West Somerset Railway General Discussion

You want the Bluebell thread for that: currently discussing the dental impact of eating birthday cake I’m turning a benevolent blind eye to the thread drift, @flying scotsman123

Tom

 

It's all @Matt37401 's fault!

 

It is odd, when there are posts just about the WSR and its behind the scenes operations there are complaints.

When there is a discussion that compares operations with those on other lines there are complaints.

I get the impression that for some people the world begins at Norton Fitzwarren and ends at Minehead, and that the only thread they are happy with is one where people only talk about how great and wonderful everything is at the WSR. Now let's all praise the PLC for their foresight and vision.

 

The big thing I'm taking away from all this is that: however much strife is going on in the courtrooms of West Somerset, nothing will unite the railway-operating people on here quite so much as hearing "you don't want to do it like that! You want to do it like this!" from Paul Hitchcock.

 

You did not dream it - Turntable cafe does sell beer/cider

 

You beat me to my reply on this WSR stuff over last 3 pages......

 

Sadly, the Curse of Omniscience affects people in all walks of life.

 

AIUI the answer to this is quite simple. In the 'old days' of banked freight trains the token/tablet/staff was given to the rearmost engine because it would be the last one to leave the single-line section. It avoided the risk that the bank engine might get 'left behind' in the section for some reason (eg ran low on steam and could not keep up with the main train), the main train left the section at the next box and handed up the the token/tablet/staff, the signalman failed to notice the lack of tail-lamp at the back of the train (as it was still on the banker) and then accepted another train into what he thought was a clear section. OK it might seem a very low risk, but don't forget that the railways tried to guard against any sort of risk where single-lines were concerned.

There were some locations where the bank engine dropped off mid-section and returned whence it came. In such cases the token/tablet/staff was carried by the (rearmost of the) leading engine(s) and the bank engine had a special 'bank engine staff' that was interlocked with the token/tablet/staff apparatus. One well-known example of course was between Bath Jcn and Midford on the S&DJR (which brings us back to the S&DRT and hence the WSR, so 'on thread' again!).

 

Talking matters to do with Double heading on former GWR lines for when a tank engine assisted a working headed by a tender engine, why does the tank engine always seem to be coupled inside? was it normal for the assisting engine to be inside?

 

Yes on the GWR - one of the examples of the GWR going their own way compared to the rest of the country

 

Although local practices sometimes varied the G.W. would normally marshall the loco with the greatest number of leading wheels on the front. In other words, if the train engine was a Hall (with a leading bogie) and the pilot was a Prairie the latter, with only a leading pony truck, would be put 'inside'.
Ray.

 

Which is exactly my point about understanding why things were done the way they were done in the past. As a rule bank engines were unattached to the train and often the trains they were banking were unfitted so there was a real risk that the train may not clear the section in one piece. The "modern" phenomenon of top and tailing is quite different as the rear loco is attached to the train and piped to it as well, so the chance of leaving part of the train in section unobserved is pretty remote. If I'm on the leading loco I like the reassurance of having to token in the cab with me. If I'm on the rear loco I am quite happy to trust that the lead driver has it.

Peter

 

This post on RMWeb has details of the exact rules and examples

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/i...eration-brent/&do=findComment&comment=2427323

 

Do you then have a different rule for working loose coupled demonstration freights?

 

Even a single change to the rules invites confusion, which could lead to mistakes. Changing back and forth positively invites confusion. There has been discussion on the Francis Webb thread of drivers being confused between direct and automatic vacuum brake, though that case was especially bad as both systems were in use at the same time on different trains. I don't know who the boss was who forced those changes on the WSR without full consideration and consultation, but I would consider that person unfit to be in charge of the proverbial whelk stall.

 

We don't work demonstration freights loose coupled. They are run as fitted freights although I think some waggons are only through piped. When you think of the 1in49 grades this is a sensible approach as the rules state that descending from Goathland to Grosmont a certain number of brakes would need to be pinned down anyway. The PWay stuff is often unfitted but that is usually run in a possession so does not mix with service trains. Bryan @Ploughman will know more about this than I do.

Peter

 

If an engineering train is out on the line under possession then consideration is given as to loco capability, train weight and distance.
Generally if just 2 hoppers and a brake van between Newbridge and Levisham with the 08 then loose coupled. Any increase in weight or distance then the train will be piped up.
However we now have a number of Air braked, Air Piped, Vac braked, Vac piped vehicles so thought as to what you can mix and how starts to come into consideration.

 

Certainly not always. Trains banked between Radstock and Masbury, or Evercreech Junction and Masbury, had the bank engine coupled to the train, although on the Down trains the banker was uncoupled 'on the fly' when approaching Binegar (not on the approach to the summit itself, as sometimes mistakenly claimed) as a precautionary measure in the event that the banker failed to pick-up the Bank Engine staff from the pick-up post at Binegar (and therefore had to stop).