West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I'm glad to see that business continues to be conducted in a way that gives no opportunity for conflict of interest issues. When does the compliance officer take up their post ?

 

As soon as the stab vest arrives. Would an electric cattle prod perhaps serve well as their 'staff of office'?

 

If you wanted to put a non-Machiavellian spin on it: It always struck me as a bit simplistic to set a blanket colour-based weight limit on the line if you didn’t at the same time consider line speed. If your main concern is hammer blow, then the same loco at 25mph is a different proposition to a pre-preservation line limit of 50mph or so.

At the same time, if your board is weak in Civil Engineering expertise, then “red limit loco = banned” is at least prudent, in as much as it errs on the side of caution.

If I am reading the announcement about the 94xx right, it would be in the context of allowing a heavier loco at preservation-era line speed, based on the board having appropriate board-level engineering advice which may not have been available a couple of years ago. Of course, those board members who have signed that off are accountable for that decision, but it doesn’t on the face of it seem unreasonable given the low line speed of a heritage railway, and the speed-squared relationship of hammer blow.

What isn’t clear to me is what the overall state of the WSR p/way and infrastructure is in, nor what the considered view of the board is as to the annual programme of works needed (and it’s cost) to get it to an acceptable standard. The messaging around that is, to be charitable, confused.

Tom

 

I remember several announcements re 7027 too .
Much prefer the shut up and get on with it progress of the current owner .

 

Don’t disagree with any of that at all, be interesting to see what happens though should 9466 need an early withdrawal for overhaul though.

 

Funds put aside for the overhaul of another engine, might possibly be used to overhaul that instead, and the owners of the other engine told, sorry we don't have the money to overhaul your engine, and we have decided to break the contract you had with us?

 

Fair comment. Personally I know that the term 'Civil Engineer' covers a large number of specialisations and I don't think anyone could be a 'Jack of all trades' when it comes to safety. I would much rather have a report in my hand from a qualified bridging engineer that gives a written professional axle loading assessment at heritage speeds for each structure rather that just having someone saying they think it's ok. But there again, I'm not the one who would have to deal with the ORR (in their HSE guise) or the insurance companies should anything untoward happen...

Edit, added:- and if they are not concerned about this I hope the individuals concerned are covered by some really good professional indemnity insurance (at the railways expense of course)

 

Maybe the badly affected areas have been reassessed or repaired. 6960 left nearly 3 years ago now. Long time.

 

And do you know that they haven't got such documentation? The ORR are happy for the WSR to run passenger trains so my gut feeling is that they have all the necessary paperwork to satisfy them. I understood that the major problem was due to the condition of certain sections of track, in particular chair galling. If this affected track has now been replaced, and I believe there has been quite a bit of PW work, then a return to a higher axle load status would be a reasonable route to take.

 

LOL, running out of stuff to say now aren't you?

Given the high quality standard 9466 was restored to and maintained to by it's previous late owner, I would say, in theory, that there are far more locos out there that would require early withdrawal before 9466.

Don't forget 4561 should be back in action before 9466 bows out.

 

Two years of which have been overshadowed by a global pandemic which has severely curtailed running days, income and upgrades and investment. It's not unreasonable to have expected that those upgrades would not yet have taken place, especially as they haven't been publicised at all. I would have thought that if the railway had performed the necessary Civil Engineering work to allow heavier locos like Halls, Castles and whatnot to pay a visit, they would have been keen to make sure enthusiasts knew about it

 

Take it you do not read WSR newsletters or look at the fantastic wsr dot org?

 

I confess I don't read WSR.org slavishly, the upgrades of track, bridges and earthworks to take heavier loads seem to have slipped through unnoticed by me. I'm delighted that thing are at a condition where this "Red" locomotive can work on the line, though I confess some reservations about the reliance on specific permissions for one particular locomotive, and especially the private benefit gained by it's owner from investment by a separate company.

 

As it happens I don't. But I still would have thought that if some upgrades were done, news would at least make it on to Nat Pres

 

The GWR system essentially grouped locos into yellow, blue, red, double red and uncoloured which is a fairly basic system based essentially on axle load. As Tom has said earlier, there's much more that can be considered in arriving at a decision on whether the use of a particular loco is acceptable or not. Axle load, weight/unit length, speed and hammer blow are four of them. A 10mph speed limit over a particular bridge may be all that's required to make the loco acceptable. You can also take into consideration what the loco is coupled to. For example, on the NYMR, A1, A2, A3 and A4 locos were all permitted but you couldn't double head with them unless it was a lightweight loco. I remember the Civil Engineer going ballistic when an A2/A4 combination inadvertently happened but, fortunately no bridges collapsed.

 

Point about the detail of limits noted, but the look is poor when the issues were previously described in terms of that very simple GWR scheme, and the primary beneficiary of the company's investment is someone who's personal asset is being enabled. The conflict of interest is what leaps out at me here, which in a company that relies on charitable support and volunteers is a very poor look indeed.

 

I'm not going back looking for it but I'm pretty certain that such happenings have been reported on Nat Pres as they occurred.

 

I have no idea if they have documentation but this is the WSR... and there is also the possible conflict of interest where the chairman wants to run his loco (and he or one of his companies will financially gain from it) as opposed to running within the p way limitations. If you read my post again you'll see I was expressing my own opinion of what I would prefer.
The reason the subject arose is the comment about upgrading was that senior railway personnel have concluded the higher loading is acceptable. No mention was made of surveys or professional inspections, so just as there is nothing to say that they have not got documentation there is equally nothing to say that they have.

 

You can look at it in other ways. There are people (including on Nat Pres) who think that the WSR will be short of motive power this year. If I was involved with the railway and in a position to help solve that, I'd be doing my best to do so, including having a conversation along the lines of 'What needs doing to allow my loco(s) to run on the line?' There's nothing wrong with that, is there? Or do you think that, because you are the chairman, you shouldn't do your best for your organisation?