West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Yes, and a King is double red but that hasn't stopped 6024 from running on the line.

 

It seems that most heritage lines are passed for much higher axle loads than were allowed in BR days and before.
Hammer blow is probably more important than axle weight and a well balanced four cylinder loco trundling along at
25mph is unlikely to be too unfriendly to the track.
Going off at a tangent, Kings were never allowed over Saltash Bridge,due to weight issues yet my first trip over with KE 1 was double headed with Tangmere!!!

 

Depends what the track nd civil engineering structures are like. The occasional use of a "heavyweight" is one thing. Everyday use is quite different.

PH

 

Saltash Bridge was strengthened by BR/NR to allow heavier trains to cross it thus opening up Cornwall to Kings.
Going off at another tangent, everyone seems to call it "Saltash Bridge" but it's proper name is the "Royal Albert Bridge".

 

Mentioned in October last year but in fairness, this being the WSR thread, it was almost 200 pages ago.

 

Almost.

Norton to Bishops Lydeard is ‘red’ having no significant underline structures. That has been helpful in accepting and servicing large mainline locos.

Robin

 

Soon to be Resident 6695 is another Red engine so the appeal just announced to upgrade track and structures would
seem very timely.

 

It would be helpful to see some figures on the cost of the necessary upgrades, to be able to judge the wisdom of this alternative against the alternative of not doing so and fundraising instead for covered accomodation, a paint shop, additional passing loops etc etc and all the other things that would make us a better railway as we enter our fifth decade in preservation.

I assume such figures must exist given a decision appears to have been taken to pursue this course?

One of many questions.

Robin

 

Maybe AdM has had some effect, or put his hand in his pocket .....

 

It would be interesting for you to tell us the estimated costs of "covered accommodation, a paint shop, additional passing loops etc." It will help us to appreciate how this might compare with current spends on the infrastructure..

Regarding locos and weights; a very complex and I submit contentious subject. As has already been mentioned we are a 25mph Railway not a 55mph Railway. It is not simply a matter of loco axle weights, there are other factors e.g. number of cylinders, a four cylinder loco is effectively self balancing, a two cylinder freight loco (with 55 inch coupled wheels) will exhibit maximum 'fore and aft' in the speed range of our line speed. The need to minimise this and transfer the horizontal forces to the vertical will impact on the track. But then the freight loco has a far lower static weight per coupled wheels than a 'King' or 'Royal Scot' (which are particularly heavy on the rear coupled wheels)

And then we have the 'Valleys tank'. (6695) Everybody connected with the WSR appears to perceive this to be an ideal operational loco, ie suitable power for our needs (8 coach trains), same boiler as other Classes etc. But: they were not one of Swindon's carefully thought out designs; 200 built straight off in five years to meet an urgent need. A Swindon standard boiler effectively placed on a TVR Class A frame ( if my memory serves me right). A thoroughly badly balanced loco which required significant extra balance weights etc., a serious track 'bashes ' but of benefit to the Railway. ( and PH it's not a large loco !)

Also to add to the horrors, 6695's smokebox, ( due to the No.2 boiler on the TVR 'bottom') position is such that access is difficult, indeed in our safety conscious age I imagine for regular use, quite correctly an access platform will be required.

If we are to remain as a steam motive power Railway (we are 22.5 miles long; we have to run long trains for the fare box to meet the overheads, be able to accelerate trains rapidly to 25mph, sustain this speed on a 1/92 gradient. For this to happen we should be be able to run whatever Class4 loco or larger is available.) then with loco availability becoming more difficult we need to have a freedom of choice.

Michael Rowe

 

My understanding would be that a Board proposing such an action would come to the shareholders with a well worked out plan (including some figures) not the other way round. Or have I misunderstood that? Plainly I am not a corporate lawyer.

When I last looked, I was a shareholder of the WSR plc not a Director but the changes have been so rapid recently, and the post doesn’t arrive here until midday...

Robin

 

Try shovelling the ash out of the 4F smoke box. It tends to concentrate the mind.

 

Fit a panel which could be swung down as the SR did to their USATC 0-6-0Ts (which did nothing for their looks ).

 

I see that in the Thornbury Castle announcement that it is hoped to have Kinlet Hall back on the WSR next year.

 

I'm guessing the ' all ' is the really interesting bit .

 

Yes.

Given the state of the present planning of this project, IMHO, the risks and uncertainties far outweigh the (alleged) benefits for our Railway and it does not have my support.

There are many, many questions to ask. Rest assured they will be asked. But not in this forum.

Robin

 

Hopefully we will find out more in due course .

 

Given the weight/configuration of the loco is it really viable without very expensive engineering work to the infrastructure needed to run it in regular service? The GWR/BR loco classification was not done without good reason. Just curious.

 

Just to put another angle on it, I understand from discussion here a while ago that some of the running line isn't in the greatest of shape anyway (80 tiebars?) So just viewing the cost in isolation might not be wise if a large proportion of that money needs to be spent just maintaining the infrastructure anyway, suddenly upgrading the WSR to red doesn't look so expensive after all.