Bomag

2 hours ago, markw said:

 

M53234 typo may be FO M3234 ?

 

 

M53234 was a LMR BS from Lot 30093. M3234 was a Mk2e FO. M53234 was renumbered late 56 to early 57 wd 1/64 sold to MOD Longmoor and was coach 3034 until 1968

31 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

Is there any particular reason why the BR liveried Parrot wagon is more expensive than the other two?

It has a packet of separate bolsters.

5 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

For me a lot will depend on if mask wearing becomes compulsory post vaccination as is being suggested by informed leakers, particularly in the winter months.

I would suggest that while there are many leakers, how many of them are informed is another matter. It comes down to transmission rates after vaccination, there is no point putting in control measures which give an advantage to more transmissible or more virulent variants if letting an endemic version circulate isn't going to lead to to may hospitalisations (as with a normal flu year) . It's much better to push for more effective behaviours so having sanitizers and much better loos/hand washing at exhibitions plus making the public stop thinking you are shirking if you have a sniffle and shy off, will be as effective - and with a wider range of lurgy.

I comes down to how many people are prepared to go to Exhibitions if there are still restrictions, for me social distancing would not impact on my enjoyment, masks would be a non-starter. Others have different drivers, so managers would have to weigh up what puts off the least potential attendees (and in terms of trade puts off potential spending power). 

4 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

Surely these Mk2-ish coaches were air-conditioned from new?  Lack of opening windows certainly suggests this.  

 

I recall there was a Liverpool Pullman in the 70s that was half and half Pullman and standard stock - the latter must have been non-aircon due to the vacuum brakes.  

Definitely the Mk2 Pullmans were air-con from the start. I think they used a early, very basic, version of the Stones system which would only work with ac electrics (presumably the variation in supply from a diesel would trip them out). After they were replaced on the normal Pullman services and were on Charter services they were air braked (when named after lakes) and later on I believe the a/c system was modified to work with alternator fitted diesel ETH systems (in effect mainstream 47/4s).

The references to the Mk1 catering coaches may help with clarification.

RB had limited body changes when refurbished to RBR, unless you are really picky then you can use a RB/RBR without a problem. They always had a buffet counter. 17xx vehicles were riddled with asbestos so were withdrawn drawing the 80's whereas the 16xx lasted in bulk until displaced by RFMs

RBK/RBR  ex RFs  1618-1643 and 1773-1780 lasted until 1981-82 but are unlike anything RTR

RBR (exRU), 19xx, were the ones built without a buffet and the RTR model needs significant work. Some RU already had buffet counters added, either as a RUB or RBs. Only 4 RUB are reported to have air brakes and none were converted to RBR. 17 of the 18 RBs were converted to RBR along with 5 RU 1944-1948. Only these 5 had buffet counters reported as being added when covered to RBR.

RK only 3 are listed as being air braked and had gone by September 1980.

RKB (full kitchen with buffet), 15xx, were much more common on the WCML with 7 lasting long enough to receive Intercity executive livery.

As mentioned the RUB (10001-10028) are similar, but not the same as ,TRUB (they have the single roof ventilator as HST stock rather than the three on FO/TSO). Irrespective of minor body /underframe issues the red stripe is much shallower on the RUB compared to TRUB.  RUBs were reclassified as RFB in 1986, I have not seen any photo with them as a RFB in blue grey (someone will now produce one!).

As alluded to above there was a very much mix and match use of Mk2f/Mk3a in the early 1980's. If you can see the Michael Palin Great Railway journey from 1980 the first section has got some great footage of WCML stock. Please ignore that fact he was at Rainhill in May, behind Flying Scotsmen in June (Man Vic to York), NYMR in the Spring (the daffs are out) and Edinburgh in August. It was only in the mid 1980's did the Mk3s get increasingly allocated to only Willesden Brent and sets were Mk3a or Mk2f for the day coaches.

22 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

I'm surprised the bogie under 9708 hasn't got guard irons .......... these seem to be surplus to requirements !

 

 

The bogie on 9708 is on the inner end, not the driving end.

1 hour ago, Trog said:

There were still long lengths of hardwood Pan11 timber sleepers on the south end of the WCML mainly on the fast lines into the late 1980's. There are still shorter sections over shallow under bridges and through several  of the tunnels including both lines at Crick to this day.

Which is why I mentioned formation depth, I was told that there were a number of areas on the WCML which needed a proper blanket renewal to get a decent depth and full concrete sleepers. Obviously the LMR were constantly firefighting the P-way damage from the Class 86 in the 80's to the point of offloading a load of them to us on the GEML. Still it kept us with a nice load of Saturday night jobs in 89/90 to try and fixed the damage - not that I got that many. Do you need both a MS1 and a PTO on a simple stressing job? We tried to have concrete on the few tunnels without slab track just minimise movement.

It could be any of the three tunnels on the Northampton loop (the others being Watford Lodge and Crick) which seem have the same design of buttress and wing wall. Also the track has wooden sleepers - while they may be in use due to lack of formation depth, I recall all the fast/direct lines on the south end of WCML were on concrete by then. I have no idea of what was on the Northampton loop but it would not surprise me if most of it was on wood.

7 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

 

There are catering vehicles. 

 

W7, W1011 and W1008 are all restaurant cars of various layouts. 

And also being late 1956 the list would unlikely to include any RB, RU or RMB. I think at that time the WR had 8 Mk1 kitchen cars (6 RFs and 2 RKs)

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Being pedantic those are formed into HST sets and this thread is about loco hauled Mk3s

 

(yes I know there have been some conversions over the years from one to the other but the point is a Mk3 cannot be both due to the different electrical system used within a HST set).                                                                                           

The quote was that no loco hauled Mk3 ever made it to Cross-country; while accurate in itself was not fully correct. As far as I am aware the Mk3a still have the original electrical systems, they have the 3 way jumpers and an additional module to covert 415c ac it to standard ETH. There are some significant differences between Mk3a FOs/TSOs and Mk3, you cannot just swap the plugs.

On 21/02/2021 at 11:09, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Correct, no loco hauled Mk3 stock ever made it onto Cross-Country apart from summer Saturday "hire ins". When the Mk3's were displaced on WCML by the Pendolinos they mostly went to Anglia, with smaller quantities ending up in other roles such as Wrexham & Shopshire, charter rakes, scratch rakes like the North Berwick 90's and conversion to HST trailers. Before the WCML Mk3's were released XC had the full fleet of Voyagers in service.

Being pedantic AXC has about 16 Mk3a in service. 

The BFO had a much bigger guards/van space than the TGS

The TGS has 7 full size windows then a normal pillar to a small window, a van space and the door and a 1/3rd .

The BFO has 6 full size windows a wider pillar than normal, a full width window the van space and the door and a 1/3rd.

The BFO, being a MK3b has integral tail lights whereas the TGS is plain. There is also some differences in the underframe modules.

The roof should be the same.

Recently an extra window has been added to the van space in at least 17173.

There are several threads on the BFO, they were originally planned to test 125mph running for ECML hauled stock with the Class 89. When this was swapped for the 140mph Mk4 and 91s they were orphaned but then seen as solving a problem with the 1st only Manchester Pullman (and advertised as being built for it). Due to the delays in construction this became irrelevant as the MP went dual class. The were used as the only brake vehicle in the Glasgow portion of the 1986/87 Clansman, otherwise they were used as extra FO's. Generally guards tended to use these as opposed to any NHA BG tacked on the end as the ride was better - it only stirred the tea rather than spill it.

8 hours ago, Wolf27 said:

Out of curiosity, which 86/2 was the last to carry standard BR blue?

 

cheers

 

Shane

86211 was withdrawn in BR Blue. According to P5 86205 was the last in BR blue, painted to IC Swallow in 1991

13 hours ago, Ramblin Rich said:

Certainly remember Rob going onto Chelfham ('granted rare access' again) and him or someone else doing the L&B and cliff railway recently. 

I sometimes wonder if the various programs have to negotiate about who's going where to avoid clashes!

I do enjoy Tim's shows very much, just the right combination of knowledge and enthusiasm, plus getting to see some real gems I've not heard if before. I loved the underground station in Leipzig with the thousands of light bricks!

 

The cross over with walking lost railways reminded me of the story of Ystad Station in Sweden when the were filing the Swedish Wallander at one end of the Platform at the same time as they filming the Kenneth Branagh version at the other end.

As a side note, as a Structural Engineer by qualification the casual use of 'outstanding architecture' where really 'outstanding engineering' is more apt is a minor quibble. However, the distraction of Tim's scarf being modded on the District line seat covering move it all on!

7 hours ago, ardbealach said:

Sorry Bomag, but I cannot see South West Scotland gaining your perceived economic benefits with an upgrade of the A75 constructed principally to carry artic-wagon loads of goods to and from Ireland, unless the locals find employment in a series of truck stops and coffee shops on the route.   The current Birkenhead - Belfast ferry with its timings do give the wagon drivers their regulatory breaks from driving when they are on board.

 

I am certain the opening of the Port Road is even further away - even the principal towns in the area were branch lines miles off the main route.

 

Without being impolite, may I ask if you have knowledge of the geography of Galloway and south west Scotland?  It has always been an economically deprived area - even the Whithorn Branch lost its passenger traffic within a couple of years of nationalisation, the government of the day back then seeing little financial benefit from a sparse population.    [Alisdair]

 

 

 

 

 

  

That is not what I said, Galloway will receive very little direct benefit from upgrading the A75, when I did a review of the 2+1 option paper for it, the main benefit was filtering HGV/light traffic off the ferries going eastbound and the general increase in overtaking opportunities going west bound. This meant the eastbound 2+1 sections needed to be longer but weighted to the Stranraer end but the westbound ones needed to be shorter and more evenly spaced (harmonising Scotland's national speed limits with those in the rest of GB would help) . Even with a full D4M going to Glasgow or the border the journey times are too great (2hrs+) to be influenced the the Glasgow City region or Carlisle.  However, if you had a 45min to 1 hour commute to Belfast then the area around Stranraer to perhaps as far east as Newton Stewart would be in the outer orbit of the Belfast City region. As I said this is not the primary aim of the project but be a side effect.

The partial problem in this thread is that the link is considered as a railway project. For those of us who work in other transport or infrastructure areas railway projects redefine the laws of time, space and engineering. Having to deal with HS2 a couple times a month is about my limit.

4 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I've highlighted a couple of your (well made) points but therein lies two problems.  There was already development in Malmo; 230k is a big place.  Unfortunately the population of the whole of Dumfries and Galloway is only about 150k (it has one of the lowest population density counties/regions in Britain).  Also unfiortunately, you won't get a 22-mile under sea tunnel for £6Bn.  £20Bn would be more realistic.

Even Ms Sturgeon doesn't think this is a sensible way to spend £20Bn in Scotland, which has a good record on rail expenditure.

Sorry I missed a '1' of the value, whether the £16b would cover it is uncertain. On the evidence from some of the alpine tunnels one you get past 5km the tunnelling costs as a percentage of the total cost (safety and operational systems etc) reduces unless you find some dodgy geology.  The population in Galloway is depressed for several reasons, the fact that the population is much less that Skane is less important than the potentially much greater %age increase in economic activity a fixed link could bring to the area than the Oresund link did. Although given that the project is a UK government proposal and not a Scottish Government one, economic development in Galloway is going to be less important than incentivising the continued cohesion of the UK.

There is another, much more important, benefit of having a fixed link. You could have a much better remake of The Bridge than you got with Sky's The Tunnel. I would suggest Saga Noren be played Saoirse-Monica Jackson or Jamie-Lee O'Donnell from Derry Girls. Given the first episode of The Bridge had half a local female politician placed at the border, which first minister would it be? 

2 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Does that £6-20Bn include properly connecting Stranraer to somewhere of consequence? I doubt such a project could ever be justified by just making that corner of Scotland into a distant suburb of Belfast. So if it's going to be a serious rail link then the existing line to Ayr and Glasgow isn't going to cut it. And if not then the roads will need to be dual carriageways at least.

As a UK project, connections to Glasgow would not be a priority. The capacity of of the A75 to Gretna is sufficient for the increase in freight if you flatten out the current variations in flow. Reinstating the port road would be nice but as with the channel tunnel moving lorries would be the main target with getting movement between SW Scotland and NI being secondary.  One of the current changes being put through is the ability of the UK government to put in infrastructure projects in the devolved administration; why do you think this is being enacted - other than the M4 Newport relief road (which is much less likely) this is the reason. With current discount and interest rates what is practicable covers a whole lot more than what people have previously thought. We just got a whole load of extra cash for RP 2020-2025, quite a bit of it from rail, as a number of 'marginal' schemes have become go-ers.

15 hours ago, ardbealach said:

The Denmark to Malmo bridge tunnel link makes a regular appearance in this posting as a comparison to the thoughts on the Irish and Scottish link.  Having travelled by train from Copenhagen to Malmo, it certainly is an engineering masterpiece.  And like the other Danish tunnel projects in the pipeline - pardon the pun - they make good economic sense.  The Irish link would only make sense if say there was a large urban community like Glasgow located at say around Dumfries with a fast rail link to the WCML and the south. Like Malmo to DK it would then be an economic two way route benefitting both communities living in one country and working on the other.  But the reality is that in every direction of travel for the best part of 2 hours from Stranraer is nothing but moorland.  Why was the Port Road only ever a single line with passing places and certainly not economic to operate?  It only came into being because of the combined resources of the LNWR MR CR and the Sou West chasing the Irish traffic.  I am sure the LNWR had a better return on its Holyhead route.  Alisdair

You miss the point that there does not need to be a large conurbation waiting to travel to NI. You will get development in Galloway from NI, instead of being the 2 hours from anywhere of note in GB  Stranraer would be 45min from Belfast. Malmo went from 230k before the crossing to 330k now, most of that is generated by traffic to / from Denmark and not the rest of Sweden. I doubt there would be too great a passenger demand from either Glasgow or England or at least more than a single line would carry, but it may create enough enough demand to reinstate the port road.  Historically economic activity in NI has been depressed from what it could/should be by the cross Channel transport costs and delays. Assuming a £16b price tag, you would only need to increase NI net trade by 5% for it to pay over about 20 years (depending on interest rates used for the number crunching); currently the government can borrow at very low rates - given how much it's spending on COVID the extra economic activity it can generate from something like this is moving into the affordable bracket as well as any potential political/community benefits.

The Holyhead route was historically the most important as it took trade/post/politicians to Dublin, with Belfast mainly being a counterweight to Dublin rather than having mainly a direct connection with GB. From partition NI policy was mainly governed by its internal situation. A fixed link is one way to resolve some these factors.

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The whole idea of this link, bridge or tunnel, is crackers. A better ferry service,subsidised if needs be, is a good one. It will help the economies of both Scotland and Ireland to grow so whats not to like about ferries?

Well its a ferry and for many that's enough to look for an alternative. A 30 mile tunnel may be boring but it avoids bobbing up and down.

If you haven't  had the opportunity to try the Denmark to Sweden link then you may have missed how it makes a trip as ordinary as it would lets say going from Belfast to Lurgan.  Just as it has made Malmo a satellite of Copenhagen a fixed crossing would make Galloway an extension of the Belfast City Region. Depending on the route, if it ended up in the top of the Ards peninsular then it could be integrated with putting Newtonards etc back on the rail network. 

The amount of moaning and winging is incredible, if you think this is a 'political' project look at some of the road tunnels in Norway where the usage in in 100's of cars a day.

If I was looking at a tunnel to Ireland I would go immersed tube from Holyhead to Malahide as a first option, but a bored/blasted tunnel Galloway to Larne or Ards is perfectly doable in engineering terms. The benefit would also be to stop Galloway being so difficult to get to, their problem is that they are not in the SNP's heartland which is why the A9 is being fully dualled and the A75 isn't.

While it may not have been used on the section south of East Grinstead FB rail was common fro the 1950's

On 29/01/2021 at 07:03, Grizz said:

Just a couple of shots of Blackmore Vale in the dock road at the Park.

 

 

 

Would be nice to see it back in traffic once again. Maybe in something other than Southern Green, which we don’t have any matching coaches. Maybe in BR lined green with either early or late emblems. Bound to wind a few people up with that dangerous and seditious opinion,....god forbid anything is allowed to be changed. 

I don't think people are adverse to change but repainting it into BR green is not not exactly novel. In the 80's except for Standards it was rare to see a loco in BR green now it's rare to see anything in other than BR liveries - for those of us who grew up in the  70's and 80's big 4 liveries on kettles was a nice antidote to almsot uniform banger blue on BR. Now its the other way round.

9 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

 

Thanks. I misunderstood your comment

 

as meaning no depot allocations, just sector codes.

That Shirley would have been 'P5 had sector codes only from 1988'; as I am dyslexic I sometimes have difficulties with other's use of English.

1 minute ago, brushman47544 said:

 

I only have access to a 1996 P5 Combine, so a bit late. But it does include depot allocations, so I wonder how many years they were omitted? Not many I would think. That 1996 version lists some Mk2e as IWR DY (Derby) and some non WR ones as PC (Polmadie)

P5 combined always had depot allocations for coaches from when BR changed from regional allocations (1984ish). It was sector codes that were introduced in 1988.

4 hours ago, 125_driver said:

Sorry to drag up an old thread but I'm trying to establish whether in the late 80s any XC mk2s were allocated to WR depots. From this thread it is clear that by 1990 the xc mk2s were allocated "up north" but does anyone who maybe has a platform 5 book or knowledge of the time know if the western had any MK2 IC stock around 1987 to 1990??

Thanks...

 P5 only had sector codes from 1988. There were no ICCX allocated Mk2 aircons at WR depots in 1988. Looking at ICCX Mk2e stock in 1988 there were several which had been allocated to CF and PZ in 1987 (about 4 or 5 sets). However, there was quite a significant change in depots for ICCX, IWCX and IWRX coaches at the same time so there is no indication the the CF and PZ allocated stock in 1987 were used on Cross Country services.