Steaming back into Ryde?

So are you saying other lines should avoid corridor trains?

 

Depends on the distance (more truthfully the time) between stops. In most cases yes they should if they can.

PH

 

Thank heavens you're not in charge of any heritage railway.

 

Fine in theory, but where are the hundreds of non-corridor carriages currently sitting unused that would be needed to replace the hundreds of corridor carriages currently in revenue earning service on Britain's preserved railways?

(The other issue with non-corridor carriages is that the large number of doors represent a maintenance overhead / cost that may well completely outweigh any notional savings in coal from hauling lighter stock).

Sadly, while having non-corridor carriages is nice for those lines that have them, it is a non-starter as a general industry-wide practice.

Tom

 

Why is a corridor train more expensive than a non-corridor train?

 

Hence the "If they can" of my previous post.

Paul

 

You need to get out a bit more.

P.H.

 

Whilst some lines operate suburban vehicles successfully, I know many people in C&W who are not enamoured with them. All those door hinges, door latches etc. generate plenty of maintenance issues. It would also not be authentic to have a fleet that is 100% non corridor and to quote Paul himself, authenticity is something that should e aimed for wherever possible.

 

I get out plenty thanks very much. I suggest it's you who may need to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

I still don't see the advantages though, even if there were plenty around. If you're just advocating the use of anything other than MK 1s, I understand that, purely for heritage interest etc. but non-corridor coaches present real difficulties that corridor coaches just don't have, as I'm sure I and others have mentioned countless times before. Even in our extensive C+W works which deals pretty much exclusively with MK 1s and only a few doors per coach, doors are still a sticking point and it is not unknown to have the rest of the coach top coated still without doors. more doors would be an absolute nightmare!

 

I guess dear Paul's not too heavily involved in C&W .

 

Bit to gricer-ish for him!

 

Isn't that a bit of a moot point then? Even on the Bluebell (where we have been collecting carriages for longer than most and have a big number still to restore), we don't have sufficient un-restored non-corridor coaches to replace our entire corridor fleet, even if we could get them all restored tomorrow. For just about every other line in the country, they will have even less opportunity to effect a switch from corridor to non-corridor. (And the answer isn't, in the main "restore more chicken sheds that are as yet still unclaimed" since even if every railway in the country could acquire and restore them, there aren't nearly enough underframes available).

I do sometimes get the impression that you are prepared to countenance almost unlimited expense in re-equipping the nation's heritage lines with non-existent smaller locomotives and lighter carriages in order to save a few thousand a year in coal!

Tom

 

Actually "gricerish" involves pining for five coach trains of grubby Mk.1 stock with worn-out seating hauled by a furiously slipping un-rebuilt Bulleid chucking black smoke over neighbour's washing.

None of this has anything to do with the purpose of this thread which is about how (indeed whether or not) a railway service can be maintained between Ryde Pierhead and Shanklin. Let's all stick to the point. I put my hand up to my own share in the waywardness.

PH

 

Can we have a separate thread for this then, as you haven't answered any of our quite serious questions about your desires for non corridor stock, seeming purposely evading them now - you could have said to get back on topic earlier if you felt that steeply about it...

 

Quite possibly. Much easier to criticise others from the comfort of an armchair.

 

There comes a time when all threads go round and round in circles or go off at a tangent. This one has done the latter and I have apologised for my share in this process. My views on reducing tare weights and complications have been gone over at (extreme) length and there cannot really be any aspect of them you are not familiar with. I appreciate that these do not accord with the opinions of yourself and some others but, to be brutal, that is tough. Let's just leave it there.

If there really is anything with which I can assist, please get in touch OP

Paul H

 

I held back from replying as I didn't want to be held responsible for another thread becoming "the ph view verses all those who are getting it wrong"! I see it is now too late for that!

The IOSWR has a particular history and set of circumstances and it is great that they can so accurately recreate the past on the Island's railways (give or take a few Austerity tanks and now Ivatts). They are however also fortune that I suspect the Island's railways ran in a heritage railway type manner - very busy summer season, very quite the rest of the year - for many years before any heritage railways existed. In other words, they have a fighting chance of not having to sacrifice authenticity for viability!

If we tried running the original timetable and train lengths on the NYMR, I don't think there would be many takers at the price we would have to charge!

However, on the wider and recurring point - the regular charge that most other heritage railways operate Class 8 Pacifics on a handful of grubby Mark 1s - just how accurate is this? Putting aside the condition of Mark 1s and ignoring the not inconsiderable number of Railways where they are only a part of the fleet, just how many heritage railways regularly use locos above Class 6? (Why have I said Class 6 - well, the argument seems to be about economy and as far as I am aware, the S15s are seen as pretty economical yet are I believe Class 6)

Obviously, the first question is how many Class 7 or above locos are in working order and then how many spend the bulk of their time on heritage railways. A quick think produces:

GWR: With 5029 having just gone "down", only Tysley's and they don't run on heritage lines (nor normally did 5029) - plus a couple of freight locos.
SR: 3 on the mainline, one or two I think (850 and 34007 - I will be corrected no doubt if wrong) on the Mid-Hants, 34053 at SVR, 34070 Swanage and 34092 just returned at Keighley. Can't think of any others at the moment
LMS: Duchess mainline except for occasional guest appearances, Jubilees and Royal Scot mainline only - any others? (A couple of 8Fs also)
LNER: 2 largely mainline plus guest appearances, although 1 will be Mid-Hants based next year - 1 mainline and heritage railway - oh dear - and that is the NYMR - guilty as charged! One freight loco (also NYMR - better make our way to the naughty step)
BR: 2 mainline but I think both currently out of action - 1 shares time with the GCR. Is it 1 or 2 9Fs at the moment, one of which is definitely also GCR? Also 1 WD at Keighley

So, it looks as though this widespread wastefulness is actually practiced by the Mid-Hants, Great Central, KWVR and NYMR with smaller (single loco) out-breaks at the SVR, G&WR (2807 - cracking loco!) and Swanage.

Not exactly endemic is it? And I would suggest the GCR's defence might be authenticity (which the Mid-Hants could use also), so it looks to be largely down to us wasteful Yorkshiremen!

Steven

 

Please note (a) the "Yes I am a volunteer" comment under my avatar and (b) my reply to Flying Scotsman 123

 

I've oft wondered how the IoWR's Austerities and Ivatts fit in with Paul's utopia of authenticity. I suspect it's a case of "needs must" and you can't blame the railway for that as there are precious few O2 tanks and Terriers up for grabs.
In 2015 you can add the NVR to the "wasteful" category as they'll have 34081 to play with at some stage, hauling that dreadful Mk.1 corridor stock.