Project Wareham

This outside observer notes that:

1. Carriage overhauls are not known for being cheap, and the overhaul is of 4 vehicles for allpurposes, not just locomotive haulage
2. That is a given, but value for money is not necessarily the same as lowest cost
3. Hiring in has already been observed to have cost significant sums that are unsustainable

I work professionally on projects ; they have a nasty habit of coming up with surprises no matter how well planned and considered. Questions raised after the event that use the eventual outcome to question the decision making process are rarely helpful as to get a meaningful answer two separate sets of questions are required. The first is about how decisions were made when taken, and with what information; the second is about how reality did (or didn't) conform to the assumptions made at the outset.

 

Nobody had needed to order brand new wheelsets before Swanage, because there were spare wheelsets, spare bearings and new tyres available instead.

SR appealed to other lines for these wheelsets during the overhaul to solve their problem at a sensible price, but they were given the cold shoulder by several owners I spoke to about it, primarily because SR had treated the movement badly in the past regarding cooperation with a separate issue which is not relevent here. Sadly it was a case of what goes around comes around, and (if the consensus that a reasonable chunk of the £1m was indeed spent on new wheelsets) financially they paid dearly for it.

Sent from my moto g(8) power using Tapatalk

 

That's not really true. Many other overhauls have matched or even surpassed what the SR 117/121 has received. They are the first to receive brand new wheelsets, and may be the first to have OTMR(?) but all the other aspects of the overhaul have been done before to other units.

I don't want to sound like I'm knocking Eastleigh, I'm not, they've done a good overhaul on the 117. But it's mildly insulting to the rest of the movement to state that nobody has done overhaul work anything close to the SR 117.

Sent from my moto g(8) power using Tapatalk

 

While it was no more than looking across the platform at Bewdley, the SVR DMU looked superb and I am sure that a large amount of work must have gone into it

 

I'm sure there have been many marvellous DMU overhauls for heritage line usage.
Mechanically, were any up to current main line standards however? These standards appear to be a step change above those existing at the time they were built.
Main line acceptable tyres can now, apparently, only be sourced from one supplier is South Africa - with long 'lead times'.
I also understand that the bearings needing replacement could only be sourced from the USA (as they still manufacture parts to Imperial measurements) whereas similar items from the UK branch of the company [who manufactured the original bearings] would now be to metric measurements so not acceptable for main line use. These also incurred long lead times.
I seem to recall some (all?) of the axles needed renewal too, due to ultrasonic flaws, but not sure from where these were sourced.

 

If the axles were being replaced, surely it would have made sense to modify the wheelset assembly to accept the easily available metric bearings?
You mention "metric measurements so not acceptable for main line use" can you explain why metric dimensions would not be acceptable on the mainline? I would've thought most rolling stock built in the last 20 years would be built to metric dimensions.

 

I imagine it’s that metric dimension bearings aren’t to the original specification. They may be equal or even better, but if they’re not as originally fitted, they would be a modification.

 

It would only make sense if you replaced all of the axles, otherwise you'd end up with a mix of metric and imperial bearings. And like @Jupiter says, the new bearings won't be to the same spec as there originals, so they may need special approval before use, different maintenance regime, extra documentation, etc. Understandably, wheel and bearing maintenance is a major thing for TOCs, hence regular non-destructive testing of axles and bearing exams. The last thing you want is a seized or broken wheelset at speed.

 

That may be true for tyres for the large-diameter driving wheels of steam locos, but surely not for the smaller wheels of ordinary rolling stock. Don't railways all over the world need new tyres by the thousand?

 

I think these days, aren’t modern wheelsets just solid discs that can be turned, rather than separate wheels and tyres? I think scrapping the whole lot when worn to the limit is cheaper than re-tyring.

Tom

 

Way different to the 'big railway' of course, but I believe the recreated 'Small England' Mountaineer features such 'discs', intended to be replaced by tyres as and when wear dictates..

 

Not just that, I believe modern wheels are designed and made to be readily removed from their axles for replacement if necessary. I believe they can be removed using just compressed air - presumably there is some kind of locking device to secure them in place!

 

I do not have knowledge of the rail industry certification requirements, but based on the length of time it takes in this country to commission the off the shelf stock in use elsewhere (loading gauge differences accepted) I imagine there are a myriad of rules and regulations.
Nobody to my knowledge has taken first generation DMU's and reintroduced them to the National Network. Bubble cars may have been in use on Chiltern until a few years back but they were never actually stood down so safety mods excepted I suspected they kept on with original approvals. Yes it may be reduced speed between Wareham and Worgret (plus Wool for emergency diversions?) but I doubt that really matters to NR.
Based on my career in aviation, procuring aircraft equipment it would be fine (as long as you can actually still get it) to keep buying the OEM equipment. But once you want to change a specification you need to recertify something, that needs the OEM or someone else to not only pick up the tab but be we willing to do it. Well as far as I know the OEM no longer exists, so who picks up the tab, and who has the design approval to certify the changes?
Then you have the whole issue of in generic terms "grandfather rights". As an aviation example the requirement for an aircraft seat (at least 10 years ago when I retired) was it has to pass a 16G crash test, although there was talk of increasing this to over 20G. Earlier aircraft (referred to as classic these days) were originally fitted with 9G seats, and it was fine to keep flying these until you wanted to replace them with something else. Then you still had to fit a 16G seat as the industry had gone over to that, even though the aircraft floor was only 9G. (Nobody has ever proved of course in a real accident the human body can survive a 16G impact with just a lap strap as the only restraint).
So relate this to wheelsets which probably have similar issues, maybe not so great, but zero volume to interest any supplier.
I imaging trying to support a mainline gen 1 DMU to be akin to trying to support Concorde in the last years before retirement or a DC3 today. Unlike aviation I am unaware of a large industry existing in end equipment disassembly and parts reuse of railway rolling stock.
I would love to know the difficulties from a procurement perspective, but it is a railway issue, nothing to do with me or anyone else.

 

There used to be a major industry existing in end equipment disassembly and parts reuse of railway rolling stock - they were called preservationists! Nowadays there's much less useful to be recovered from modern stock that is applicable to what the heritage railways need, and slowly a cottage industry is growing in the supply of new items, such as pressings for body repairs. It will grow, for it has to if we are to keep older rolling stock running on.

 

What emergency diversion? Why would the Swanage train want to or need to go to Wool?
Basically, the Swanage train joins the down main line at Worgret Jn, The points at Worgret Jn are set towards Norden. The train comes to a stand at Wareham
Passengers detrain, Passengers for Swanage join, The driver changes ends, The signal at the country end of Wareham clears to a proceed aspect.
When station dwell time is complete the guard gives right away to the driver and the train departs.
At least that's how it worked in 2017.

 

Absolutely (but not with a Class 117 or 121.)

 

The WCRC drivers had to sign to Wool in case of points failure at Worgret so I assume that the same would apply now. Otherwise the DMU would jam up SWR services in one direction depending on what platform it used at Wareham.

 

Down platform was used in 2017.

 

Thankfully, that is not true. Railway wheelsets rely almost exclusively on tightly controlled interference fits. I think you may be confusing air with the the use of oil injection as a means of easing the dismantling process.

Very few UK wheelsets use tyres now. I'm struggling to think of a front line service fleet which does.

 

I know Blodge certainly employs liquid nitrogen to complement heating in interference fit components (crank pins, axles etc). There are images of the technique in a couple of the 'Moving Pictures' clips.