West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Just a couple of thoughts, and accepting that my knowledge is no longer fully up-to-date...
1. When ROGS regulations were introduced (replacing previous external inspection by HMRI), the guidance included external inspection of both mechanical and civil engineering (or an internal function suitably removed to provide independence) and similar verification of inspection procedures. When drawing up the procedures for the railway I was concerned with, this meant having an external 'consultant' - though in most cases we managed to implement this with a relative lack of expense. If part of the issue with ORR was the lack of such a process, then it would be essential to put something in place to satisfy this regulatory requirement.
2. 'Confidential and restricted' means something different from 'Private and confidential'. My understanding is that in one case it is not to be passed on to others by the recipients (but may be circulated more widely by the sender), and in the other it is intended only for individual recipient. It seems that some of the people commenting are not themselves paying attention to the detail of the working of the circulation... I have to admit that putting something confidential on a public access website is a little strange, but, having seen it there the reader should not pass its contents on to others (even if those others could see it themselves if they looked in the correct place!).

 

Easy.

Because at Blue Anchor there is no overrun distance between the signal and the gates, the gates have to be closed to road before a train is allowed to approach the protecting signal. So if it is going to run in and wait, the gates are closed to road, the train arrives, and then, when it has stopped, the gates can be opened to road again if the train is not to proceed immediately.

Robin

 

Robin, as you will know trains can approach the crossing at Rolvenden on the up and stop only a few feet from a crossing that is open to the road, the same at Bodiam if we are running to Junction Road. Is this something to do with local rules, the fact that there is no signal, only a stop board or something else?

 

Probably mostly due to being a train-crew-operated crossing. I suspect that if the Rolvenden crossing were ever to be automated, then becoming a signalled crossing would mean stopping short until the barriers were down.

The distance from gates to stop board is I believe line speed related, I seem to recall that allowing trains to pass over Cranbrook Rd crossing at a higher speed required the down direction stop board to be moved up the hill slightly.

 

Partially answered already, but the difference between a light railway where 25mph is generally an achievement, and a railway built and signaled to higher speed stopping distances etc (for 45 - 55 mph running originally) where crews must be careful to observe the 25mph limit.

Robin

 

Yes - it was to load a wheelchair. and accommodate the position of the brake compartment.

 

Thank you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why can this not happen at Williton?

 

What?

 

I think you are suggesting running past the footbridge signal in the off position (with crossing gates closed to the road) and stopping the train at the end of the platform, shy of the crossing. Once that's safely done, reopening the road and retuning the signal to 'on' or danger.
It may be that track circuiting prevents this, but even if not you'd then have the crossing unprotected from a train standing adjacent to it.
If the bridge signal moved to nearer the crossing you might achieve what you are suggesting perhaps.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

As I explained (not very well) for an up train. If no4 is cleared (the signal on the up platform near the footbridge) then the train can run past and stop just short of the road crossing at the end of the platform or even standing foul of the road crossing as no4 being cleared indicates (among other things) the crossing gates are closed to road traffic. The up train departure is then controlled by signal no5 (the one just in advance of the road over-bridge.)
Some of you will recall the Blue Anchor crossing gate discussion a few days ago so obviously in the prefect world blocking the road crossing is not a good idea if the up train is delayed departing Williton. This gives the signalman a chance to open the crossing to road traffic.
On the 22nd July the up service stopped short at Williton to enable the guard to offload a mobility scooter which required the ramp was deployed. Had we have stopped in the "right" place (no4 was off) the ramp would not have been able to be deployed as the guards compartment would have been adjacent to the footbridge. Therefore the train stopped short of the end of the platform, the driver following the guards pre-arranged signal to do so. As it happened this stopped us just past no4 but well in the rear of no5.
The normal practice is for up trains to stop with the loco just short of the crossing so that the whole train is in the platform. If the train does stop in rear of no4 this is normally because the signalman has left the signal at danger for operational reasons.
It is not something done on a whim by either the engine driver or the signalman.

 

Is there not an optimum position in the train where the guard's van stops in a suitable place at every station for the ramps to be deployed?

 

Is there much road traffic using the level crossing at Williton rather than the nearby bridge?

 

But at the cost of not being able to run in with the gates open to road.

More than you might think.

Robin

 

Ann,
Marshalling of the sets is often done on the fly with coaches being taken on and off for maintenance as and when the set arrives in MD. This makes it difficult to both maintain the timetable and keep the brake in the right place. Same things happens at BL where coaches are put on and taken off and depends to a large extent on the position of the stock. It's an operations matter in reality and I guess if we had more volunteers available, trained in shunting movements, it might be possible to do as you suggest. However I fear that the layout of different stations means that what is good for disabled access at one station might not be good at another. Clearly if the railway was being designed in the 21st century then these things would be considered and stations designs would be consistent to accommodate the need. But surely this is one of the joys and also problems of a heritage rail line. We always try to find a way to accommodate the need on the day.

 

Am I the only one who doesn't see the importance of Red Route status for the WSR?

Am I right in understanding that in BR days it didn't have such a weight restriction and was a lower axle loading. Why is the preserved WSR putting such importance on regaining this axle loading? Is it pushing the scarce resources of the WSR to the limit when it could perhaps more easily achieve a lower axle loading status which would also surely be easier to maintain going forward? The fact t is they now have a functioning full line on a Blue route status.

I really don't understand that with all the problems the WSR faces, its TOP priority is bringing up its axle weight limit.

 

I think that's the crux of the matter in bold. Whatever the maximum axle loading you want to aim for, the WSR permament way clearly needs substantial investment. If you're going to be doing significant work to upgrade your permanent way, and you want to do it belt and braces for the long term future anyway, then will it be much more for it to be red route (at 25mph, so not true red route) approved?

 

The question though is what is the relative cost of doing so if you have to renew the infrastructure anyway? Not much difference in cost I suspect in sleepers, rail or ballast; nor of the cost of hiring in machinery; nor of repairing drainage. So for much of the plain line, if you are relaying the track anyway, there is probably not much in it between the the cost of doing to blue or red standard. The critical bit I suspect would be the necessity or otherwise for bridge repairs / strengthening; given that "red route" and similar relate to a combination of weight and speed; and heritage line speeds (and therefore hammer blow) are lower, I wonder whether in practice the best option might be to relay most of the plain line to a standard suitable to accept any loco likely to use the line, but just put loco-specific speed restrictions on key bridges for the occasions when you want to bring in a heavier loco?

The alternative - to preclude heavier locos - might sound sensible, except that the WSR is reliant on the external hire market for the locos it uses, and therefore can't guarantee that suitably lightweight locos will always be available in the future. What happens if you take a strategic decision to relay the line to blue route status, and then in ten years time the only hire locos available to you are Halls and similar? The strategic balance might be different if the WSR loco strategy was to provision all its own locos and therefore it knew in advance which locos the line needed to be engineered to accept.

Tom

 

I think everyone is over-looking the point, who owns several big engines?

DJB.