SVR Loco Newsy News / discussions

From what I heard from my day on the railway, the main cause of late running was the addition of an extra diesel on the return CS1 at Bewdley for testing purposes, and on the timetable in use, it is quite a feat to gain back time.

I also heard SKP was sent on the wrong road at Kidderminster during the first run round, which also caused some delay. So from what I can make out, SKP performed well and the late running certainly wasn't the engine's or the loco crew's fault.

Thanks,
Lewis

 

I was on the delayed 1245 departure think the problem was that the train was fouling the track circuit so the signalman could not release the class 50 from the yard we were pushed out by SKP up to the carriage shed to let the 50 enter the station. SKP then drew the train into the platform and the 50 headed off to Bewdley.Hoping to come up again on Friday for another day with SKP.

 

I guessed the must have been some issue as everything from the afternoon on was running late. The shunting at bridgenorth was not the easiest operation i assume this was due to the length of train in use.
I think SKP is a very good adition to the fleet and will generate lots of interest from the public as where was on sunday.

 

Anyone got any videos of SKP in action this weekend?

 

Why did they want to play testing boxes on a busy bank holiday running weekend?
Seems the MHR are at it as well with their Hoover.

 

I do yes, will be up soon!

Thanks,
Lewis

 

43106 failed this morning with a broken spring on central axle of tender. Now at B'nth for new spring, then weighing.

20188 deputised on CS3

Due to 43106 repair/weighing, tomorrow's 3 locos in steam will be 34053, 2857, 4566. Table B

@svrbridgnorth

Also, point lock 36 (to point 37) at Kidderminster is out of use and there is no run round facility in platform 1, as recorded in the Traffic Notices. Trains therefore arrive in P2, run round, haul to loop, propel across crossover & back down P1.

The S&T department has had immovable deadlines to meet for the Network Rail re-signalling, which os taking place this weekend, with further work required on the SVR side of the fence afterwards.

As there is a workaround (described above) this repair isn't the top priority and is being fitted in on an "as and when" basis. It is a standard Western Region Facing Point Lock but when you get down to the level of swopping individual components, the word "standard" has little meaning, so sourcing a complete set of compatible parts has been one of the considerations.

Patrick

 

This appears to have been fixed, trains were certainly running round on the weekend on P1.

 

Indeed, I saw 34053 run round twice

 

Right,
A few things to clear up from this weekend. 34053 is a very fine engine with a beautiful sharp beat but she is still encountering some running in stiffness and shakedowns.
I just happened to be on the footplate of SKP all day Sunday. On the first up trip we were routed via the loop at Kidder due to the main being under possession due to the impending deadline set by the big railway. We were expecting to arrive into the loop and get the peg for P1 but the signalman openly failed to read his traffic notice regarding the length of the train ( 8 mark 1s plus 7511 of equal length). When we came to a stand we could not guarantee we would be clear of the block joint and thus locking up the whole platform. We decided to propel out and return into P1 which the FPL has duly been replaced with a spare that was common with the FPL in P1.
I have no idea why the Cl 50 was out to play when they could have waited for CS1 to return to Kidder and just whack 50031 on the north end and away they go.
The short stop at Bewdley was due to the brake handle dropping on the footplate and causing the stop. It was immediately followed by the leading two doors being opened and people charging on and off. We then had too draw forward because we needed to load 2 bikes into the saloon.

It wasnt a concorde disaster but small things all together caused the 15-20 minute delay. The crews and staff were trying to make up time but ultimately on timetable C there isnt the recovery time.

 

Point of fact 50 027 was not on test. It was helping 34007 which was very low on pressure due to some problems on shed earlier.

I suspect that the SVR chaps wanted a loaded test run and used the 2nd 50 for "insurance" quite sensible.

The brake handles on the Bulleid engines do have a habit of "dropping in" at the most inconvenient moment and catching out those less well acquainted with them. I'm sure that the SVR will have it licked in a week or so.

 

Read 34053 for 34007? Otherwise, I'd be an extremely happy bunny if there was also an unrebuilt attending the forthcoming gala!

 

I think he was talking about the 50 that was out and about at the MHR. It was referenced by someone a few posts back.

 

Yep. 50 027 being MHR based. I did include the quote, but I admit it wasn't the best written post and perhaps a little confusing. Sorry.

 

I was on 50031 Sunday, a few answers from this side of the fence....

No, if the testing of a diesel loco was going to cause considerable delay to service trains the Duty Officer would not allow it.

We brought the 50 round the shed peg at around 1220, 34053 was in section from Bewdley and signalled into platform 2 preventing us from leaving the yard, The train was around 5 late arriving and due to it's length should not have used platform 2 as it could not run round. This then prevented us from leaving the yard for our expected 1230 path to Bewdley to pilot 035 back. 34053 had to set it's train back into the loop and then draw it back into P1 to run round, as soon as it was inside on platform 1 we had the road out into No.2, changed ends and departed light to Bewdley. I can only assume we were well clear of the section before 34053 had ran round and was ready to depart again as on arrival at bewdley we dropped straight on the front of 50035 and then had to wait nearly 20 minutes for the northbound train.

In response to why not just out 031 on the 1330 departure (which it did do solo), the loco had been reapired on Saturday following it's failure nearly four weeks ago and it was deemed a much more responsible move to give it a loaded test run with assistance engine provided and fitter with it rather than just hand it over to the booked diesel driver for the second trip and send it on a wing and prayer as a failure in the middle of the line would cause much more severe delays.

 

Quite so. I was at Kidderminster when they arrived pouring out great gobbets of the foulest exhaust you could imagine. I was on my way home from Porthmadog and I normally take a break at Kidderminster and have a mooch around. On this occasion I didn't stay as the tea room was literally filled with the sight and smell of the diesel exhaust.

Ark Royal was the worst, absolutely dreadful: there is no way that engine should have been out on the line!

Regards

 

Polite request here: don't start another Steam vs Diesel rant. Just don't.

 

Context is everything :lol:

 

:amen:

 

The poster above, Orion, has a point, and it is NOT "steam vs diesel" ! He was presumably at issue with a '50 at the buffer stops idling and filling the concourse with diesel fumes.I have experienced that with one of the 20's, the one that was in black livery, and before it had some engine work done. It sat ticking over at the stops, and because the prevailing wind tends to blow down the platform and into the concourse at Kidderminster, it soon filled with unpleasant fumes/blue exhaust.
The steam crews, if their engine is at the stops for any length of time seem able to "shut down" the steam loco, ie dampers shut, firedoor open, low fire, and the loco just sits there quietly causing no offence to anyone!!
I repeat, this is not steam vs diesel, it is a matter of fact.