Rolling stock Standards

I am currently working on a set of maintenance standards for rolling stock for the railway I volunteer at, things like back to back measurements wheel profiles and wear etc.. We are a small operation with a line speed no greater than 10 mph who run maybe once a month or regular but not often!

I am having problems finding a set of standards that would suit us as most of my research has thrown up mainline/high speed standards that would not suit us!

So what do other railways use to inspect/maintain there fleets of wagons and carriages? Has anyone come across this before? Where do I need to look to find this information out?
:confused1::confused1::confused1:

 

You still have to maintain your stock to an acceptable standard. Door locks have to work at 1 mph and 125 mph. Wheels have to work at 1mph and 125mph. Brakes are the same. If you go for the best standard possible, the man from HMRI will be more than satisfied than if you try and cut corners. What does your railways Safety Case require? CMS123 and the older BR10906/7 manuals give a lot of useful information. If you haven't got them, PM me your email address, and a copy of each will be sent.

Regards

Frank


There are some railways out there who treat safety as a last resort. Please don't be one of them.

 

Don't worry we are not! We just have some catching up to do! Thanks Frank that would be great! Although whether or not our wheels would meet 125mph standards would be interesting!

 

In my opinion the CMS123 document is useful to work to and detailed but you may have to search though to find relevant information. When using profile gauges , buckeye gauges etc make sure they are in good condition as inherited ones from BR have often led hard lifes !

Luke

 

Thanks guys, luckily we don't have buckeye so that's not a problem! Think I have what I need to meet our requirements at this stage

 

Hi,
I am new to this forum, and have just got back into the preserved rolling stock, and I am after info on maintenance shedules, and standards for Mk1,2 vehicles both air, and vac braked.
Tried to send a PM, but an error message said I have to have 5 posts before I can send a PM. Maybe if anybody can offer assistance they could PM me. Thanks in advance

 

Can someone send me a copy of cms123 & br10906/7 /

thanks in anticipation

 

I think a lot depends on whether it is passenger or non-passenger carrying, also the annual miliage expected of wagons at Rutland (as to determine how frequently an inpection is required).
ORR are interested in that you have some sort of basic paperwork say for each vehicle and that you are seen to be doing something.
I dont think "the best stardard possible" is exactly practical. for eg. operating at 10mph on a short stretch of track doesnt require oiler pads to be in absolute perfect condition.

 

Just because vehicle are doing low milage, and at low speeds should not be seen as reason not to follow good maintenace practice. failing to keep the oiler pads in good condition will result in expensive damage to the bearings, and journals. If the public have access to the site they have an expectation the rolling stock will be in good condition.
Should an incident occure that RAIB get involved in they will be very interested in your record keeping, and working practice. reading RAIB reports on incidents that have happened on preserved lines also look into staff training and competencies.
Sadly the rules are for eveybody,and are not optional. They are ignored at great peril.
Mark B

 

One railway I was involved with had a low speed derailment of a loco and two of my coaches on pointwork. Operator error was the cause, but the damage included damaged bearings, bent buckeyes, damaged steam heat pipes under the frames. Never reported as an incident to HMRI, the railway wouldn't pay, so I was left to foot the bill for repairs to my own coaches. BUT I knew that I had maintained my coaches to the best possible standards (CMS123) and kept records of what work I had done, something the railway could not be bothered doing to their own stock. At a HRA meeting later that year, a member of the HRA hierarchy basically told me ( an associate member at the time...) that 'the railway is always right. You stock owners are a pain in the ar**'.

 

That is appalling!! At Rutland we rely on private owners stock to keep us going so we take great pride in looking after it, it should not be like the above case.
Well am some where near with the standards now though its a careful balancing act, we do not have any carriages here but a great deal of wagons! We are using a SR pillbox brake van at the moment and a Shark to add to it once the owner has her finished, the key is to maintain stock in a safe and practical manner I think. Having spent 8-9 years looking after aircraft you soon learn about paperwork keeping and working to publications and standards though there are a great deal of them!!

Looking forward to many happy (and trouble free!!) running!!

Gaz

 

That is disgusting and had i been in your shoes i would of been looking through my agreement with the railway to see what it said. my way of this is i would like to see a agreement with some stock of mine whereby i restore it and maintain it but the railway breaks it the railway fixes it.

 

Mark

I think you misread what I wrote, You mention "good" condition wheras I was refering to "the best standard possible" as Weltrol said. Good contion oiler pads will be great for 10mph. The point I was making was that being realistic I dont think the best possible standard(apart from being uneconomical and costly) is nesercarry for operating non passenger stock in a much reduced capacity than what it was originally designed to withstand.
Personally I think Weltrol may be referring to the GCRN with his description of where he may have been involved with but Im not certain.

 

No comment.

 

Fair enough as long as you are sure that the oil pads are making good contact with the journal, and there is a good film of oil buillding up under the bearing. Also worth keeping an eye on the state of the oil. If you find water is getting into the boxes you may want to think about renewing the axle box seals
When I was looking after the fleet at the GWS Didcot I did not have to renew that many pads as long as I kept up with the axlebox maintenance. [Pad exams every 6 months C exam and above.] The Armstrong type oilers are very good, and don't give too much trouble as long as they are kept in oil, and correctly soaked before fitting

 

Is there a separate standard for railway wagons? the standards on the thread appear to refer to carriages?

 

But are there any carriages at Rutland, a Van C and a PMV if that counts lol

 

No we don't have any carriages, we use brake vans to convey the public.

 

If your brakevan maintenance is to carriage standards, where applicable, ie wheels, bearings, continuous brake, pass-com gear, access doors/gates, and your local HMRI bod is satisfied as to your proposed methods of operation, and your written 'method' statement, then you cannot go far wrong. I remember an HMRI saying to a budding operation on approval of their light railway order, that he could close the place there and then, without a train even operating. He (the inspector) was a bit perturbed by the attitude of a couple of members ( 'WE are ex BR footplatemen, We know how to operate a railway!!').

Talk to your inspector. His advice will be the deciding voice in the debate.

 

Well said, he seems happy with what we are doing at our place and we have a list of improvements from his report we are working through. After all we are all here just enthusiastic amateurs! As you say the key thing is to ensure he is happy and that 'we' (the railway) can keep our stock to a safe and comfortable standard of serviceability. It should all help make railway operating more fun too!