Bomag

.... taking a vehicle without the owner's consent?

 

Being involved with highway works, I know that only the police may legally move an obstructive vehicle on the public highway.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood,

Engineering Projects Manager,

Cambridge City Council.

And anybody else covered by the TM Act e.g. Traffic Officers; however, FR/WHR staff won't be covered - I hope they have sufficient insurance.

Hornby have recently released the R4435 Mk3 DVT in Intercity Livery. As this is the DVT, does anyone know if they will be issuing a matching locomotive to go with the dummy in due course?

 

What is the logic of releasing this DVT on its own (I think that they have done the same in One and Virgin livery), whilst simultaneously releasing the R2951 pack which includes a matching Class 67 and DVT in Wrexham & Shopshire livery.

 

Does anyone if they will be releasing a matching locomotive in Intercity Livery to go with the DVT?

 

Many thanks.

The W&S DVT only runs with Cl 67s.

The I/C DVT will run with any TDM fitted electric vis 86/1, 86/2, 86/4, 87, 90/0 I think the Cl89 may have run with one. Also Cl 91 and Cl 92 could be controlled by it. Also you could have most ETH desiels of the late 80's to mid 90's dragging on diversions.

Not mentioned before, but equally important: all local NG railways make a significant part of their revenue from "secondary" sales (i.e. non-tickets), in other words: their respective shops. It'll be commercial suicide for the FR to divert large chunks of that income to the WHHR, having invested so heavily in the WHR rebuild.

 

Let me put this loud and clear: the WHHR will not run on the WHR mainline for the foreseeable future for commercial reasons. It doesn't matter how much much much you, the enthusiast, wants it desperately to happen NOW, it simply WON'T!!! Period. Learn to live with it... So don't even bother coming up with the most un-credible plans, the FR isn't listening. For now...

 

If you want the story, subscribe to http://finance.group...p/WelshHighland It's the closest you'll gonna get to the fire (unless you work for FR management that is )

This issue of secondary income was mentioned in a previous post in the thread; also mentioned before (with a degree of agreement) was if there had not been the previous mutual distrust etc the railway could have been run into the WHHR station on a profits sharing system, i.e. WHR would have had a share of the catering and shop profits in recognition of bringing punters in the door - as it is Pont Coesor is hardly a marketing and catering mecca. For the avoidance of doubt I did not return to repeating the original point of the thread as you suggest; my suggestion was the WHR to run on the WHHR until Harbour station is fit for purpose. The argument about abstraction and sales loss is currently rather circular - if you cannot run a full service until the bypass is finished and Harbour station areas is clear for development (and the level crossing can be used without the town coming to even more of a halt) then the throughput of WHR passengers to the shop and cafe at Harbour station is going to be low over the next few years, particularly if the service pattern favours journeys starting from the North.

...once the basic railway is passed it will have limited capacity ( or the one platform at Port actually) for WHR trains if the FR runs a full 3 train service.

 

Equally, there is no room for late running, meaning the possibility of a 'knock on' to other parts of the system is high, hence the step by step approach and see how it goes. We will run the winter trains to HyL, and at half term some trains over the entire route. As the FR is not running due to the bypass bridge work it is a good time to 'experiment', but once the FR reopens in March we have to take care not to affect other services.

 

Only when the cob is widened and a second platform for the WHR built will there be any flexibility in operation, and we have no idea of traffic patterns either...time will tell us.

 

Regards

 

Peter

Peter this not aimed at you - Here's a thought, instead of pitherering around with limited tack layouts, insufficient capacity and the inability to have a robust timetable (to cope with lateness), something which is not just 'happened' but must have been foreseeable for years, would is not have been a better option to run most of the service trains into the WHHR station until Harbour station is sorted out? Given that the work on Pont Croesor station could equally been spent on signalling WHHR we could have had a full service for 2010. If the widening of the Cob needs some of the current highway, work can't really start until the bypass is open!

Irrespective of the WHHR proposal to run to PC, any train service which gives a convenient service from Portmadog to Beddgelert is likely to be attractive to more tourists than the current four hour long round trip on WHR (or a short trip to PC). The £1m question is - are enough extra passengers going to be attracted to take into account the reduction in £30 full line tickets?

But one thing - Beddgelert village appears to have no signs whatsoever to show which direction the station is. Strange? Or does the village not want the railway? (I half remember that there were some objections to the line's rebuilding.)

The £100m question when the rebuilding was a serious proposition was will tourists go from Beddgelert or to the village. AFAIR the majority view was that if the trains were to go from Harbour station (i.e. limited parking) then it was likely to generate traffic from Beddgelert to Porthmadoc. Personally I would have seen the railway as a opportunity to remove most parking in the village and have a park and ride. The upshot of all this is that no signs were to be installed in Beddgelert which could increase the number of people wanting to park. Presumably the assumption is that if you have walk from the station to the village you can find your way back.

Given the original point of the thread, stopping the 64co running on the basis of abstraction, having too many trains for Beddgelert from the south is likely to have the same effect. Running the service from Dinas could be an issue; given the current off peak service there would not be the opportunity to do a round trip from Porthmadog. Even in peak season there would only be a single a.m. departure (diesel). I had assumed that when the numbers were crunched the figures would still be OK when the route was completed and the flows would even out from whole journeys North to South to a variety of flows from both directions.

I used to commute at the weekends Leeds to Peterborough or KX at the time and the acceleration of cl91+HST was better than anything before, or since. The SB departure from Grantham was particularly good compared. The only problem was that the ride SB in the TGS was a bit rough up to about 20mph. Regularly KX to Peterborough was 40 min start pass and 42 start stop. The record for KX to Grantham was just over 56 min start stop, however this was before TPWS and the over speed protector was allegedly desensitised on the Cl 91 + HST to stop them tripping out.

Captain K

You assume that immature is the same as not competent. It does not necessarily follow - there are plenty of organisation who have what one could call 'behaviour traits' but can still effectively put one brick on top of another.

Given that a significant amount of the cash was in grants and it was run by professionals (whether paid or not) , who would likely have worked on the scheme whoever was 'running it', then the WHHR would have got in a similar position to the FR i.e. not quite finished. If fact with the WHHR you would have probably been able to get from Porthmadog to Beddgelert by train by now

And something I agree with Dapol on, it makes life much easier for those who wish to renumber, and we are modellers dont forget... this is not MTCweb (model train collectors web)

 

Andi

I model the complete railway I don't model individual vehicles (which is why I model in N gauge). If I buy a kit I expect to have to do the work. If I buy RTR I expect it to be complete.

It's the ETH jumper socket. The coach will have a cable similar to the one on the RHS of the loco which plugs into it.

I haven't put any parts on yet but I too made the same assumption. Given the limited swing of the bogie I cannot see why it could not have been moulded. But then I think that a RTR loco should have the nameplates fitted, something Dapol disagrees with!

If you were the FR management team would you be happy to see the trains run into the WHHR station to save the costs of crossing the Cambrian? I'm sure they would be more than happy to see all the passengers spend their money in the WHHR shop rather than the FR shop and buy refreshments in the Russell Cafe rather than Spooners?.

 

As has been said elsewhere, the FR is a commercial organisation, a significant employer in the area and it's contribution to the economy of the surrounding area by attracting visitors to both the FR & WHR may surprise you. It was calculated as part of a thesis at Bangor University in 2008 as £9m per annum.

 

The FR operated trains will terminate at Harbour station, there is no economic sense in them going anywhere else. Trains run by the WHHR with permission to operate along any part of the length of the restored WHR will terminate at Tremadog Road, I can't see any other possibility.

 

Martin

I am fully aware of the contribution a significant number of preserved railways have on their own areas. The number of grants to the movement, including the WHR, to improve tourist potential are indicators of this. While the operation of a number of the bigger railways is on commercial lines, apart from a couple, the aim of the organisation is railway preservation not profit. I had not realised the new WHR was now in the latter category.

I think you miss my point that if the FR had historically better relations with the WH64 etc then there would be no differentiation between revenue to WHHR and revenue to FR. The money would have gone to a single railway supported by, and for the benefit of, both societies. The last I heard the Cambrian trust/society have made up why can not WHR/FR?

You really have no idea what you're talking about, haven't you? The whole issue is the collaboration (better: lack there-of) between the FR/WHR and WHHR. There is an agreement from 1998 that has been broken by the WHHR before (failing to build the agreed section to Pont Croesor, then blaming the FR for only getting halfway) and with a operations proposal that didn't even came close to what was agreed in 1998 it was purely logical the FR replied with a firm No. To the proposal, not the WHHR itself!

 

As for the 2nd part: it just happened to be announced today that the push for Port will take place in the next months, aiming for obtaining HMRI approval in Sept. and hopefully a winter timetable this year!! Read on: http://www.isengard.co.uk/#News

If you think this issue is purely related to the interpretation of a single bit of paper from 1998 then you really don't know what you are talking about. This problem was caused by the historical animosity, or just dislike, of the the WH64 group (and successors) by some in the FR set-up - not helped by a reciprocal feeling in some. In most other inter-society disputes this has petered our as the 'awkward squad' has moved on.

Unless somebody can show me the figures I cannot see how the rebuilding the WHR into Harbour station is value for money. Given the constraints on Harbour station, the WHHR station next to the NR station is the more cost effective solution as well as being potentially more accessible. I have seen nothing which would alter my suspicions that the choice was not made on economics alone - and I don't mean the historic justification for choosing harbour station. It may be different if there was going to be significant through running.

As per the starting to run trains to harbour station before the bypass is complete, I can just go on a number of previous comments in print and other postings. While these could have been wild speculation or a convenient issue to justify the delay there did seem to be quite a few of them. Having spent many a happy hour in the last 35 years trying to get into, or out of Portmadoc on the A470, I don't think running through trains its going to be make it easier!

Information isn't so readily available since Ben Fisher's death and the end of his excellent website but I think there is far more to it than the matter of Cae Pawb.

 

First there was (and possibly still is?) the matter of cash availability to carry out the works needed to get the Porthmadog end of the route (excluding Cae Pawb crossing) up to standard. I understand that at one stage arrangements for the main level crossing were still not finally agreed (although - as so often - there seem to be two separate stories about that ), that works at the station had been pushed back because of cash shortage, and that whatever else was happening the signalling needed to be installed. Added to that there are now the bypass works underway.

 

I know there is some sort of separate system development for working the single line sections underway although I don't know to what extent its progress might or might not delay overall works (possibly saving money so work could go ahead sooner? But I'm not at liberty to say what it is as I might possibly have a minor 'external' role in its clearance for use).

 

Cae Pawb has, so I understand it, been (re)designed around the 'mainline' ERTMS installation and would, I presume, therefore be expensive to work any other way. Already some stock moves have returned to road haulage because of the expense of using Cae Pawb (presumably a possession?). But overall from the last truly comprehensive reports of what is happening works wise I have got the strong impression that Cae Pawb is but one (relatively minor) hurdle that has to be jumped.

Most of this cost could be saved by running into the WHHR station at Porthmadog Quite frankly I would rather be travelling from Pothmadog along the WHR than discussing inter-society politics.

It's not just the FR/WHR railway feeling the pinch it seems WAG roads budget is going to be squeezed. It could be that after the prelim work for the bypass is finished the actual construction could be re-phased to later in the contract period (which could be 2014-2016). Given that a lot of discussion has taken place about having to reduce traffic flows on the A470 outside harbour station before timetabled running is permitted it may be that there is plenty of time to find the funds for the final improvements.

I'm not interested in the politics of this but one thing did strike me from the various quotes from the WHHR in which they claim they are not allowed to run to Traeth Mawr even tho' the WHR isn't using it.

 

As that section hasn't yet been passed for passenger train use it seems to me to be playing with (or on?) words to say that they 'aren't allowed to use it'. Obviously they aren't, but then legally they can't - not because the FR/WHR is stopping them but because the railway cannot yet be used for passenger trains.

 

From what is reported on various websites it is clear that a lot of other work has gradually had to follow the track laying in order for the WHR to commission anything for passenger train use. And clearly their volunteer labour and paid staff & resources have been devoted (and apparently heavily committed) to gradually extending their operations, in stages, as far as Pont Croesor.

Although there have been some changes, the railway to Traeth Mawr is as the WHP built it and is effectively fit for passenger use, or at least being brought into use with little effort and certainly less effort than the FR/WH have spent setting up both temporary termini the level crossing. The argument with the Welsh NWTR agency has depleted resources (and may have effected the timetable for the Pont Croesor LC work ) but given the history of the WH64/FR I would believe a suggestion that FR was seeing this as an opportunity to exclude them.

Does anybody know the progress of the Porthmadoc bypass? There was a tree plating exercise in January but completion of the D&B contract is shown as being 2016. Given the economic pressures and the road schemes already cut or delayed it may be some time before the cross town route can be used for passengers.

I can't say I am surprised. I can remember a meeting in Portmadoc in the mid 70's where the FR was refusing some help from the WH64co on the deviation (the new tunnel was still being excavated) just because it was the WH64co.

In a lot of peoples eyes the FR was very underhand with their WH proposals but I though that it was mostly resolved; although I was suspicious of routing the new WH on the very expensive route through town as opposed to the cheap option of going to the WH64co station.

The fact that we are going to have to wait two+ years with trains running short of Harbour station when they had resources to upgrade the run-round at the existing WH Porthmadog station (they have built two temporary station with run-rounds since then) just finished it off.

The above doesn't absolve the WH64co from all blame, but quite frankly the FR should grow up.

In 1937 it would have been the Albert medal (Gold/Bronze) or the CGM. A quick google does not produce anything obvious.

I just received my IC 86 - nice loco but looks bereft without name plates. Does anybody know who does 'Lancashire Witch' nameplates? It was bad enough with the Cl 67s having put the nameplates on yourself but at least they were provided!

I couldn't really justify a powered version, but if they were to bring out a dummy in INTERCITY, I'd get one for a Sunday drag away from the wires.

 

Probably unlikely that version would appear as a dummy though, more likely to be RF or FL, if they were to produce a dummy.

You could use a powered 86 with a dummy 67 or 66. That's what I got my unpowered 67 for.

I used to be based in the North-West and used the Clansman a few times - the 1986 variant was probably the best Clansman service.

 

In terms of train operations, on the down, the full train ran to Carstairs, where it was split.

 

Then Inverness portion would be worked forward by the 87 which had brought the train from Euston, as far as Mossend, where a (usually IS-allocated) 47 would take over.

 

Back at Carstairs, another AC electric (whatever happened to be available at Carstairs) would attach to the front TSO of the Glasgow portion, and work it forward to Glasgow Central.

 

The 87 which had been released from the Inverness portion at Mossend would then work forward light engine to Glasgow Central, and then attach to the return Glasgow portion of up the Clansman to work it back to London.

 

The up Inverness portion, having shed the RMB (and occasional BG) at Perth, would be diesel worked through to Carstairs with no traction change happening, and would arrive in advance of the portion from Glasgow. The 47 would run round to be on the North end and then shunt the train clear of the platform, into the up siding used for attaching portions (so a bit like an Edinburgh portion, in that respect).

 

The portion ex-Glasgow would arrive in the platform with the 87 at the head. The 47 would then propel the Inverness portion onto the back of the Glasgow portion in the platform, before detatching, then the 87 would take the full consist back to Euston.

 

Hope people found this useful.

 

Mike

In February 1987 I used one of the student flat rate saver deals to do the whole Euston to Inverness trip one Saturday. I cannot read the date in my notebooks but it was just after a gale and the train was diverted via Northampton and Bescot as the wires were down. We were so late that the stock split was undertaken at Motherwell - the southbound stock had already arrived. The 47/4 (probably 593 Galloway Princess) was swapped at the station rather than at Mossend. The rear portion was going straight back to Euston - Glasgow passengers had to use the local service!

After attaching the RMB at Perth and an extend wait at Kingcraig we were cutting it close for the SB sleeper (when we had Saturday night sleepers) - luckily we had the rostered guard and driver of sleeper!

Does anybody know if the BFOs were delivered in Executive or Swallow livery?