SVR-Online Forum Forum Index SVR-Online Forum
The forum is run on a voluntary basis for members, volunteers and SVR enthusiasts.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Bridgnorth Turntable: 2010 onwards
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SVR-Online Forum Forum Index -> General Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Buffer



Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 682
Location: Leamington Spa

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bradleyman wrote:
Buffer wrote:
Danny252 wrote:
boldford wrote:
During normal timetabled running days use of a turntable after each run would impact the timetable we run.


How long does it take to turn a locomotive? It'd being a bit tight when it's a half hour turn around with the locomotive taking coal and water, but on other timetables they're back on the train five minutes after arriving and sit there for 50 minutes.


This is also my recollection from my time as signalman at Bridgnorth. There may be occasions when turning is not possible in the time available but provided these are relatively few, the economic and other advantages of turning tender engines at each end of the line should be carefully examined. There should be plenty of data on the increase in tyre wear caused by running 4-6-0 and 2-6-0 locos in reverse as we ought to be able to compare say a 'Manor' or 7325 with 5164, assuming that a 2-6-2 is the ideal solution for either way running. If we do not have the data then perhaps the WSR could provide it as they have the perfect locos for comparison, namely 2-6-2T no.4160 and the 2-6-0 no.9351 that was formerly 2-6-2T no.5193.
As part of the economics we should note that increased tyre wear brings with it increased rail wear. In addition, it might be expected that reverse running causes greater tyre wear on the tender, a not unimportant factor bearing in mind that a fully loaded tender on a 'Hall' is only slightly lighter than a pannier.


Not sure how the WSR could help as locos are not routinely turned during the regular WTT days except for one turn in the summer peak only when the loco is turned to demonstrate the turntable. Sometimes the instruction is to turn 360 degrees rather than 180 degrees for other operational reasons. The WSR does run all or nearly all chimney first during Galas but those amount to a handful of days per year when extra locos are in service.

Tender tyre wear is far less significant that the wear on the rear coupled wheel tyres of tender locos run in reverse.


If a 2-6-2 is the ideal loco for either way running, then comparing the tyre wear rate on the coupled wheels of such a loco with that of a loco which spends half its time running 'wrong' direction should give an estimate of the saving in always working the latter in the 'right' direction.

As regards Boldford's latest comment, are we not discussing desirability rather than priority?
_________________
Buffer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bradleyman



Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 827

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boldford wrote:
All this froth about a turntable is overtaking things far more important IMO.

Or, are we going to say a T/T is more important than improved catering facilities?
Is a T/T more important than improved volunteer accommodation?
Is a T/T more important than improved visitor car parking?
. . . . .

I could go on.

The reality is; on a scale of 1 to 10 the importance of a turntable is about a number 12.


Indeed the real quest should be to improve Bridgnorth so that it once again is an attractive starting point with rising passenger income to match. The turntable? - well in my view at the risk of serious thread crossover it should be installed at....................a reconnected (to the SVR) Buildwas Junction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham



Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 892
Location: The banks of the River Severn as it meanders through the sun dappled leafy glades of Worcestershire

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
we don't currently have any tank locos passed for hauling more than 6 coaches Bridgnorth to Kidder, so the answer is no.

We don't currently have a second turntable in use. Wink
By the time we do though, we might have 82045 and 4150 in service. Will they be rated for 8 coaches?
_________________
Graham Phillips
Acting deputy assistant junior under minion, Bewdley Wagon Department.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mrmover



Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 862
Location: Shropshire

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Graham wrote:
Quote:
we don't currently have any tank locos passed for hauling more than 6 coaches Bridgnorth to Kidder, so the answer is no.

We don't currently have a second turntable in use. Wink
By the time we do though, we might have 82045 and 4150 in service. Will they be rated for 8 coaches?


Not being cynical, but by the time a second turntable is installed, these two locos will probably be undergoing a 10 year overhaul.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lench_S



Joined: 04 Mar 2010
Posts: 527
Location: Stourport

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrmover wrote:
Graham wrote:
Quote:
we don't currently have any tank locos passed for hauling more than 6 coaches Bridgnorth to Kidder, so the answer is no.

We don't currently have a second turntable in use. Wink
By the time we do though, we might have 82045 and 4150 in service. Will they be rated for 8 coaches?


Not being cynical, but by the time a second turntable is installed, these two locos will probably be undergoing a 10 year overhaul.


Or indeed be into their second boiler certificates...
_________________
Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Severn Valley Railway group of companies, Hampton Loade Station Fund or Barry Railway Carriage Trust.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Stato



Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 547
Location: Here there & everywhere

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrmover wrote:
Graham wrote:
Quote:
we don't currently have any tank locos passed for hauling more than 6 coaches Bridgnorth to Kidder, so the answer is no.

We don't currently have a second turntable in use. Wink
By the time we do though, we might have 82045 and 4150 in service. Will they be rated for 8 coaches?


Not being cynical, but by the time a second turntable is installed, these two locos will probably be undergoing a 10 year overhaul.
unless some kind bod has a lot of spare cash to donate. How much are we talking about?
_________________
Cheers
Stato (staying anonymous for personal reasons)
Life member of this mad planet.
Professional coffin dodger.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fathers_p



Joined: 08 Sep 2003
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:24 pm    Post subject: Bridgnorth Turntable Reply with quote

There are a number of reasons for installing a turntable at both terminal stations, such as: reduced tyre wear, improved driver visibility on larger locos running tender first, as well as being able to run an A4 'loco first' on every trip! There is also the fact that more derailments occur when running tender locos in reverse. If a derailment were to occur on a heritage railway (that could potentially cause a ban on tender first running) we would be prepared, due to long-term strategic thinking.
The Kidderminster Turntable cost around 35K when it was installed by Geoff Longmore and his team in 1995. By contrast, the Fort William Turntable cost around ten times that amount.
Paul Fathers - Turntable Fund Secretary
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
boldford



Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 2727
Location: Glad to be no longer stuck on that linear parking lot known better as the M6

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:50 am    Post subject: Re: Bridgnorth Turntable Reply with quote

fathers_p wrote:
There are a number of reasons for installing a turntable at both terminal stations, such as: reduced tyre wear, improved driver visibility on larger locos running tender first, as well as being able to run an A4 'loco first' on every trip! There is also the fact that more derailments occur when running tender locos in reverse. If a derailment were to occur on a heritage railway (that could potentially cause a ban on tender first running) we would be prepared, due to long-term strategic thinking.
The Kidderminster Turntable cost around 35K when it was installed by Geoff Longmore and his team in 1995. By contrast, the Fort William Turntable cost around ten times that amount.
Paul Fathers - Turntable Fund Secretary


Paul; whilst the installation of a turntable at Bridgnorth would answer any calls for the abolition of tender-first running for regular operations; how do you suggest we would deal with the problem of only being able to use tank engines for the heavy Santa trains that ply between Kidderminster and Arley?
_________________
There are two kinds of people.

1: Those who back up their hard drives.
2: Those who have never had a hard drive crash.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cherry_p



Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 1851
Location: Solihull

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Bridgnorth Turntable Reply with quote

boldford wrote:
Paul; whilst the installation of a turntable at Bridgnorth would answer any calls for the abolition of tender-first running for regular operations; how do you suggest we would deal with the problem of only being able to use tank engines for the heavy Santa trains that ply between Kidderminster and Arley?
Any train that didn't go the full length of the line would obviously not be able to turn. The same applies to trains such as Introductory Footplate Experiences that only do Bewdley to Bridgnorth. But that's not an argument against having the turntable at Bridgnorth for all the occasions that you could/should turn the loco.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
std tank



Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Posts: 79
Location: Liverpool

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Bridgnorth Turntable Reply with quote

fathers_p wrote:
There are a number of reasons for installing a turntable at both terminal stations, such as: reduced tyre wear, improved driver visibility on larger locos running tender first, as well as being able to run an A4 'loco first' on every trip! There is also the fact that more derailments occur when running tender locos in reverse. If a derailment were to occur on a heritage railway (that could potentially cause a ban on tender first running) we would be prepared, due to long-term strategic thinking.
The Kidderminster Turntable cost around 35K when it was installed by Geoff Longmore and his team in 1995. By contrast, the Fort William Turntable cost around ten times that amount.
Paul Fathers - Turntable Fund Secretary

Derailment of locos due to tender first running? Can you list the occasions this has happened on Heritage Railways please. I am interested to know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Simon G



Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 238
Location: Kidderminster

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Bridgnorth Turntable Reply with quote

boldford wrote:
fathers_p wrote:
There are a number of reasons for installing a turntable at both terminal stations, such as: reduced tyre wear, improved driver visibility on larger locos running tender first, as well as being able to run an A4 'loco first' on every trip! There is also the fact that more derailments occur when running tender locos in reverse. If a derailment were to occur on a heritage railway (that could potentially cause a ban on tender first running) we would be prepared, due to long-term strategic thinking.
The Kidderminster Turntable cost around 35K when it was installed by Geoff Longmore and his team in 1995. By contrast, the Fort William Turntable cost around ten times that amount.
Paul Fathers - Turntable Fund Secretary


Paul; whilst the installation of a turntable at Bridgnorth would answer any calls for the abolition of tender-first running for regular operations; how do you suggest we would deal with the problem of only being able to use tank engines for the heavy Santa trains that ply between Kidderminster and Arley?


Stick another turntable in at Arley ... Laughing Laughing Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
KJEvans



Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 1236
Location: Kidderminster or Edinburgh

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Bridgnorth Turntable Reply with quote

Simon G wrote:
boldford wrote:
fathers_p wrote:
There are a number of reasons for installing a turntable at both terminal stations, such as: reduced tyre wear, improved driver visibility on larger locos running tender first, as well as being able to run an A4 'loco first' on every trip! There is also the fact that more derailments occur when running tender locos in reverse. If a derailment were to occur on a heritage railway (that could potentially cause a ban on tender first running) we would be prepared, due to long-term strategic thinking.
The Kidderminster Turntable cost around 35K when it was installed by Geoff Longmore and his team in 1995. By contrast, the Fort William Turntable cost around ten times that amount.
Paul Fathers - Turntable Fund Secretary


Paul; whilst the installation of a turntable at Bridgnorth would answer any calls for the abolition of tender-first running for regular operations; how do you suggest we would deal with the problem of only being able to use tank engines for the heavy Santa trains that ply between Kidderminster and Arley?


Stick another turntable in at Arley ... Laughing Laughing Laughing

Nah, reinstate some of the Kinlet sidings and make it into a triangle Wink
_________________
Kieren, Kidderminster Station Staff and TTI

GWR=Gresley Was Right...to learn from the Great Western
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrmover



Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 862
Location: Shropshire

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Bridgnorth Turntable Reply with quote

std tank wrote:
Derailment of locos due to tender first running? Can you list the occasions this has happened on Heritage Railways please. I am interested to know.


And neither has there been a boiler explosion but that's no reason why we cannot plan to minimise the possible risks of such an event
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Share



Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Posts: 312
Location: W'hampton

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:05 pm    Post subject: Tender first derailments Reply with quote

I well remember 42968 suffering in just such a way in its first spell of running on the railway, coming off at Folly Point in the Arley - Bewdley section.
If I remember correctly (no guarantee ! ) the problem was attributed to tender wheel springing.
This was when I was training at Arley and was told to me by John Frodsham, who had been Arley signalman on the day in question.

Peter
_________________
Steam is steam, whether black, blue, red or green !!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LMS2968



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 372
Location: Wigan

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Bridgnorth Turntable Reply with quote

std tank wrote:
Derailment of locos due to tender first running? Can you list the occasions this has happened on Heritage Railways please. I am interested to know.

It's happened three times on the SVR near Highley, I think, to my kowledge: 2968 twice and 7325 once.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SVR-Online Forum Forum Index -> General Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group