Swanage Railway General Discussion

One of the pillars of the British judiciary system, and yes it is emulated world wide, is the rule against "hearsay evidence" Did "informed sources "tell their superiors that these trains were a dud, or did they they just tell their friends at NP. Did they publish their findings in any trade magazine of repute? "Expert" witnesses have to be qualified as such by the court which of course means that their names are public record which seems to be lacking here, Regardless(I have not ridden on one) is seems as if its a "Made in the UK' attempt to provide an economical short distance train set. Kudos for the attempt.

 

It wasn’t a serious post.

 

There are those who take commitments very seriously!

 

The issues with the various VivaRail units have been widely reported in respected industry publications, and the issues with delayed entry into service and reliability issues can be evidenced in the official, publicly available performance data. 'Informed Sources' not only tell their superiors the facts of the matter, but have to report it within the regulatory framework.

 

Well it’s a good book, not my favourite by Roddy Doyle though

 

I have full respect for the idea and attempt, though have never been convinced about using 45 year old tube trains to bypass modern crashworthiness regulations.

But the evidence is stacking up that this attempt has not been a success. Reliability is poor, there have been three significant fires on these trains, introduction has been difficult, and the hybrid units are two years late into service and counting. I’ve more than once pointed you at Modern Railways and the industry data published there - I suggest that you read serious coverage rather than reheated press releases through a news feed.

Interestingly, and suggesting that the issue is not just that VivaRail are too small to deliver on their promises, the parallel class 769 conversions (adding diesel engines to late 1980s class 319 EMUs) have gone equally badly.

The idea of reusing and re-engineering old trains is therefore demonstrably a costly distraction, not a cheap short cut. The quote I provided was hearsay, but in my defence I will say (a) that this is not a court of law and (b) that the source is someone I trust.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

While it's getting very off-topic for this thread, I think that much of the problem stems from them trying to do too much too cheaply - most of the problems with the Island Line units are with the software, which seems far too involved and complicated for something that's going to spend it's whole life shuttling back and forward on a self-contained 9 mile branch line.

 

Sensible or not, I doubt stock's control software is predicated on the length or complexity of the line on which it operates.

For some reason, I've an image of the treadle actuated 'automatic control' on some ex-brickworks BEV locos at Amberley in mind.

 

Could the same be said of using Class 117 and 121 DMUs to enable a Heritage Railway to operate both on their own metals and on network rail metals?

 

It isn't - but @Nick C's thinking is similar to mine. Why was it necessary to retraction these units in the first place, when their new duties are significantly less onerous than their former haunts on the District Line?

 

It could, but IMHO harshly. The regulations relate to the underlying structural design, to which the 117s and 121s comply. They are also being presented as heritage units for work on a heritage line. The VivaRail units slide under the bar with "grandfather rights" based on their previous use on the Wimbledon and Richmond branches, but are then being presented as modern trains, for use as part of a modern fleet.

 

We're living with decisions made five or more years ago, in a world very different from where we find ourselves today. It's not as if covid had proven no more than an inconvenient 2.year hiatus.

Even now, all categories of businesses everywhere are struggling to cope with vastly changed conditions, even those not trying to make pre-covid plans work in a very different climate.

Not much there to advance the discussion, but it is a plea not to overplay the hindsight card. No-one could have forseen the two years we've all come through.

 

In general, I would agree. But both VivaRail and the class 769 project pre-date Covid, and were already doing poorly. Covid is a legitimate plea for mitigation, not innocence.

 

Covid has indeed been plead* as a 'mitigation' for much ..... with varying degrees of plausibility!



*Having looked up the accepted part participle of the verb "to plead", it seems there are those unable to fathom change in pronunciation without any attendant modification to spelling. Not on my watch, sir!

 

Attention NP CME's. They are having trouble with getting their NEW trains to run on Southend Pier!!!

 

As are a number of operators with a number of new fleets on the big railway - as you’d know if you read the likes of Modern Railways.

The difference is that these new trains have a lot more life in them than superannuated tube trains, where the VivaRail project gives the double trouble of both old vehicles and new technology, ensuring that the costs are high and the residual life low.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Furzebrook could not play a role in servicing excursion trains as you suggest.
The two long sidings are, I believe, nowhere near long enough to take the length of main line excursions trains such as that accommodated recently at Arne Road sidings area.
The original trains of (10 ?) bogie oil tanks and, later, 4-wheel LPG tank wagons were split with half on each road.
The third, short siding was purely to accommodate crippled wagons.

 

Pictures taken at Swanage - not Herston where the carriage shed site is

 

and of course any goods, materials and staff etc etc for the servicing / resupplying would have to be either carried on the charter or transported by rail as Perenco would not allow access through their facility.

 

Deleted.