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 

Re the Future of the SVR Carriage Fleet
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
hunter_i



Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 249

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:01 pm    Post subject: Re the Future of the SVR Carriage Fleet Reply with quote

I think the concerns regarding the future of 7960 illustrate the broader problem of the future management of the SVR carriage fleet, hence the new thread. But if you prefer to continue the discussion in the Bridgnorth heading I will move my comments over.

The railway has done a lot of things right over the years, which is why it is so successful. In relation to carriages, these include - not accepting unrestored carriages, one in/one out, and developing a mixed fleet.

However assuming the carrige shed is full, then the problem now arises that any carriage currently being restored in the open, has no long term future without undercover storage. The same problem is arising with the DERM where there was no undercover facility available even to re cover the roofs.

Rather than get rid of the unique vehicles the railway currently has such as 7960, is it not beyond the ability of our able management to find solutions?

These may range from looking at the size of the current service fleet - do we need a standby set for example? Encouraging the Rolling Stock Fund to fund raise for a musuem, or even finance an up market dining set via commercial or members loans.

I am sure other solutions are possible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stanworth_i



Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 174
Location: Inverness

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting thoughts - I'm a firm believer that the SVR has quite possibly the best carriage stock of any preserved railway and the work to get it all in good condition is admirable.

I like the idea of a 'special trains' unit - presumably this would include the GW dining stock, supplemented by a replica Clapham - I have very fond memories of working behind the bar in this vehicle and it seems that it won't come back out of the NRM.

Storage - I'll get a little controversial now - a shed down the Stourport branch, built on eco principles - a buried shed! Cover over the cutting area and backfill the external area of the shed with soils, with a thick covering over the roof. This will make the building temperate and obivate the need for much in the way of heating. A photo-voltaic array could provide power.

I know I'll get shouted down but the thought interests me as a way of providing storage for other coaches like the observation saloons and 7690, as well as the specialist dining cars
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
boldford



Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 2732
Location: Glad to be no longer stuck on that linear parking lot known better as the M6

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the only way we can keep the majority of our wonderful coach collection on the SVR in the long term is somehow find space for an additional carriage shed. Ideally one that is well ventilated and dry.
_________________
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
stanworth_i



Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 174
Location: Inverness

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So I haven't been called an outright nutter yet then!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
hassell_a



Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1431
Location: Shropshire

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No not yet, but no doubt someone who wants to extend to a point near Stourpoint will be along soon to shout you down!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brasso1



Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Location: Kidderminster - 'The Hole'

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ideally Bridgonort or the north end of the line would have a shed for about 10 vehicles. whichever set works off that end and the venturers need coverage!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mick_wilson



Joined: 07 Sep 2005
Posts: 490

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not going to bang on about a northern extension despite the temptation but on this one I must agree with Brasso1 - if only we had the space.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chappell_r
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So... A four-part question for those who know about these things:

1: How long --in carriage-lengths if you wish--is the disused Bridgnorth tunnel?

2: Is it currently a "dry" tunnel or a wet tunnel?

3: Would it be accessible by rail if the roadbridge was reinstated or are there other obstructions?

4: Has the road level been altered below where the reinstated bridge would sit?

4a: Are the bridge wing-walls and abutments still in situ?

Disclaimer: This is not a "Northern Extension" posting.

Thankyou.
Back to top
D_Beardsmore



Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 81
Location: Birmingham

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Come on Guys.

We have several very interesting coaches currently being restored, at this time and even if they are "old hen houses" we have some other equally interesting vehicles still in the wings.

So we have to find a space for a second carriage shed some where on the railway but not just for only eight coaches we need it of similar storage size to the one in kiddy yard.


__________________________

Second battalion loose cannonís
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chappell_r
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spare a thought for the problems being stored up long-term on those railways that do not have any covered accom. for their carriage fleets, the NYMR, the Watercress, the Swanage, the West Somerset......etc
Back to top
mick_wilson



Joined: 07 Sep 2005
Posts: 490

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chappell_r wrote:
Spare a thought for the problems being stored up long-term on those railways that do not have any covered accom. for their carriage fleets, the NYMR, the Watercress, the Swanage, the West Somerset......etc
Would they spare a thought for us if we was in the situation of having no covered accomodation for our coaches?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chappell_r
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick: I was trying to draw a comparison between the relative scope of the problem. At least the SVR can store 56 under cover, the others dont store any under cover.

When you read Hugh McQuade's reports in SVR News about just what state a mk1 can get into, how long before some of the other lines end up scrapping their mk 1 and earlier coaches because they have become unuseable, and end up with mk2's as the mainstay of their fleet? In other words their existing fleets deteriorate at a faster rate than they can repair them.?

My point being that is unlikely to happen on the SVR.

Thankfully so.
Back to top
boldford



Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 2732
Location: Glad to be no longer stuck on that linear parking lot known better as the M6

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chappell_r wrote:
So... A four-part question for those who know about these things:
1: How long --in carriage-lengths if you wish--is the disused Bridgnorth tunnel?
We can see you have a cuning plan Mr Chappell.
on The History of Bridgnorth Tunnel thread R. MacKINNON wrote:
looking at the 'Severn Valley Railway' by John Marshall it mentions that: Bridgnorth tunnel was '550yds long,
Presumably it remains the same length.
chappell_r wrote:
2: Is it currently a "dry" tunnel or a wet tunnel?
Relatively dry; but it is bored through sandstone which is quite permeable. I'd guess it would be OK if kept well ventilated.
chappell_r wrote:
3: Would it be accessible by rail if the roadbridge was reinstated or are there other obstructions?
Yes, but would require high sided road vehicles to access the town via the by-pass. No other known obstructions.
chappell_r wrote:
4: Has the road level been altered below where the reinstated bridge would sit?
The road level used to dip quite significantly before the bridge was removed.
chappell_r wrote:
4a: Are the bridge wing-walls and abutments still in situ?
The southern abutment has been removed and the formation barterred.
chappell_r wrote:
Disclaimer: This is not a "Northern Extension" posting. Thankyou.
Not so Mr Chappell; unwittingly perhaps, but your scheme would extend the SVR by 550 yards and create a very very expensive single road carriage shed.
_________________
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
chappell_r
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was just testing the viability of using the tunnel as the "Bridgnorth carriage shed", but indeed as you mention I would have unwittingly extended the SVR Northwards a little way! No ulterior motive intended at all. Anyway, sounds too expensive. Bridges are expensive, along with dealing with the carriageway below.

In which case I think the other idea floated of covering the Stourport cutting has merit, and given a pair of strong doors at the Bewdley end should be vandal-proof! Unless the vandals can go subterranean, that is!

You might even win an award for the best ( and first ever...) eco-carriage shed! Prince Charles might come along an open it with due ceremony.

hey-ho!
Back to top
boldford



Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 2732
Location: Glad to be no longer stuck on that linear parking lot known better as the M6

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chappell_r wrote:
In which case I think the other idea floated of covering the Stourport cutting has merit
Which isn't very convenient to store a set that is 1st off Bridgnorth of a morning.
Earlier starts, more ECS working. later finishes.
Not such a hot idea.
And putting it subteranean would push the price up by a magnitude or three. It would probably be cheaper to bridge Hollybush Road as was mooted before.

Next idea right along here please.
_________________
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
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