S&D Railway Trust

its certainly more suited to a slow steady plod, which is what you need for heavy trains on your gradients, than a Hall with its larger driving wheels and more likily to slipping on less than perfect railhead conditions,

 

A great video. Keith, and a fine example of why 53808 (and hopefully S&DRT) must stay on the line.



Steve

 

He only owns "red" engines doesn't he? and of them only 9466 is currently steamable.

Out of interest, who decides when the WSR is capable of accepting red engines again, is it an ORR man or other independent inspector, or an internal WSR engineer/chairman-cum-loco owner?

It seems clear the accusations of 88 being thrashed are pretty rubbish though. It certainly can't have been thrashed purely on the basis of being rostered on that train as it should be perfectly within its capabilities. Whether a driver was witnessed "thrashing" the loco is another matter, but that's got little to do with whether it was given too heavy a load, and surely nothing to do with WSR policy.

 

The "fast track" overhaul of Kinlet Hall has been going on for several years now and I seem to recall reading in one of the threads on here that either Thornbury Castle or 9466 was purchased by means of a loan via one of JJP's companies. That leaves me wondering exactly how deep his pockets might be. It's one thing to be chairman of the Plc, quite another to be owner of it, if that is his Machiavellian intention.

 

Thanks for the video. Enables a bit of linesiding, well at least video siding. Thanks also for holding the shot
ie so that whole train passes.

Assuming the 10 Mark 1s were 210 yards end to end then 17mph at Churchlands and 24.5 at
Stogumber. If the 17mph was being maintained on the 1/80 this represents an EDHP of c. 650-700
( it could be speed was falling post a higher speed attained earlier past MP179.ii)

The 24.5 mph at Stogumber presumably had been attained and maintained on the 1/92. Representing
a high evaporation rate for a Compound boiler, but it is noticeable that 88 is showing a white feather.
Presumably , unlike at Churchlands on the Down run, she would have been well warmed up and the
S/H high. Certainly to the videosider anorak everything looks well under control. Certainly not
being thrashed ( RFO and 40-45 % ? )

Regarding earlier postings I submit that it was not from climbing up the 1/50 grades between Bath and
Evercreech that the 7Fs suffered but rather when travelling at speed on passenger duties. On the Sunday
post the last Pines, 88 worked a Nine coach train special through from Weymouth to Bath via Broadstone.
This involved speeds up to 57mph. after Dorchester, 59 max on the S&D with 50 plus averaged over 14
miles. Having almost kept schedule to Evercreech she lost time significantly on to Bath falling
to 13 before Chilcompton. ( probably suffering from overheating etc engendered by the high speeds
earlier. )

The EDHP at Stogumber was 875-900. As a comparison; best I have noted with a
51xx 2-6-2 tank (4160 ) 850-900 and with a 43xx 2-6-0 1050-1100 both with boilers,
and particularly grates some 30% smaller in area.

ps I am very happy to join in this type of debate !

Michael Rowe

 

If that is true, then I must have missed it - where was that stated please?
And if so, then has the WSSRT said why they supports the Plc's action please?

 

Well, if you were cynical, or a conspiracy theorist then you might think something like this:

Get rid of S&DRT
Lose 88
WSR short of loco power - who on earth has powerful locomotives available that could help the WSR?
A knight in shining armour with a loco is needed.
Knight hires loco to railway (not gift etc)
Knight takes money.

Of course, you would have to be pretty paranoid to think that the chairman of the PLC would deliberately create a crisis in order to create the circumstances which would mean the railway would be dependent on his or a friend’s locomotives.

It would be as insane as a football club chairman setting fire to his club’s stadium.

 

Although as I've mentioned, he only owns "red" locos too heavy for the line at the moment. If we suddenly get a unilateral declaration that the WSR is now fit for "red" locos without any sort of inspection by the ORR I might be a little suspicious, but even then I'm not convinced it's for that purpose.
I think it's far more likely to do with the WSR trying to divest itself of the overhaul costs of 88 as they don't have the money, or at least don't want to spend the money on that. Although I think it's a massive mistake and also an incredibly horrible way of doing things, I can see that a certain type of unpleasant mind might think that taking those actions were in the best interests of the WSR (even though it's really not as viewed by any normal person).

 

The ORR wouldn’t be the ones to inspect and certify the line for “red route” status, that would be the responsibility of the WSR itself under the Safety Management System.

If you look at the present loco availability 7828 and 9351 are owned by the Plc so no immediate hire charges or expenses accrue (separate debate about the deferred costs of the next overhaul). Then there is 88 with no hire cost but deferred liability of overhaul. There have been at least 2 season hires beyond these locos (last year 7752 and 7822). Therefore conceivable that there is a demand for another 2 locos to operate the service even with 88. Other “in house” options such as 4561 seem to be a bit further down the line.

Personally I think that (considering the termination of other agreements) IF the Plc wish to divest itself of the 88 agreement it is likely to be either considered as collateral damage to the eviction notice or to avoid the deferred liability of overhaul which presumably has a cumulative and negative effect on the accounts.

regards

Matt

 

I think we'd only have to worry there if JJP's critics could show his previous companies had a track record of allegedly falsifying signatures on safety certificates, or pressuring staff to give the "right" answers to safety checks. I mean, *then*, there would be something to worry about - but surely nobody would put someone with that reputation in a responsible position of management, would they?

(Do I get a keeping-my-face-straight award now please?)

 

So, following that logic, discarding known and quantified liabilities for a bet on something turning up, preferably a bit later? I hope that logic is not in play.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I tend to agree. Of course this makes the decision to sell 4110 look even more short sighted than it already did.

You could argue that the direction of travel is to concentrate locomotive ownership in the hands of a few ie PLC, his own and maybe a wealthy patron.

But if that is the plan then why not express it as such?

An alternative conspiracy theory might be to turn it into a PDR north, by getting rid of all the volunteers - those you can’t alienate you kick out. While Minehead is no Kingswear, it makes a nice place for railtours to end and ideal if you happen to be a wealthy patron in the railtour business with some locos to hand to cover a loco shortage.

The lack of a clear plan, combined with the my way or out, doesn’t really inspire confidence and into the vacuum step conspiracies.

For the sake of clarity, I tend think that the actions of the PLC give rise to the impression of a board stuffed with thin skinned, infantile, incompetent egomaniacs and who don’t have the capacity or the skills for complex plots requiring actions three or four steps down the line.

 

I don’t know if that is the logic but we do know that the liability for the overhaul of 44442 was a stated factor in the accounts with the 800k loss.

regards

Matt

 

If the WSR didn't overhaul 88 before handing it back to the S&DRT, would the latter be able to sue for breach of contract? Or is the possibility of returning it un-overhauled expressly recognized therein? (I ask as I have a vague memory that it was in an un-overhauled state when it first came to the WSR, so in a sense each overhaul could be seen as giving the WSR the right to run it for its next period in ticket.)

Noel

 

How does the carbon get into the cylinders in the first place?

 

Yes, but...it is then required to give put it back into good order again ready for another 10 years (or whatever). In other words, use it then mend it, not use it then hand it back broken.

 

Basically by the pyrolysis (partial decomposition) of the cylinder lubricating oil at the high temperatures experienced.

Tom

 

Hi Ross,

As I recall it, on 17th August last year '88' had 10 coaches to haul that were very well filled, which was way over 300 tons.

But I am quite happy to proved wrong over all this. I will happily admit a mistake

I have a copy of the agreement between the SDRT and the WSR PLC in respect of loco '88'. It is a legally enforceable contract. I am aware that JJP's grasp and understanding of legal matters is not that great! The potential sums involved on the part of the WSR PLC, as a legal obligation and financial commitment rather do make one sit up, and might provide the context for the WSR PLC board's instructions to it's Solicitors to issue the 'Notice to Quit' over Washford, perhaps?

On the other hand, I appreciate that most of the Loco Dept and Workshop staff are very fond of '88', and that if JJP dislikes '88' (he has form on this with another ex - LMS loco), then the omens are not good.

Washford is the embodiment of the old 'S&D' as the base for the SDRT; and if there is such strong feeling within the WSR generally towards SDRT owned loco '88', this ought to be also expressed in support for Washford and the SDRT? I do not consider the 2; Washford, and '88', to be separate; they are interwoven in the moral consciousness of the WSR family for some 45 years.

JJP does not appear to understand this.

Anyway, Happy Easter to you all! I can't do my bellringing or attend the Church service tomorrow, and back to my 'key worker' role on Bank Holiday Monday

Cheers,

Julian

 

Come on, don't sit on the fence
Pat

 

My comments were entirely about your use of the word "Thrash". Just that. I'll agree 53808 has had to work hard some days, but....
All your other posts I read with great interest and support.
Happy Easter