Relaying is going to become very expensive!

I suspect that NR was trying to do itself a favour and realise more value out of its assets....whether it really will or not is another matter, but no doubt it is making the treasury feel that the situation is better managed, and some would argue it isn't in the public's interest to have heritage railways able to acquire free stuff the state has paid for....

 

It isn't in the publics interest to give things away, unless you are the recipient! However, it is arguable that the cost of uploading, transporting to a centralised facility, storing and eventually disposing of these assets is not as cost effective as charging a notional amount to someone who will do all this themselves.

 

This probably accounts for the 10 miles (at a guess) of 'spent' CWR that lays next to the running lines between Gloucester and Ashchurch!

 

I seem to remember the issue of reusing track before. My understanding was with track renewal now time IS the critical point on the National Network. It simply is more economic to break up what is there and put down the new rail than spend the time recovering rail in one piece, whether by paid staff or by volunteers. Fittings are slightly different and I'm sure if organised right there would be a way of buying ex NR when they are available.

Duncan

 

These things tend to go in cycles. I can remember that thirty years ago it was an expensive and bureaucratic exercise to buy track from British Railways. I can think of reasons why Network Rail ought to give at least a degree of support to the Heritage Railway movement. First, lines with a connection act as a feeder to the national network. Second, heritage lines provide a useful training environment. Third, lines which attract youngsters to volunteer encourage them to consider careers in engineering and specifically on the railways.There is also the extent to which heritage railways warm the railway market as a whole.

I fear the days of "clear the stores for £20" are over for the time being. Incidentally, if anyone has a facing point lock mechanism for disposal I would be very glad to hear from them.

Meanwhile I shall get out the OS maps and look for disused private sidings again.

Tim

 

So it seems the message is indeed "Save up hard for new stuff and, in the meantime, treat existing material as gently as possible" (Pace Spamcan 81 and others).

PH

 

Pax vobiscum but railways will still need to run sufficient trains to meet demand with whatever motive power is at their disposal and if that means using bigger locomotives then so be it. I do find it interesting that some heritage lines were never RA9 in steam days yet many have upgraded the permanent way to take RA9 locos. I cannot believe they did this unless they saw benefit in the use of these bigger machines.
Mind you, the Bulleid Light Pacifics with their 18 tons axle load would be ideal motive power for any line not wanting to keep to an RA9 rating.

 

I find it interesting as well but, alas, not in a positive way. It seems to my cynical mind less a question of "need" to use an RA9 locomotive as "want" to use one!

As for a Bulleid light pacific with an 18 ton axle load being an "ideal" machine (something with 16 tons would be much better) I had an interesting experience the other day when one attempted to start a modest train from an intermediate station. A violent slip, I mean really violent, saw the carriages being shaken like a rat by a terrier which was not nice for those aboard. Needless to say this was the unrebuilt variety.

PH

 

(Deleted)

Tom

 

Reading Railway magazine some months ago there was an article regarding used track panels that were for sale from Network Railway according to the article Network Rails has two places that recycle old rail. From memory Totton and Westbury are the two recycling yards. Reading the article NR had a open day and invited all standard gauge UK preserved railways to come and see what was for sale but not a signal preserved Railway took up the offer to come and see what was for sale.

 

Out of curiosity (I don't know the answer...) how much actual strengthening do you need on a preserved line to get it up to RA9? Afterall, the stress is partially a dynamic phenomenon. So, for example, a 22ton axle load loco at 25 mph is probably less hammer blow and less stress on bridges etc than a 18 or 19ton loco at 70mph. So I wonder whether actually the mechanism most lines have used to increase the axle loads of permissible locos is actually just to decrease speeds to a point which is fine for preserved lines, but wouldn't have been economic "back in the day". In other words, a line which would never have seen anything bigger than, say, a Maunsell mogul or standard 4 in BR days, can easily cope with a Lord Nelson or King Arthur in preservation at minimum capital expense of upgrading by virtue of lower line speed.

Just a theory, would be interested to hear from people at the sharp end of preserved line infrastructure.

Tom

 

I don't think that you are far wrong, Tom. The vast majority of standard gauge heritage railways use 95lb BH or even heavier FB rail with sleeper spacing at 2'-6" or less and this can take a 25ton axle load so the governing constraints must be bridges (and perhaps curvature or some other dimensional constraint - one reason why 60007 can't go to Whitby). I'm no bridge engineer but I believe that speed plays a significant factor. Bridges don't usually fail through simple gross weight; it is more a question of hammering them into submission! Slow speed heavy blows are the same as higher speed lesser blows.

OK, smaller locos will do less ultimate damage but the big factor against larger locos has to be standby losses and increased overhaul costs but it is arguable that bigger locos will have less wear and tear in themselves in performing the same duty.

 

I would say the Churnet Valley is another where decent power is needed operationally, certainly if regular running up to Cauldon Lowe without a banker is to be a feature in future.

Am I right in thinking ten coupled loco's can't go up there or did I imagine that ?.

Problem with motive power in many cases is you don't have too much of a choice in what you use.

 

Could it be that the message did not get through to the relevant department heads in time.

I do seem to remember seeing a list issued from Network Rail about 2 years ago but there was nothing on it of interest just scrap condition material. I do not know if this was the same material or not though.

 

One of the reasons why the NYMR has, over the last couple of years, been welding up the joints around bridge abutments and also within the bridge if possible bearing in mind allowances for expansion with joints etc.
On NWR the requirement is for no joints to be within 4.5m of an abutment.

 

I have heard that 9F's were banned due to the severity of the curves, as are diesels with the larger "1-CO" bogies such as Class 40's and Peaks, presumably for the same reason.

Class 4's and 5's seem to manage fine on sensible loads, Black 5's seem to be popular with various crews and are generally regarded as a "nice size" for the branch with their power and water capacity. I guess if watering facilities were introduced at Cauldon Lowe this restraint to loco choice (particular tank engines) could be eased slightly?