The Lickey Rambler 7/11/15

My God. This has been a bad year. In fact it's been a very bad year. SPAD's, locomotive failures, gauging issues and yet ironically, very few cancellation due to fire risk. If this hobby doesn't sting you one way, it will another way. People are saying that 2016 has to be better. Well, it could hardly be worse. It feels like, to use an aircraft analogy, that mainline steam is "spiralling out of control" and heading for a "stall". It's going to take one hell of an effort to get the "nose up" once again, and onwards and upwards to a brighter future.

 

Depends if it is an upwards or downwards spiral I suppose???

 

RTT use Network Rail information...

 

does anyone know if there is anything wrong with the other pannier? if it still has a mainline ticket and mechanically fit why wasn't it swapped with the Hall.

 

Is Bromsgrove station due to be resited, as part of electrification? That would seem a possible OOG scenario right from the start, if closer platforms is to be the new standard. Better run steam up the Lickey with anything that fits, while it is still possible.

 

I believe it's being resited where the current good loop is south of the station.

I do firmly believe a great deal of these "out of gauge" incidents are paper only, in that the loco physically does fit, but has to be treated as if it doesn't because either the paperwork has lasped, the structure gauging train hasn't made a pass for some time or a combination, certainly with the Blanket restriction on the Heart of Wales line a while back due to it not beiung tested, it does rather give the impression the gauging team at NR is doing a rather poorer job this year, perhaps as a result of increased workload with the GWML wiring, but then again, electrification was hardly a susprise and an upturn in workload should have been forseen.

 

True, it just suggest to me if there's an element of doubt in that the route hasn't been tested enough to be sure, the is the current gauging process fit for purpose ?, a loco should either fit or not fit, not be "we're not sure so we'll say no".

 

Which would have saved the Betton Grange project a great deal of effort!

I've been looking at old drawing registers for something else, and saw some entries that suggest the GWR adopted a new loading gauge at the time the outside cylinder standards were introduced. Realistically the broad gauge could have had next to nothing to do with the GWR's chosen loading gauge as regards cylinder clearance because the rail to platform dimensions were much the same in order for mixed gauge to work, and in any case so much of the GWRs mileage was built to the narrow gauge anyway.

 

Moved to the south of the current one and expanded to 4 platforms. With electrification, the cross-city services that currently terminate at Barnt Green will be extend to Bromsgrove.

 

I guess the "nose up reference" was wrong because the priority when a plane stalls, is to get the nose down quickly in a recovery mode. A deep stall in 1972 downed a Trident aircraft over Staines killing more than 100 souls having hit the ground just off the A30.

 

The project is well underway and you can study the full drawings online. Looks wonderful compared with the old station and I can remember when that had only one platform with down trains having to cross over to the up line to call.

 

That is true. BUT just because it's in the system, it does not mean they are the final or accepted times.

Take this instance - RTT was showing times that we definitely had not accepted.....so the lesson is thus: if you want the accurate information, ask the promoter!

 

Nothing operationally wrong with the other pannier. It was not viable for this train.

 

Don't the non Redditch terminators turn back at Longbridge ?, been a while since I've travelled on the X City South

 

Thanks Ben.

 

In the case of VT, yes, though sometimes the answer may be "We don't know yet". At least one of the other promoters has a reputation for publishing inaccurate information.

 

The GWR used exactly the same specified dimensions for platform offset to nearest rail, as the current Network Rail standard (28 3/4 ins / 730mm), it's just that the GWR paid a lot more attention to ensuring that platforms and track remained at the set dimension rather than wandering by anything up to 60mm or so. A Hall (or a Grange) had something over 3 1/4 inches of clearance on a properly located platform so it does make you wonder when NR says that they are foul of platforms!

 

Makes me wonder why ORR has not got involved if the replacement of track, or track drift, is at such a level, that NR now use it as an excuse to flag routes as unsuitable.

The fact that contractors are being paid, jobs are being signed off as satisfactory, makes you wonder.....

Simply put, its removal by stealth......