31874 and 31625

So the only extra exemption or derogation NYMR have, is no need for OTMR?
Amazing, that's the cheapest to fit now!

 

We have had all the electronic safety devises on mainline steam for many years now, , how far away are we from a self contained system that can be used on any steam engine that can be programmed for any engine and records remotely ? removing the need for units pertinently mounted on all the locos?

 

I'm not sure, but I don't think TPWS is required either - given that there are no TPWS installations on the EVL! I stand ready to be corrected on both scores though!

 

TPWS is required by Law, OTMR fitment is a Group Standard. The NYMR does have an exemption from OTMR based on methods of working and mileage on the network. It does not have an exemption from TPWS, with which the Esk Valley branch is fitted in a most inventive way for for a line where many fixed signals are Stop Boards with at most a point indicator (which could be mistaken for a signal).

Steven

 

As you say, TPWS is a legal requirement under the Reg 3 of the Railway Safety Regulations 1999. However, there is a power of exemption and, interestingly, WCRC have such an exemption between Sheringham and Cromer for the B12. (http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/16528/reg3-exemption-wcrc-2014-11-11.pdf) I do wonder why the NYMR have not sought such an exemption for Whitby given that the only TPWS mat that trains to Whitby pass over is the 10 mph ones at the end of platforms 1 & 2. There is a TPWS mat on leaving Pl1 but no such mat on Pl2. As such TPWS doesn't really contribute towards a safer railway on this stretch of line but simply fulfils a legal requirement.

 

With great respect to the mainline environs of NNR and NYMR, the SR's bit of mainline is a twin track electrified 85mph with two trains each hour in each direction, plus a few freights.
So no exemptions.....

 

Not, apparently, desperate enough to acknowledge the fact that I sent 8 scans back in February.

 

I don't think Bean Counter or I was suggesting that you did seek exemptions. It was a continuation of answers to your original question.

 

You need to split the Loco from the tender and turn the two bit separately. A bit of a faff but doable for special occasions. We have the additional problem that with normal 5 coach trains the platform water column wont reach the tender when locos face Swanage.

 

time to bite the bullet and change the layout? Heresy I know as it is a rarity being an original shed. A bigger turntable would possibly pay for itself in turning tour train locos, but where to put it? Not at Swanage anyway I imagine.

 

Wasn't the idea of the ex OOC one going in somewhere like Furzebrook in future mooted for this reason ?, for practical use the one at Swanage is as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

 

Last I heard that land haa to go back to nature the turntable can't go out there, which is the shame ideal place for a shed and turntable, in an area with more space to work in.

 

That's disappointing, as seemed the ideal place for a facility of some sort on a line not overly blessed with storage space.

 

Yeah exactly, hope they find a space for the Turntable somewhere.

 

The proposed location was a field beyond the industrial estate at Herston, and planning permission had been applied for.Application is on line, not sure if granted, will search later.

 

However lovely that would be I'm not so sure it would be a goer considering the history of this loco, its owner and the MHR.

 

Possibly although I'd hope all concerned would be adult enough to divorce the loco from it's unfortunate past in the name of Heritage.

 

Copy of planning application, showing proposed location below.

 

with the loading of locos on to trucks commonplace now, I wonder how practical a portable turntable would be...

 

It may sound daft, but I know one or two locos on the GWSR have been for a trip round the carpark on the lowloader whilst it was there delivering something else.