West Somerset Railway General Discussion

A 7F has five axles on the loco, not three (four driving and one carrying). That said, the relationship between loco size and track wear is likely to be far more complex than just looking at axle load in isolation: there will be issues like balancing; the difference between two and three cylinder designs; the impact of leading and trailing wheels (or their absence) to lead through curves etc.

Tom

 

I think what is more "not to broadcast" is the lack of experience on the board.

Three potential causes of broken springs:
1. Manufacturing defect
2. Incorrect installation (including but not limited to weighing)
3. Track

My guess would be track, since the guys at Minehead are pretty competent and I struggle to believe with all the practice they have had that it is down to item 2. Item 1 is pretty much in the hands of choosing a competent supplier, and I am sure they have that.

Is the track issue due to "big chufferitis"? WSR doesnt seem to use excessively large locomotives as a rule. 90 tie bars sounds like rather a lot. I suspect that the issue is simply that any life left in the track and track bed as purchased has been used and renewals are required. This is clearly recognised by the railway as I saw many new rails waiting to go in when I was there in the summer. WSR is far from alone in having to face this issue, but I wonder if the problems are increased by the severity of some of the curves which would put additional stress on springs perhaps weakened by track defects. Note: defect does NOT = unsafe.

 

Like you, I have to be careful not to overstep limited technical knowledge! There is, I know, the issue of "hammer blow" which is the irregular axle loading caused by the need to balance rotating and reciprocating forces in steam locos. As some drawing offices were better at this than others, hammer blows varied greatly between similar sized designs. Diesel and electric locomotives, apart from shunters with coupling rods do not suffer from hammer blows.

My oft stated objection to "big chuffers" on branch lines is not confined to inauthenticity or fuel and overhaul costs. The effect of such machines on stretches of line they would not have been found in the past must be considered. Civil engineers of the past did not impose restrictions just to be difficult but because they were aware, as professionals, of the engineering specification and condition of these routes.

Again, let me stress that these remarks are not specific in relation to the WSR.

PH

 

They're the same engines that have been on the line for years so not the engines 'fault' Are the track gangs smaller nowadays or with the same number of men? And men with experience?

 

The engineer who is conducting the investigation into broken springs was noted doing a track inspection from the DMU last Sunday.

Ian R

 

Just a question. Were "Halls" allowed on the route in GWR/BR days?

PH

 

If indeed the provider of this information to the SR is 'a senior West Somerset Board Member' they should be ashamed of themselves. Much work was done on the permanent way in readiness for the visit of 'Flying Scotsman', including bridge surveys, replacement rails etc. One of the benefits of the FS visit was it generated funds to be invested in the infrastructure.

Regarding the 'dipped rails' (dropped rails presumably) and the 'it rides like a switchback': exagerration of the worst type. It was interesting to hear the views of a member of the FS support team who pronounced the permanent way "to be typical of Heritage Railways they had been on".

Michael Rowe

 

Are you &/or the erstwhile Heritage Committee insistent on genuine GWR signs?
If not, it might be worth getting together with forum member 'breva' & get some repros cast.
While you're at it, count the new Stop, Look & Listen signs along the line................

 

The MHR suffered a spate of broken springs in the mid-80s, immediately after opening the Medstead - Alton section. IIRC, all the steam locos were affected, though not the diesels. The problem was dipped rail joints between the newly-installed track panels on the Alton section - the second-hand track was rather more worn than had been realised. The short-term solution was to change locos at Medstead: steam Alresford - Medstead, diesel Medstead - Alton (huge amount of work in a short space of time for the signalman!) The longer-term solution was "measured packing" by the P-Way gang to correctly align all the joints. They got rather good at that over the following months!

 

That may of course be damning with faint praise!

 

I don't think that was what was reported at the time! I've a feeling that the problem was said to be that the rails were corrugated by previously having electrics running over them and the solution was to replace the rails. IIRCit took about 18 months to do that and until it was achieved that stretch was diesel only as you say.

 

Really?

Does that include:

(1) The greatest number and worst condition of dropped joints and other track defects I have ever known the Railway to have in 38 years of volunteering?

(2) The worlds largest collection of tie bars?

(3) The strange decision to smear the rail HEAD with grease after changing rails which was IMHO the principal cause of Flying Scotsman's adhesion problems?

Let's not talk nonsense about the state of the WSR track.

The WSRA Trustees were refreshingly honest about the problems with 4561 at the AGM last week.

Similar honesty across the Railway will generate respect.

Smoke blown up the world's **** will not.

Robin

 

Now there's a good idea.

@Breva knows where to find me and an indication of price would be helpful. But the WSR management have to wake up to their heritage responsibilities and change direction on insisting on installation of such modern signs in places that no other heritage Railway feels the need to install them.

Robin

 

I have one available for sale...

 

Interesting.

Bearing in mind that the W.S.R. has nearly twice the length of running line compared to eg. KESR, how many tamping and lining machines are based on the railway?

(I know that a tamper is out fairly regularly on the KESR.)

 

Not the right style, I'm afraid.

Robin

 

It needs to as the K.E.S.R. seems to be getting increasingly big choochooesque (there's a word) and this will require more and more track fettling.

PH

 

The other locos appeared to cope well enough.

 

It is difficult, but at least physically possible, to hire coaching stock and not 'easy' or cheap but nevertheless common to hire locomotives but a railway can't 'hire in' track or signalling if there is a problem with what it has! No infrastructure means no railway, a gap in the infrastructure means 2 shorter railways!

Despite the vital part the track, structures, bridges and signalling of any railway plays it in being, err, actually an operational railway, I have heard a number of people who should realise better say such things as 'too much is being spent on the track' or 'why does the civil engineer get first call on money?'

Without operational track, you have a collection of rolling stock and stations, not a Railway!

Locos, coaches, track, structures etc. do tend to have in common that their overall life before being totally worn out is a long period of time and hence not spending on them can be got a way with for a number of years. The bigger the area being considered, the harder it is if 'everything' then needs doing at the same time, both financially and physically.

I did at one time intend to become a Civil Engineer, but it never happened. Hence, I don't really have the necessary appreciation of soil mechanics etc. but have heard and read engineers discussing this exact problem and these are some of the conclusions they drew (hopefully proves was listening to Mr T, honest!)

For many preserved routes, the standard to which the actual track-bed was built would be sufficient for branch line traffic but not significantly greater in most cases. Some line would differ - and the West Somerset may have been upgraded because of summer traffic but from what I have heard on hear, that tended to be hauled by small to medium locomotives beyond Taunton.

I suspect that damage to the actual track-bed, caused by whatever reason, could be a major factor in 'dropped rails' (I presume 'dipped rail joints'). I don't know how much ballast there is under the track, but suspect more may well be advisable for current levels of traffic. The bolted joints are a natural potential point of weakness, which can be reinforced by narrower sleeper spacing at rail joints (indeed, more sleepers per length are a way of allowing greater axle weights), deeper ballast (probably need track removing, bed digging out, probably some suitable membrane laying under the ballast and then all reballasting, track back, top ballast and tamp), reducing the number of joints that could dip by welding every other one and of course ensuring wet beds are dealt with (don't laugh!) and track-bed drainage is good. The affected rails will at least need the dipped part cropping to remove existing damage.

The modern railway spends a lot of time, thought and money on the 'rail/wheel interface' and that is at the heart of this issue. 'Soft' and broken springs mean locos damage the track, poor track (such as dipped joints) means the track damages the springs and no matter the Formula 1 'pit-stop' type capabilities the MPD are no down acquiring for spring changes, lack of locos is bound to result.

What level of spare springs are kept for each loco/loco class? Does the WSR have a readily accessible wheeldrop to (hugely) assist with spring changing?

Steven

 

Are you sure this was done "in house"? I have known this done by a gricer who then found himself a vantage point from which to photograph the "fun".

PH