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 

Shed space - could stock be kept more under cover, and how?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SVR-Online Forum Forum Index -> Rolling Stock
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hearn_p



Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 5789

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:09 pm    Post subject: Shed space - could stock be kept more under cover, and how? Reply with quote

This has been alluded to in different posts following vandalism of coaches at Kidderminster Station, and of wagons at Tenbury wall and Stourport triangle. There was previously a theft of parts from a diesel loco parked in the open. Issues raised include:

Kidderminster Carriage shed houses non-coaching stock such as shunters pending restoration or stored for spares recovery, and steam locos out of traffic.

The proposed Wagon shed at Foley Park would cover some but not all of the wagon fleet. It wouldn't have space for more vehicles.

Two locos are stored undercover off the SVR.

Operationally services may arrive at Kidder late at night and be required early the next running day. At Bridgnorth stock is sometimes stabled in the station and sometimes in Hollybush Road sidings. A set is wintered at BH in case winter works overrun, to allow a partial line service.

Kidderminster TMD and Bridgnorth MPD have locos under repair or overhaul but serviceable locos are parked out of use in the open.

What's possible and practicable?

Patrick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham



Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 1005
Location: The banks of the River Severn as it meanders through the sun dappled leafy glades of Worcestershire

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Burlish Tunnel? I don't know how wet it is in there, but it can't be any worse than being left outside.
At 124 yards long it could contain about 5 or 6 carriages and could be made secure relatively cheaply.

The far end of CS1. It's not undercover, but it's relatively inaccessible. If all the spare bogies, which are more or less vandal-proof, were moved to the Stourport Triangle, there'd be a few spaces there.

Extend the carriage shed to include CS1.

I don't know if this Safari Park station idea is ever really going to happen. Could we do a deal where we supply a train service and they supply a storage shed, or at least the land to build it on?

Put some temporary mobile homes on the land we now own at Bridgnorth, scrap the green Mk1s and reconnect the siding for storage use. It's not under cover, but it's safer than Kidderminster.

Lay an extra siding along the cutting south of Arley. Again, not under cover, but safe because it's remote and inaccessible.

And for the completely odd-ball suggestion, how much would it cost to tunnel under Maypole Piece at Bewdley? Compared with building a shed the same size?
_________________
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
threelinkdave



Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 673
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Graham wrote:
Burlish Tunnel? I don't know how wet it is in there, but it can't be any worse than being left outside.
At 124 yards long it could contain about 5 or 6 carriages and could be made secure relatively cheaply.

The far end of CS1. It's not undercover, but it's relatively inaccessible. If all the spare bogies, which are more or less vandal-proof, were moved to the Stourport Triangle, there'd be a few spaces there.

Extend the carriage shed to include CS1.

I don't know if this Safari Park station idea is ever really going to happen. Could we do a deal where we supply a train service and they supply a storage shed, or at least the land to build it on?

Put some temporary mobile homes on the land we now own at Bridgnorth, scrap the green Mk1s and reconnect the siding for storage use. It's not under cover, but it's safer than Kidderminster.

Lay an extra siding along the cutting south of Arley. Again, not under cover, but safe because it's remote and inaccessible.

And for the completely odd-ball suggestion, how much would it cost to tunnel under Maypole Piece at Bewdley? Compared with building a shed the same size?
Graham - not so sure that the country end of CS1 is any more secure than the rest of the site. As for Bridgnorth dont forget thar volunteers had cars broken into couple of years back
_________________
Dave Scott
Bulleid and Gresley used auto couplers
Guard & dogsbody
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GWR5764PT



Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 671
Location: Kidderminster Station

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Graham wrote:
Burlish Tunnel? I don't know how wet it is in there, but it can't be any worse than being left outside.
At 124 yards long it could contain about 5 or 6 carriages and could be made secure relatively cheaply.

The far end of CS1. It's not undercover, but it's relatively inaccessible. If all the spare bogies, which are more or less vandal-proof, were moved to the Stourport Triangle, there'd be a few spaces there.

Extend the carriage shed to include CS1.

I don't know if this Safari Park station idea is ever really going to happen. Could we do a deal where we supply a train service and they supply a storage shed, or at least the land to build it on?

Put some temporary mobile homes on the land we now own at Bridgnorth, scrap the green Mk1s and reconnect the siding for storage use. It's not under cover, but it's safer than Kidderminster.

Lay an extra siding along the cutting south of Arley. Again, not under cover, but safe because it's remote and inaccessible.

And for the completely odd-ball suggestion, how much would it cost to tunnel under Maypole Piece at Bewdley? Compared with building a shed the same size?


Well part of the development for Bridgnorth is new staff accommodation so if and when that happens we could re-instate the siding though not sure how secure it is.
_________________
Tim Easton, an SVR volunteer previously Kidderminster Town Station, now 3 years now on train buffet steward for 2 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
oliver



Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 885
Location: Bridgnorth

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whilst Bridgnorth certainly isn't 'vandal proof' (nowhere is!), there is much less risk of vandalism than at KR, which is known to be high risk. There is no point storing any more coaches here though (other than the BH set/Venturers) as they are needed at the other end of the line. The only realistic options (taking into account of costs and operational issues) to me are as follows:

1. See if more can be put into KR carriage shed by better utilising space to try and fit more in. This could involve juggling things around or finding a more suitable space to store things like out of service loco's etc.
2. Extend the shed in some way to cover CS1. Obviously this is going to cost a fair bit though, but then perhaps the benefits would be worth it.
3. Take a set back to Bewdley at the end of each days service. Again, Bewdley is not vandal proof, but its surely safer than KR. I believe that this is what is happening this week, as the pannier has been taking set M(6) back to Bewdley each night. I am unsure if this is in direct response to recent events though?
4. The other option (and perhaps most obvious) is to somehow increase security!

Storing anything in Bewdley tunnel would be an absolute non starter due to all sorts of issues, not least the need to leave something 'in section'. I am not going to start quoting rule books, but this would be an operational nightmare!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Graham



Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 1005
Location: The banks of the River Severn as it meanders through the sun dappled leafy glades of Worcestershire

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not Bewdley Tunnel, the tunnel on the old Stourport line, which we still own.
_________________
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
cherry_p



Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 1904
Location: Solihull

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Shed space - could stock be kept more under cover, and h Reply with quote

hearn_p wrote:
At Bridgnorth stock is sometimes stabled in the station and sometimes in Hollybush Road sidings. A set is wintered at BH in case winter works overrun, to allow a partial line service.

Patrick
The only set based at Bridgnorth at the moment is the 8-coach set C, which is scheduled to go back to Kidder on Wednesday.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
hearn_p



Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 5789

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Shed space - could stock be kept more under cover, and h Reply with quote

cherry_p wrote:
The only set based at Bridgnorth at the moment is the 8-coach set C, which is scheduled to go back to Kidder on Wednesday.


Ah thanks. Set N overwintered there last year, opposed by High McQuade (from his carriage notes).

GWR5764PT wrote:
Well part of the development for Bridgnorth is new staff accommodation so if and when that happens we could re-instate the siding though not sure how secure it is.


I think it was in the plan to do so and stable Venurer coaoches there, to make reprovisioning easier

oliver wrote:
The only realistic options (taking into account of costs and operational issues) to me are as follows:

1. See if more can be put into KR carriage shed by better utilising space to try and fit more in. This could involve juggling things around or finding a more suitable space to store things like out of service loco's etc.


The thought had crossed my mind too

oliver wrote:
2. Extend the shed in some way to cover CS1. Obviously this is going to cost a fair bit though, but then perhaps the benefits would be worth it.


Again, I did wonder (though it depends on future use of CS1 and the Northern Belle?)

Patrick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Divington_R



Joined: 05 Feb 2016
Posts: 246
Location: Nuneaton

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Taking a high level view, would it possible to identify the total number of carriages in use on the SVR and subtract from that figure the capacity of the shed at at kidderminster? Then the size of the problem can be quantified.

Whatever the answer turns out to be can the 5 DMU cars then be included in the requirement as they too need considering.
_________________
Thanks Reg.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hearn_p



Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 5789

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Divington_R wrote:
Taking a high level view, would it possible to identify the total number of carriages in use on the SVR and subtract from that figure the capacity of the shed at at kidderminster? Then the size of the problem can be quantified.

Whatever the answer turns out to be can the 5 DMU cars then be included in the requirement as they too need considering.


Yes, you can.

https://www.svrwiki.com/Carriages
https://www.svrwiki.com/Kidderminster_Carriage_Shed

Patrick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Danny252



Joined: 01 Oct 2009
Posts: 1191

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From a quick effort I count 81 carriages "in passenger service", including those undergoing restoration, but excluding those outbased elsewhere for purposes such as stores, shop vehicles, sleeping accommodation, and EH display vehicles. This excludes the DMU vehicles (5), and stock listed as goods wagons on the wiki (e.g. a dozen or so tool/domitory/brakedown coaches, albeit many in use as stores, and the GWR Siphons).

This compares to the quoted capacity of 4*16=64 for the Carriage Shed. However, presumably a fairly constant number would be actively undergoing restoration, and hence located in the C&W facilities at Bridgnorth/Bewdley/Kidderminster (I didn't include the Barry Coach!).

In summary, the shortfall appears to be somewhere around the 20 vehicle mark, not including capacity in carriage works, assuming that there's nothing else stored in the Carriage Shed (not the case, as mentioned above!) and that you achieve a "fully packed" shed every night.
_________________
Daniel Evans
Tea drinker and brass polisher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sharpo



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 3359
Location: Dark Side

PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Couldn't the Kidderminster station area be surrounded by security fencing? From memory there is a high fence alongside the outer edge of the SVR carpark, so add a security gate between that fence and the musem fence - that would secure the western side of the site. At the south end where the path runs to the footbridge there is a high fence, so that would be reasonably secure. Then run a fence from the side of the Pickford building between SVR and Network rail, with a gate crossing the pointwork that leads to that Pickford building, the fence continuing between signal box and exchange siding, and finally a gate under the footbridge, making the station site more secure. The fence between NR car park and SVR covers the east side.

Obviously I haven't walked all around that area, so don't know of any little gaps that might need extra fencing. As to passengers/visitors/customers or whatever, the only bit that might be noticeable is between the signal box and footbridge area - so no major eyesore. Time to erect and cost of fencing should be much less than further covered accomodation, if there was any land available.

Happy New Year, just finished my can of pop, so excuse any typos!
_________________
Sharpo (happily avoiding fakebook & twitter)

All photo updates listed here, eventually:-
http://www.sharpos-world.co.uk/blog/

Probably better to check youtube videos:-
https://www.youtube.com/user/SharposWorld
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Graham



Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 1005
Location: The banks of the River Severn as it meanders through the sun dappled leafy glades of Worcestershire

PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It must be cheaper to extend an existing building than build a new one, so could the children's play area at Highley be moved and the Engine House extended?
5764, the LNWR van and the TPOs are all cosmetically restored and could go straight from storage to display in the Engine House. Possibly the shunter's truck as well, I'm not sure if it gets used or not.

Could the carriage wash be located anywhere else? This would release CS6 for storage, and again, the possibility of extending the carriage shed sideways to cover it.
_________________
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
hunter_i



Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 255

PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apologies for some random comments -

Even remote sites are not immune from vandalism as evidenced by the Bewdley triangle experience. While there is already volunteer accommodation at some stations, might some additional kit houses/porta cabins and volunteer night watchmen provided with free accommodation be an option?

Additional security fencing should be considered especially at Kidderminster together with any possible extension of the existing carriage shed.

The proposed development of a wagon storage shed suggests a figure of 200,000 pounds for a basic agricultural type shed. This seems relatively cheap compared with the millions already raised, and members may respond positively to appeals for long term secure storage. Considering our heritage rolling stock is the heart of the Railway.

Finally, with a railway of 16 miles there may be areas of SVR land available for additional sidings for example at Highley. I have always wondered if it would be possible to purchase a few acres of agricultural land at some point adjourning the railway at an affordable price. But maybe not possible?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lench_S



Joined: 04 Mar 2010
Posts: 557

PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From comments made by Kidderminster shunters on Facebook, and common sense, it is not practical to store every coaching set in the carriage shed every night with the human resources available, even if there was space.

CS1 is of course reserved for Northern Belle use but would seemingly offer potential to be covered over. CS6 (wash road) is also a shunting neck for the TMD but I believe there have been one or two vehicles stored at the far end (such as riding van 118).

Security fencing alongside 'network rail' at Kidderminster would have a negative aesthetic result. Has there been vandalism before in the platforms?

Not sure there would be anywhere available for further storage sheds, apart from Bewdley triangle. Mount Pleasant tunnel is presumably quite a damp environment which would not help anything stored inside.

I'm not sure what more two more TPOs and a modified BG would add to the Engine House. It's a shame the LNWR van is no longer there.

All of Oliver's suggestions seem the most realistic and sensible:
Quote:
1. See if more can be put into KR carriage shed by better utilising space to try and fit more in. This could involve juggling things around or finding a more suitable space to store things like out of service loco's etc.
2. Extend the shed in some way to cover CS1. Obviously this is going to cost a fair bit though, but then perhaps the benefits would be worth it.
3. Take a set back to Bewdley at the end of each days service.
4. The other option (and perhaps most obvious) is to somehow increase security!

_________________
Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SVR-Online Forum Forum Index -> Rolling Stock All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
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