete with points changing as if by magic to suit the destination of the wagon. I don't know if that film was from the project team who thought up the idea or some part of the media interpreting it to what they thought it would be like I always tended to put it down as yet another of those wild ideas (think EE Type 2/Class 20 with a velcro like coating on the nose end) that emerged from the research folk at Derby in those days and I doubt that it ever really got beyond the 'bright idea' stage as it was a long way from addressing (or even thinking about?) most of the practicalities involved.

The WR standard height above rail level for the red aspect of colour light signal heads mounted on either bracket or gantry structures was 17ft 6". The Leamington bracket picture above was of course erected by the LMR and appears to be the later BR standard style of bracket structure for such situations - the design seems to have been deveopled from a tructure designed by the Southern Region judging by where the earliest examples seem to have appeared. The middle photo shows Leamington South's Up Main Home (right hand doll) and Up Platform Line Home Signals and was altered during the LMR era . The signals in that spot had a fascinating, and in some respects unusual, history. The earlier bracket signal on that site had every appearance - from the spacing of the dolls - to be a splitting (junction) signal but it wasn't - the higher doll, on the right - was the Up Main Line Inner Home while the doll on the left, with arms at a lower elevation, was the Up Platform Line Home Signal; the signal also had centre pivot arms instead of normall full length arms.. Both dolls carried a lower arm distant signal for Leamington South Jcn. The replacement tubular steel structure had both dolls above the platform of the bracket structure and was photographed (see Warwickshire railways site) in that form but with the arms altered to Upper Quadrant by the LMR. I don't know when the original Up Main Home Signal - bracketed from the platform canopy was removed thereby causing the arm applying to become the Up Main the Home Signal. SE's photo shows the structure in what was, I believe, its final state with the arm applying to the Up Platform Line altered to provide better sighting from trains standing under the canopy and for platform staff.

Don't confuse two different things. Their contract allows them access to the network which in turn allows them to bid for paths. Generally (but not always) provided they make a compliant bid into white space on the graph bid would be accepted - but NR is not necessarily bound to accept even a compliant bid. As they are clearly a charter train operator (that is specified in their contract) they have no Grandfather Rights to any paths nor do they have any rights to paths protected (to the extent they would be protected) for a long term customer who is either franchised operator, or an open access operator of timetabled services or a freight operator whose paths are noted in their contract (and even then those protections are not necessarily absolute). As adb put it WCRC as a business is very different from the operator of any sort of regular timetabled service. In the case of The Jacobite they are most likely, I think, to have bid for dated paths only during their season of operation. It is highly debatable if those paths are in any way protected and they are certainly not protected by their original Access Contract - they are clearly noted therein as a charter train operator. And - as already stated - there is also the default clause in their contract and I would regard their seeming inability to provide compliant rolling stock as a default (there could be different views in that respect). Now if I wind it back to the days when I was Deputy Chairman of the Timetabling Sub-Committee in the Access Dispute resolution process this is exactly the sort of case we would have heard. The operator is unable to use the paths - for a variety of reasons - and the infrastructure owner decides to accept a bid which is foul of, or runs right through, one or more of those paths. The operator objects but the infrastructure owner won't budge so the operator's only reciurse (as things were back then) is to submit a case to our committee. Step 1 is for the Secretary to the committee to decide whether or not there is a valid case and on occasion cases were rejected at that stage, with an explanation why that was being done. In this case the Committee would probably hear the appeal and we would consider it on the basis of the Access Contract and the Access Conditions - and it would be rejected for several reasons - 1 The paths are not protected by the Access Contract (they are not specified in it - unless there has been an amendment which has changed that), 2. The operator is in effect in default because he is unable to provide compliant rolling stock and is therefore unable to use the paths he has bid for. 3. Because of the default the infrastructure owner is at liberty - as provided in the Access Conditions (as they stood back then) - to accept bids which foul or time through the paths in question. Things have changed since then and the legal trade (at yet another on-cost to the industry) have now got involved in this process. But the basic facts appear to be unchanged - the paths are not protected by the Access Contract and the operator is in any case unable to use those paths because he is unable (or unwilling) to provide compliant rolling stock.

I was thinking of buying 1,000 shares - a nice round number. So at c.15p - which they were at the time - they would have been cheaper than many r-t-r locos and selling now would be enough to buy a loco plus my original investment back (less fees of course). So ISA rules would make a lot of sense in this situation!!

And there was, alas, the incident where someone nearly fell out. of one because when they opened a toilet door they found that there was no floor inside (not WCRC I hasten to add). As already explained by PhilH the vacuum is not destroyed. In fact what happens when you do destroy the vacuum - by pulling the vacuum release cord - is that the vacuum is destroyed by admitting air to both sides of the piston and the brakes release and cease to work leaving you witha vehicle that has no brakes at all (unless it has a separate handbrake). (As already implied) In some respects the date of expiry of the contract is irrelevant. What matters is what the contract contains and here the question of default, noted above by adb, and various factors mentioned in my earlier post become what matters. Look at adb's most recent about what WCRC operates as then put it into the context of their Access Contract which states they area charter train operator (with, effectively, system wide Access Rights. The WHE (West Highland Extension) they have bid for, and been granted, various paths for the running of charter trains (adb's 'commercial business' approach). What now comes into play is whether or not they are able to provide compliant rolling stock to enable them to make use of their paths - if they can't do that it could perhaps be construed as a default on their part. Thus the paths cease to be valid and would in consequence become white space on the graph. And if there is white space there is nothing to prevent any other operator with a similar Access Contract (they do exist) bidding into that white space provided they own , or have the ability to obtain, compliant rolling stock and suitable traction. They might not be able to use The Jacobite name but they could maybe re-use the earlier 'West Highlander' name (which might still be owned by some residuary part of BR?) but they would run a very similar offering to the market? To my mind it's not so much a question of whether or not the steam hauled operation on the WHE could continue while there is lack of progress and intransigence on the part of WCRC but really a matter of wondering who else could run it instead of WCRC. if the local tourist industry want this sort of train they would, I suggest, be better off spending their time searching out someone else who could do it rather than just moaning about the loss of it.

The share price has only risen because someone (Frasers Group) has been buying shares - that's how the stock market works. But the market also looks at yield which means results from the company's activity producing sufficient income to justify the price paid for shares and the price at which they trade. So Hornby's Trading Statement that should emerge late next month could be a big factor in what happens next. Share price movements in the days before that statement is released might give a clue but that hasn't always worked with Hornby shares. I agree very much with adb in wondering what Ashley is at and why? And let's not forget that Frasers Group is very much into share buy-backs and Hornby has the power from past AGM resolutions to buy back shares (although I doubt they were meant for this!). A while back Hornby shares were so cheap I even considered buying some - if I had I'd now be sitting on a profit (less fees) of over £200. And all these goings on would almost pay for a new Hornby Black 5; maybe Mike Ashley really does offer some uses for railway modellers?

It's long time since I had anything to do with the Access Conditions so things might have changed BUT there was provision fora situation where an operator could not resource its paths for those paths to be used by another operator. The question of payment for the paths was also involved in this and could, and did, make a difference. Thus if an operator was paying for the paths and could demonstrate that they were waiting delivery of the necessary traction and rolling stock then their paths were secure. At present WCRC would seem to not have available compliant rolling stock and might not even have a plan in place to be able to give a date by which they would have such stock. So even if they continue to pay for the paths they might facea problem - a lot depends on what is in their Access Contract (a massive dicument - freely availableon teh 'net for anyone who is interested) and, possibly, whether or not they are paying for unused paths. But if they fail to meet their contract and/or aren't paying then it is possible that NR could reasonably time through those paths for an operator who has got the wherewithal. The Access agreement does make provision for default (on the part of either the operator or the network) and in one place it could be read to mean that non-compliant rolling stock could be covered by such a situation. Incidentally all WCRC's train path requirements are regarded as charter trains

Not quite right there adb. WCRC is a train operating company - just like, for example Hull Trains and the other open access operators. But it largely restricts its business operations to the charter and excursion trains rather than providing a regular timetabled service. 'The Jacobite' is a slight exception to this in that it is a regularly timetabled service, albeit on limited dates etc, rather than a one off excursion or charter type of operation. As a train operating company WCRC - whether they like it or not, or happen to regard regulation and various safety and managerial procedures as bureaucratic or irrelevant - are required to comply with the law of the land the various regulations relating to the safe operation of a railway and/or to the operation of trains on a railway. In that respect they are exactly the same as every other operating company which is running trains in order to convey passengers. Beyond that, like any other open access operator, they work in a different commercial environment from the franchised/contracted by Govt operators of passenger trains services. But that is the only difference between them and such companies as GWR or SWR etc.

I 'have it in' for WCRC for one reason, and only reason - they have long had a reputation of being a bunch of cowbioys when it come to ignoring even the most basic of safety management procedures; Wootton Bassett proved that in the starkest and most frightening of ways. Added to which they seem to think they have some sort of 'special case right' not to do what the law and the regulating authority require of them. I know of several concerns in. the heritage/leisure sector (but not mainline operators) who have had a couple of visits from ORR Inspectors less than 3 months apart. But I think WCRC are probably the only ones who have had three visits in a not much longer timescale than that. Whatever some pf their managers have tried to do to put things right - which has happened since Wootton Bassett - they still seem to give the impression of swinging back towards their old ways; the company is its own worst enemy

Simple questions. Do they know the model railway market and how it works; do they know the slot car market and how it works; do they know the plastic kit market and how it works - and more. In fact do they even know the size of those markets and the spending power in them or how pricing impacts volume impacts sales, and so on? Why has someone like Accurascale been able to offer the sort of prices they do for model locos while other can't (one hint - volume)? Why have some retail commissioners sold more, far more, of some of their models than Hornby manage to sell of some of their hi-fi/mainstream models (one hint - knowing the market)? Can Frasers/Mike Ashley answer those questions I wonder? Frasers could probably do pt retty well on TT120 marketing and sales at this point in the life of the range where there still emphasis on starting with a trainset. Could they sort out the marketing of Railroad - possibly but they needa lot of wider knowledge than they would with TT120. But would they know what hi-fi- loco to develop that would sell in sufficient quantities to keep the price under (or even well under) £200?

I see that Frasers Group have increased their Hornby shareholding from 8.9% to 9.13% (and the share price is up 2p on publication of that information).

If you don't make enough of something, anything, to meet demand then you can't sell what you haven't made. If you make a lot more and sell more you can spread costs over more sales and reduce your selling price - something which Accurascale have grasped as part of its business model. But you have to make the right things, at the right quality etc level, if you want to sell more of them. The problem is picking the right things to make which needs a good understanding of the market or you are really brave and bright enough to create a new market (even in model railways). It has been said time & time again - albeit from varying viewpoints in the hobby and on RMweb - that Hornby needs to get its marketing right but I somehow doubt that Mike Ashley will have much to offer there unless he is a closet expert in such things as model railways and Airfix kit marketing. But the company definitely need help in sorting out sales/ordering processes and logistics so that would be well wprth getting c someone with the right expertise involved.

One point in respect of Castelnau Group. 'Their' Hornby shareholding is actually registered in the name of Phoenix Asset Management who, of course, have the controlling interest in Hornby shareholding. That has been the case for some time and has not changed (or more accurately has not been declared to have changed). How Phoenix manage matters internally lies with them but Castelnau do not , as such, own any Hornby shares according to stock market information. Castelnau is regulated in Guernsey as a closed ended scheme and is described as a 'registered collective investment scheme'. Effectively it would seem that Phoenix are using Castlenau to manage their Hornby shareholding (and maybe place its financial performance on Castelnau's books?). Referring to a comment above regarding Phoenix holding 7% of Sports Direct shares that must go back a long time as the 5% and greater level of ownership in such shares from 2012 and 2013 does not include Phoenix. Frasers Group has been buying up its own shares at a steady pace for at least the past 5 years and is continuing to do so

There is plenty to sell in Hornby. The question is what of it would produce much on disposal and does the value of the brands (other than Hornby) outweigh the present level of return. I would be amazed if Olly Raeburn hasn't already been looking at that as he gets past the initial fire-fighting stage in managing the business and when you link Ashley's name to 'strategy' it surely must mean the same. There is I think already quite a lot there which might be ripe for disposal - Oxford is an obvious one as it was a profitable business although it could also have some value as a brand. Corgi will have more value - as a well known brand - than Oxford and I bet its financials will be under close scrutiny. Various of teh continental model railway brands might have calue and their names are marketable but with numerous financial troubles and failures among continental brands are they really saleable at a price offering a decent return? The really valuable brands are 'the big three' - Hornby, Airfix, and Scalextric - but would it be better to sell them or to licence them out and thus keep some return coming into a much smaller Company with strictly controlled residual running costs? Overall I still think there will be an impact on share price and Ashley interest when the next results are made known in, probably, late April. However it is likely that Ashley already has access to those numbers albeit with a week or two to go before they are finalised. Don't forget that the current bid share price is not far short of 100% higher than it was in the days following the release of the most recent Trading Statement. Either Olly Raeburn has achieved a miracle transformation or the market is currently over-valuing the company as far as its financial situation is concerned and the share price is more in hope than potential anticipation.

The bit that worries me is the asset-stripping reputation of Mr Ashley getting involved in 'strategy' for Hornby. The share price hasn't reacted to the latest announcement which suggests that snmall onvestors don't yer see much in it and phoenix are staying in there. But what will be most telling is when the Group announces its full results but that is still several months away but there is usually a year end 'Trading Statement' published around the end of April. Ashley's involvement will have had little or no impact as far as that statement goes because the company's financial year ends at the end of this month. If the results are good (and various late deliveries of model railway items could have a positive impact on sales the share price might well hold up to something approaching the current level and maybe promises of Ashley tinted 'jam tomorrow' might help. On the ther hand if the results are less than earth shattering (which could happen I suppose) things will be in a rather different ball park and I would put a lot of money on a bet that individual brand results will be getting very close study. Time will tell but we'll be seeing possibly interestng words from Hornby Group within no more tha 6 weeks if they report to their normal timescales.

The paths work without problems so that isn't the trouble. The problem - when it occurs - is if the IET loses its path and presents late at Bedwyn and/or Newbury it can then be hit by the presence of other trains. Provided they start on time the freights generally maintain their running time without problems - unless they are delayed catching up a late running train. Regulating freights up the Stert & Westbury/B&H Extension/B&H is fairly straightforward - providing that a non-stop passenger train hasn't left Taunton a heavier stone train will have a margin from Westbury to Woodborough and even a lighter one wouldn't be able to make Hungerford without hitting the fast passenger train. That is very simple regulating. Newbury is generally of little use for looping Up freights because of the passenger service so the margin really has to be Hungerford to Theale and that depends on Theale loop being available. There isn't then any really usable freight loop in the Up direction during the passenger train running period until Farnham Road (which isn't very long) or Iver. The diveunder at Reading can be used to loop shorter freights or possibly one of the platform lines at Reading depending on what else is around. Pre Reading reconstruction the stone ytrains had to be timed around the passenger service and that hasn't really changed, apart from the complications added by the Liz Line - but if passenger trains are late in the wrong place they might be hit by a freight running in its correct path.. But none of that matters because if the passenger trains are running on time no problem arises.

Twyford West (aka Lands End to the locals in days of yore) on the Up Main is a particularly n bad one and always has been since the introduction of IETs.

But were they adequate for the expected increase in passenger numbers which they would bring ? (They were designed for that, not the passenger numbers already being carried). Their big problem is that while increased frequency was intended to handle the total numbers on the core section of route between Reading and Birmingham that doesn't meet the peak demand - either pre-Covid or now. Some benefit resulted from the 'Covid timetable' which used sets in pairs over that core section but that doesn't always work due to lack of onboard staff to cover two sets on one train and many have in any case now reverted to single set operation (and back to massive overcrowding on that section of route on many trains). From personal observation I think part of XC's problem is the generally very heavy loading on that section with much lighter loading north of New St and lighter - but still good load factor - loading south of Reading. The ideal answer would be to add an additional set to certain of the heaviest loading trains in either direction between Reading and Wolverhampton. (the latter to avoid the congestion at New St) but that would come with a cost in both train and staff resources and achieving ideal balances for the extra set wouldn't be as simple as it might sound. I wonder about the future because I doubt that a 5 car IET would be able to match Voyager sectional running times.

Part of the problem on the B&H (i.e the genuine B&H eastwards from Hungerford) is that if Up trains have dropped the 'right' - i.e. wrong amount of time they will lose their path and suffer further delays. Generally on full diesel power they should not lose time but even then if they get some sort of check they simply do not have the power available to recover from it unlike an HST which could usually snatch back time with a clear run after being hit for a few minutes. Another problem I've noticed - which contributes - is station overtime (not very much at either) at both Tiverton Parkway and Taunton (often added to time lost at St Davids). That simply cannot be regained on the climb to Whiteball so becomes cumulative if another couple of minutes is lost at Taunton. With an engine out things do indeed become dire - hence my experience last year on Down train, of being looped at Tiverton Jcn on a very poorly IET which was losing time hand over fist. And even from Day 1 their power problem was noticeable - exactly one minute lost passing through theSevern Tunnel with a clear run due to lack of poke on diesel - put simply they are under-powered, end of.

Yes - but. The big 'but' is the difference between a turning capability being available and time and resources being available to allow it to be used. That is little different now from the days of the WR HST fleet - the sets have limited overnight time on depot so if a set 'needs' to be turned it either has to go on depot late or come off depot early. That very often won't be possible due to the way depot workload has to be arranged and that is probably little or no different now from the way it was with the HST fleet - there is rarely sufficient time available to do it. There resourcing problem is also an added difficulty. Booking on or off times can be difficult to alter as it will affect rest periods etc, Spare drivers basically don't exist nowadays but even if there is one (or the two you would need at most of those locations in order to save time when reversing) and it relies on suitable line capacity and signalling also being available. For example one leg of a turning on the triangle at Reading requires the train being turned to run over a mile from one of the junctions before it can revers; in the old days you were lucky to be able to turn a tran on that triangle in less than 20 minutes hence it was only done in extremis. The only simple way of turning a train was 'round Greenford' as it only involved a reversal on or off the depot, the rest was simply running without reversal but it still took well over 20 minutes. One big advantage with the HST fleet was that to some extent sets could be worked via a journey reversal going in the opposite direction to the way they had become reversed in the first place. that might be a bit more awkward now as it relies on the train provider putting a set out in a suitable diagram. all dead easy to say but it can be hellish difficult when you are actually trying to find a way of doing it without either incurring a late start or reducing the time a set has available on depot. In reality it boils down to a simple decision - do you run a train on time or do you turn it round and have a late start of 20 minutes or more (assuuming that you have a Driver(s) available to actually turn it? So overall little has changed from HST days because - don't forget - the WR HST fleet had variations in it to suit different routes. But one thing has changed and that is the quality of passenger information on station platforms with both indicators showing train formations (accurately in my experience even at stations in Cornwall) and announcements where that facility is available. Similarly in my experience on-train staff in Cornwall are very good at dealing with the consequences of trains being incorrectly formed and avising passengers of the vehicles they need to alight from. Incidentally if a 2x5 car formation stops at Camborne on the Down Main there should be at least one passenger door, if not two, on the leading set platformed.

The IETs' 'alarming crashes and bangs' when traversing pointwork have been a feature since they first entered traffic (and no doubt before that) but are particularly, and increasingly, a feature of their riding east of Reading on the Main Lines. The telling thing is that the 'crashes and bangs' are not so frequent or noticeable once you get further west - while still travelling at the same sort of speeds - although the overall riding of the trains, measured in passenger comfort terms, is poor compared not only with HSTs but also compared with the Class 387 Electrostars' operated by GWR. While the 387s ride pretty well the present timetable now has them on the Mains east of Dolphin (or West Drayton in some cases) and there are numerous spots where their riding is a long way from good and at times rather alarming. Compared with their riding elsewhere - albeit at 90mph instead of 110 mph - this poor riding seems to be very much linked to track condition and the way in which it has rapidly deteriorated east of Reading since the middle of last year. I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that both the IETs and the Liz Line 345s are 'hard riding' compared with earlier BR designed units. And of course frequencies have increased as well as a result of the addition of Liz Line trains and their frequency forcing the GWR semi-fast Thames Valley trains onto the Mains east of Slough. Clearly track attention and maintenance simply hasn't kept pace with either the increased use of all running lines east of Reading. Add to that the seeming lack of ability of current NR staff to understand and properly rectify the huge increase in the number of wet spot breakdowns in the sub-infrastructure below the top ballast and problems are inevitable.

Depends on the era in which the layout is set. With mechanical points and local Perway and S&T presence plus people available to handsignal etc delays would have been much reduced unless there was some really serious damage. Back in 1978 when I was working in theWest Country we had a point run through by an empty HST set during a major blizzard (Think depth of snow measured in feet - where it hadn't drifted, up to 16 ft deep where it had drifted). The train pushed the points over and fortunately the lever was standing partly reversed and there was no damage visible when the snow finally melted several days later. Other times you could hit major problems but usually fixed within a few hours even when components needed replacing. A lot also depended on the condition of the rodding run and I have seen a point run through with no visible damage to it but very obvious lifting of the rodding run as the force was lost through the rodding run. Very different story with motor worked points where damage is inevitable and often difficult to quickly repair..

Thanks. It was fascinating to see the layout - a very original and clever idea really well executed. And definitely one of those smaller layouts that benefitted from carefully checking every room with an open door in that building as there were some other real gems over there.

While the venue was 'quirky' by what we tend to think of as the norm for local shows it had plenty of free parking, plus an overflow car park, and was easily accessible by car (perhaps not so by public transport?). In numerous respects it is a far better venue than the one they had used for many years in the past which, although more like the 'normal' sort of venue for a local show, always had significant parking problems. And talking to several layout owners they were very happy with the benefits during set-up of the 'individual room' layout as it gave them more space to work than usual. As what has for many years has been the one of the club's local shows (both of which I have regularly attended in the past) I'd definitely not like to see it moved away from their base or from our part of the country. It was very well staffed by universally friendly and helpful club members and it would probably lose that strong local element if it was moved to any distant (from the immediate area) venue. The NEC is presumably massively more expensive than most other venues which would impact on what we thought was excellent value money at this show; it cost a tad less for two of us to get into this show than it did for just me at Warley last year (for various reasons I rarely buy tickets in advance). In more general terms while we do fairly well for local shows within reasonable travelling distance, i.e. less than c.1 hour to get there by car or readily accessible by comfortable public transport without a long journey time, I would hate to lose any more of them following the changes enforced on Wycrail. 'Warley' (as a 'national' club show on a very large scale) and no doubt its successor as a Warners 'National Festival' show are very different from the sort of show most local clubs can organise and afford. The sheer basic costs, organising and staffing effort required, as well as the financial risk and insurance costs etc, are all in a totally different league from those of a local show; as are the resultant ticket prices.