West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Why 60 or so coaches??

The WSR has is operational fleet, some 24 coaches, the QB stock say 4, the Pullman fleet 1, Hawksworth saloon , 5542 Auto coach, the Heritage train, say 6 wooden bodied coaches plus the 6 spare wooden bodied coaches

43 total, with say 3 in overhaul or paintshop at anyone time so accommodation for 40 coaches at one location tops.

Normally at least 6 maybe 8 coaches would be stabled at MD during the operational season however in the closed season cover should be available.

Is there a couple of 10 coach sets that we don't know about??

Jeff Price

 

If you are likely to need to work on the stock then an allowance for that should also be made. But not 10 coaches worth.
Ideally about 10 - 15ft between vehicles if the road can be locked out by wheel stops.

 

Thanks, Jeff, that's probably a better number, maybe compromise at 50?
The intent was to provide some idea of the scope, rather than a detailed design.
My beer mat was quite soggy, but I did include the DMU & some camping coaches.
The SVR shed must be close to one acre, but it does not excite me that the fleet is in a single location, because of the fire risk.
I think I'd assume BL, MD & then WN for overhauls - or something like that.

 

Whatever it is say 3 Swindon Sheds looks pretty do-able

Ideally I suppose spread between Minehead, BL & Williton

 

There's usually a set based at at Bridgnorth, but the SVR is rather lucky the Carriage works is separate the Carriage shed, I do take your point about having all your stock stored in one point. although with the SVR where else would there be for another carriage shed?

 

Would they fit nicely in the Norton Triangle ? Potential for flooding could be alleviated by raising the track and access road level slightly.

 

Just to reassure re the SVR shed. It is effectively two sheds with a firewall between. Also in general only running maintenance takes place in the shed. Heavy overhauls, welding etc is done in the Pickfords building at Kidder or at Bewdley

 

Just for clarity are some of these suggestions above alternatives to the Southern Gateway Proposal? I'd be happy to include alternative suggestions in the WSRA response if I'm sent any.
Regarding Norton I do think that currently there is concern about the remoteness of the location and the consequent potential for vandalism. Of course this could be overcome.

 

The other consideration with Norton Fitzwarren - it depends on whether you are considering a storage shed, or a running shed.

If it is the former, fair enough. But if it is the latter, and assuming you want to put your stock away every night and get it out every morning, you are adding about 8 - 10 miles of ECS or light engine mileage each day for each set you store there, relative to storing them at Bishops Lydeard. That mounts up in locomotive cost over a year, not to mention the impact it has on crew duties and whether they still fit within a 12 hour day. I'd reckon that it would probably add at least an hour to every duty at each end of the day to run from BL to NF light engine, shunt a set of stock out of a shed and bring it back to BL ready for departure; or the opposite move at the end of a day. That in turn might start causing you to think about awkward decisions between splitting duties (requiring more crews) or maybe rostering dedicated pilot to do the duty (also meaning more crews, and another loco required).

Tom

 

The Swindon Shed would only take 9 coaches if it was built with 3 tracks running through it against the 6 with the current 2 tracks, but if you want to do brake adjustments etc there would be not much room for the jobs like this to be done with 3 tracks. So a building at least 5 to 8 times the size of the Swindon Shed depending on how many tracks run through it will needed to be built for the coaching stock. To me the coach shed should be only used for storing the coaches and day to day maintenance of them, and the C&W work should be done in other buildings for fire risk.

 

One thing that is being considered for the proposed NYMR carriage running shed, is to have one road with a pit and space to get a fork lift down either side, another road would have platforms both sides with the rest just for storage.

Sawdust.

 

Whatever happens however I suggest that keeping as much stock as possible under cover especially over the winter must be a high priority on all lines

 

Being able to do routine examinations and maintenance under cover are almost a separate issue to a storage shed, and need not be in the same place.

As @johnofwessex says, there is a bigger issue with ensuring that stock which will be in the same place for a lengthy period of time, especially during bad, winter weather (like we usually have in August perhaps! ), is under cover, whereas stock in daily use could be argued to be better off running up and down and being able to dry out properly rather than being put away 'wet' every night.

This is where the ability to undertake the exams under cover and in specifically designed facilities becomes a separate, but still important, feature.

In other words, depending on your maintenance systems, you probably need one maintenance facility and storage sheds where stock spend long periods of time, plus stock diagraming to ensure that stock can be examined in accordance with the maintenance schedule laid down.

Steven

 

Jeff,

I absolutely love the phrase 'Pullman fleet'.

As you might expect, I would hope covered accommodation for the QB set is being considered for the future, as a significant proportion of profit generated by our dining train operation is inevitably soaked up by bodywork and plumbing repairs that become necessary as a result of all-year round open storage. Perhaps the possibility of our BL bay platform eventually being required for main-line services and the subsequent need to relocate QB's stabling location will nicely dovetail with a move to undercover stabling. I'm not sure that the Southern Gateway consultation documentation released thus far answers that conundrum though.

While mentioning our future main line passenger service possibilities, there was a most excellent feature article in the big railway staff newspaper Railnews last month that examined the WSR/GWR initiative in very informed detail. It certainly made a very clear case against a full line service but gave a cautious welcome to the BL connection pilot scheme. If you have an opportunity to seek out a copy of February's Railnews then I recommend a read.

Barrie

 

Where can you get a copy of Railnews?

 

A carriage storage shed should be very well ventilated, albeit weatherproof.

The slat-sided type of building common in agricultural use would seem to be ideal.

This would allow coaches to be put away 'wet' and to then dry out rapidly.

It is important that coaches are 'put away' during the daily running season, as they only spend 8 hours in use, and so would be protected from the weather for 16 hours on a runnng day, and sunlight for 8 hours.

If we assume 200 operating days and 165 non-operating days (all day in the shed) this would imply weather protection 82% of the time, a very significant contribution to the longevity of paintwork (at least), the interval between repair and the overall life of the vehicles.

Robin

 

Post deleted.....

 

Whilst I understand the thinking re putting the stock away each evening, as apparently planned that will entail a shunt, reversal & run round each morning and a shunt with reversal into the c shed at the end of each working day. That would rather alter things for already rather scarce loco crews, guards and signalmen unless a shunting loco with driver & shunter are available. On the SVR at Kidderminster not all stock is put away every night in the main season but only the stock required for the next day is left out. The benefit of the c shed is still very considerable.

 

This is called Yorkshire Boarding.

 

On the Bluebell, we have:

- A carriage running shed at Sheffield Park (where all our trains start - building it eliminated about ten miles per day of LE working on the old timetable). It holds 17 full-size coaches in three roads, sufficient for two service sets and the Pullman set. Maintenance work is prohibited in that shed. The headshunt is sufficient length for loco + 6 coaches to clear the fouling point, which means in normal operation, the service sets can be shunted without splitting them

- A maintenance shed at Horsted Keynes, used for heavy overhauls / restorations (and also where the Mets tend to live in a separate storage part). Not sure of the capacity, I suspect probably about six or seven or so full size coaches under overhaul with space around them to work; and about two or three others that can be stored.

- An under-cover maintenance road five coaches long, with a pit for underneath examination, hard standing for jacking up a couple of carriages for bogie swaps etc - this is for routine in-traffic maintenance and exams. Until recently, a lot of that work took place outside.

- A storage shed (under construction; not yet in use) will be capable of holding 20 full-length coaches (4 roads * 5 coaches long each). There will be insufficient space to shunt more than about three at a time into each road, if that - this is specifically a long-term storage facility to get unrestored stock under cover to prevent further deterioration, and also tidy up the lines of carriages under tarpaulins. Maintenance will not be allowed when this opens.

That amount of storage (when the last bit is finished) will allow all the wooden-bodied carriages to live under cover - those in traffic, those under maintenance; those under overhaul and those awaiting restoration. Even so, we will still need more under cover storage to wooden bring wagons and vans under cover, and about half the loco fleet.

Getting to that point has probably been a project of about 20 years duration and maybe £5m of fundraising ...

Tom