SVR Loco Newsy News / discussions

Busy day on the SVR on Saturday. I do like the times of year when shorter coaching sets mean smaller engines about.
Had a storming run to Bridgnorth behind 1501, (LMS set load 7)...loco just toyed with it.

On the return trip also with 1501, I will remember the run up the hill past the Safari Park for a long time. Quickly up to 25 mph after the Bewdley viaduct slack, and the regulator was well open right through the tunnel. The noise was incredible. I suspect the footplate is quite lively on 1501 at line speed, given the engine's short wheelbase.

Incidentally, talking to a Bewdley loco crew chap in the morning, he said that the loss of 34053 from the fleet will not be mourned by the P-Way people. Apparently they think the big pacifics don't do the fishplates any good on certain stretches of the SVR.

46118

 

Nice photo
If that's from your back garden then I guess I need to wave hello to my left on the way to work in the morning!

I was thinking of "Callow Hill" itself, at Minsterley. Site of the old council stone quarry, now owned but not worked by Tarmac. This was serviced by the SDR before final closure, and in more recent times was the alleged base for the sham renewed SDR.

 

The argument between the civil engineer and the CME continues then! We go on about the ideal loco as regards carriage loads, but I do wonder what someone who's responsible for P-way and civils would say about what loco's ideal for their needs? Apart from a Wickham Trolley obviously!

 

Matt: I know it probably doesn't help with peak season services, but an SVR fleet of Panniers, Prairies, Manors and the odd LMS/Standard class 4 would be a good compromise, nothing with a high axle load.
(No bias, I love the noise the ex-GW types make, but I come from an LMS background....just for clarification!)

46118

(ps: I think there is a "Duchess" on for the Autumn gala, that will get the P-Way folk talking. Maybe rightly so)

 

Without drifting off-topic, the axle loading issue is a serious one. A number of heritage lines are having to come to terms with permanent way that is showing signs of age and urgently requires replacement. Didn't I read a while ago that the West Somerset were thinking about restricting steam loco use to smaller, low axle load engines due to the state of their track, and I think similar concerns at the Bluebell?

On the SVR we appear to replace only about a mile or less each closed season, and I guess there is again a pressing backlog.

 

In theory, 'a mile or less' will see the whole line renewed every 20 or 25 years (depending on how much 'less' is!) However, there are three problems with this:

1. BR will probably have spread renewals over a shorter time (assuming that is when they were last done - if not, see point 2.!), so basically the whole line will have had 'the fat' used up and will all need renewing in short order. (Probably even more true for metal bridges, which will all date either from construction or a period of replacing those built when the line was built)
2. Renewals within the preserved era were with second-hand materials - possibly still are (although these are harder to come by). Concrete sleepers may have a useful life of 75 years at 25mph, but if they were 50 years old when installed 30 years ago, there is a problem! Some lines are having to relay areas they have they themselves already relaid.
3. How many lines have tackled issues with actual structures unless there has been a land slip or similar making it unavoidable? Hence, a 'relay' may be a bigger job if underlying ground conditions need tackling too (or indeed decent track may need to be removed to access such issues, or have had its life shortened by them).

I never made it as far as starting my Civil Engineering degree course, but, as an accountant, I have had a good 'teacher' on matters civil!

Steven

 

I am a know nothing on this and others will comment authoritatively but 3 things

The structures are in need of protection. See Falling Sands and the £1.25m bill

The formation is ok except when it isn't, if you know what I mean. The storm and County Boundary slip both show the trackbed is 'sub-optimal', made up in part of ash, slag etc. It works until there is a failure, but until then it doesn't get replaced. At County boundary the slip isn't caused by the make up of the formation but the opportunity is now being taken to strengthen it by using crushed stone.

The third is rail. Replacing 16+ miles at 1/4 of a mile a year requires a very long rail life and the railway has enjoyed a legacy of rail that it did not replace for many years. Talking to people on the SVR there is some pressure to up the ante on this. The joys of heritage railway management of priorities - I wouldn't want to do it!

(Just seen Steven's excellent post)

Regards

Patrick

 

The issue at the Bluebell is the cant being set for 40 mph running (as the track between Sheffield Park and Horsted Keynes is largely still original BR) coupled with wearing rail profiles is increasing flange wear.

 

I think the first point is really important; and is also potentially an issue (current or future) for lines which rebuilt or extended during preservation in a relatively short time, as you will at some point end up with a significant section all coming to end of life at once. There are quite a number of mature, large, heritage railways that rebuilt from the ground up about 40 years ago ...

I'm certainly not in a management function on a railway, but I do have a lot of sympathy for those that are, as essentially capital decisions involve endless decisions about vital priorities which can't all be tackled at once, but all are apparently urgent. If I were a betting man, I suspect we could well see a decade across many of the larger more established railways in which the dominant themes are a combination of infrastructure renewal; efforts to build undercover storage space, and volunteer numbers.

Tom

 

The GWSR extension to Broadway is/has been built using largely new flat-bottom rail that is then welded. I wonder if they buy "seconds" from Teeside, ie new rails that when rolled were not quite up to Network Rail standards?

I truly don't know, someone from the Glos-Warks might have an answer.

46118

 

As far as I am aware, rail (and sleepers, ballast) are not necessarily the highest cost. A lot depends whether the relaying is just putting new track on the old formation, or involves substantial work on the formation as well, at which point the per-mile cost goes up due to the amount of plant etc that needs to be bought in. (Hence I suspect @D1039’s comment above in post 1908). In the Bluebell’s case there seems to be a big difference depending whether the relaying is on top of an embankment (fairly straightforward) or in a cutting (much more complex, generally needing substantial drainage work) though I’m sure the situation varies from railway to railway, dependent on the local underlying geology and the construction practices of the original railway company.

Tom

 

Pretty much I think. The below shows how different each can be.

The 2015 works were the infamous overrun on Severn Trent/Amey replacing the mains water pipes under the railway. The relaid section wasn't a long one however. At the same time was a major drainage and relaying job through Arley station.

The 2016 works were the rerailing of around half a mile of Eardington bank with drainage improvement, but IIRC this didn't involve lots of work on the formation.

The 2017 works at Waterworks Straight involved around half a mile of rail, but removing the rail, ballast and old concrete pipework out of the formation, putting in substantial new pipework, reinstating the formation and relacing rail, sleepers and ballast.

County Works in 2017 was a major job with soil nailing at al and finally excavation of the around 600 tonnes of ash and ballast, to be replaced by imported stone and reinforcing mesh topped off with 4 panels of relaid track and fresh ballast.

I'm not sure if I have missed anything, but add it all together and 5 projects give under two miles of new rail? It shows how much track there still is to do, and how much can be involved.

Patrick

 

Both relays at Eardington and Waterworks were with flat bottom CWR. Bewdley tunnel was done a few years ago (2011?) with CWR.

 

An update about the thread topic for a change
7812 has now finished, but isn't planned to be away for long. The EMF are hoping for a 2020 return http://www.erlestokemanorfund.co.uk/want-to-help/final-mile/
34053 will be moving to Swanage in the near future.
75069's prolonged overhaul is getting there. The boiler is likely to be finished in the spring (most recent SVR news) leading to the loco probably finished and back in traffic during the summer.
The stanier mogul will be returning in its original 1934 guise of 13268. http://staniermogulfund.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/DSCF0232.gif
1450 has been repainted in GWR livery.
80072 is staying on till the spring.
Not steam, but the DMU has been fixed. Hopefully the next few weeks can allow any other issues to be sorted out ready for February half-term.

 

80072 resting on shed, yesterday.

 

The unit is formed as a four car set with 52064 at Kidderminster for an engine change.

Patrick

 

The length from Falling Sands viaduct towards Kidder Town as far as the first point was also relaid in recent times with modern high quality materials.

 

That was a rail industry training project, and I think that in return for the use of the site, some or all of the materials were provided gratis, or at minimal cost.
Maybe that is a situation that could be exploited by other heritage lines?