GWSR Broadway Developments

It just seams like poor planning or as you say the "big chuferitis at play" we will probably end up having to dig up newly laid platforms to put in pipework etc, should have been put in place even though it may not have been needed at the time.
As For locos apart from Dinmore Manor the other locos are to big a Pannier could do the same job as P&O on half the water and coal consumption!

 

I'd say 7903 and 2807 are well suited too, both being historically appropriate to the line (that's important isn't it Paul?), Foremarke's reasonably matched in terms of train length, yes it could take more but 8 is a reasonable load behind a hall, and 2807 was designed to haul trains going at 25 mph. There's no getting away from the fact that P&O is far too big from our needs, but its the only loco I'm ever asked about rostered dates for besides gala guests outside galas. Not saying it evens out the costs, but it's still popular (and the added fun pointing and laughing when it sleeps shouldn't be underestimated )

 

Not really, not when there wasn't one there originally. Would it be considered taking the biscuit if I suggested the powers that be considered the authenticity of the station as well as the (at the time viewed) lack of need for facilities?

If it's decided we need it later, it'll get done - in my experience things that need getting done get done on this railway.

 

This is not exactly like running at Kings Cross to Edinburgh speeds or over Mid Hants gradients. It will be interesting to see what business settles down to when the novelty wears off.

PH

 

I quite like 4270, I've had a few rides behind her and not noticed anything uncomfortable about them. Perhaps you caught 4270 on a bad day.

 

Where is anyone arguing for a fleet of Gresley pacifics?

The view FS123 expressed above, that overall the fleet is well-suited to their needs, with the exception of P&O, seems a little more sensible.

It almost sounds as though you hope for a big decline in their business. I'm sure that can't be true, can it?

 

You have an MN which is completely over the top.

Of course I don't want your business to decline but experience elsewhere suggests that an initial surge eases off. If it doesn't, then good for you.

PH

 

If the pannier were expected to do 60 m.p.h. no doubt this is so.

PH

 

It could but since one third of all Merchant Navy class locos built ended up in preservation in one form or another its a shame not to use them isn't it? We have the locos we have largely due to fate and I think we should just rejoice that we have. I really fail to understand this griping by people regarding large and small locos. However, I assume they are just claiming the right to be unhappy.

 

the fore and aft shuffling was so bad , I rode in the rear coach on the return journey and it was still unacceptable. Freight locos like this need some modification to the balancing (presumably) to work passenger trains. They can't be good for the rolling stock either.

 

May not have been specifically just the balancing. However they are balanced, Stephenson valve gear locos will rock fore and aft if driven at low speed in too short a cut off. It’s caused by an excess of lead steam that goes beyond the intended cushioning of the piston at the end of its stroke, and starts to actively try to push it the wrong way, which gets felt as fire and aft shocks through the loco. The answer is to work at longer cut off with less regulator.

Tom

 

faulty enginemanship then you reckon?

 

Can I site Warwick Parkway and Stratford Parkway as new stations on curves.

 

I had the fore and aft rocking behind 2807 in the first coach. Probably not specific to one loco, but as explained elsewhere due to the position of the reverser.

 

You can try, but apparently the regulations now forbid it.

 

I give up then! I don't know!