31874 and 31625

Not a very practical solution for an incoming railtour, though! And it would be necessary to split the engine and tender, so might as well use the Swanage turntable.

 

No, I was thinking more of a multi wheel unit that could accept a loco complete and spin it around.. and be parked out the way when not needed...something that would have been quite possible on Thunderbirds I'm sure!

 

Easier to use Thunderbird 2 in hover mode and pick up a section of track with the loco on it, and then turn 180 degrees in hover before putting the loco down. Has the advantage that you could also use T2 to fly equipment off site for storage, perhaps even have a sort of train stacking fiddle yard somewhere

 

sounds reasonable

 

Two sidings facing in opposite directions might be easier. Reverse the trailer up to one, three point turn, unload onto the other. But I suspect a proper turntable would soon be cheaper than having a tractor unit on standby, and you'd need rather more space for the three point turn than you would to site a turntable.

Seems to me the big problem for turntables though is that you really need two, one at each end of the line, unless you're only going to use them for incoming railtours.

 

Incoming railtours, and turning stock to even out wear from a prevailing wind direction / even out tyre wear - both uses only need one.

Even if you did have a turntable at each end, I can't see any railway wishing to turn engines routinely on every trip. Look how the Swanage timetable runs, with about 15 minutes each end to run round (and take water at Swanage). If you also had to turn at each end, you would likely need at least one extra daily loco diagram if you wanted to run the same service frequency, possibly two extra. That means at least one - maybe two - extra operational loco at any time, which is a big cash cost, plus the extra demand for volunteers. I can't see any operational benefit in doing so, except as an occasional demo at galas when often you have spare locos available anyway. Certainly not worth it for day-to-day operations.

Tom

 

two siding at 45 degrees to the main line would make the manoeuvre simpler.

 

If you've room for that then you might as well build a triangle, or was that your point? A triangle probably wouldnt add too much to turnaround time, certainly not the turntable problem that Tom rightly outlined.

 

as far as Swanage goes, wouldn't it be handy if that bus depot was relocated....and the doctors surgery etc....

 

It was done back in the day though. There were even branch lines where tank locomotives were routinely turned.

I imagine it would depends on all sorts of circumstances, but I can't help thinking that eliminating tender first running would be welcomed by crews, especially on longer and less sheltered lines. It would also be a extra spectator point. But as you rightly say, if it wasn't possible to turn a locomotive within the normal train turnround time then it would be impractical.

Need to take rather a lot of parking spaces out of that car park at East Grinstead to fit one in too, which might not go down well with Mr Sainsbury, but a 50 or 55 foot unit would save a lot of parking spaces and be fine for the 6 wheeled and 8 wheeled tender engines that have least crew protection [grin].

 

I think back in the day, the Board of Trade were apt to be a bit sniffy about lines that had too much tender-first running, hence installing turntables (and accepting the time out of traffic while engines were turned) became effectively a cost of operation. Which is one reason why tank engines became popular in the second half of the 19th century: even the mainline railways, with greater maintenance resources, appreciated the higher time in remunerative traffic that could be enabled by not having to turn at each end. (tempered of course by generally lower bunker capacity etc). Though as you say, if time allowed, most crews preferred to turn even on tank engines when it wasn't strictly necessary: I'll defy you to find a picture of an LBSCR J or L class running bunker first in traffic. I'm sure it happened, but it was definitely rare.

Preserved lines tend to be tight for both motive power and crew, so I can't see doing anything that reduces the balance between productive and non-productive time per engine would be especially welcomed.

It's that bl**dy outside-framed GWR thing that is far and away the worst for crew comfort ...

Tom

 

Send it our way....I like 'em

 

is there room at furzebrook for a triangle that would allow you to turn a visiting engine , or coaches, to even out flange wear ?without effecting the running line yo much?

 

Surely a giant (think carpark) sized one of these is the answer to all of the stock storage/turning/shunting problems everywhere?!

http://www.biggamehunters.co.uk/acatalog/Air-Hockey-Buying-Guide.html

Simply load your stock onto your 'puck' insert your 50p and you have got a turntable and traverser all in one!

Chris

 

the most logical place for a turntable has to be at Weymouth if there is somewhere rail conected where you can site it If 31874 does need to be turned in betwen any mainline work, it can be done after a tour, i remain convinced hat the best option for any tour using the N, has to be Swanage (tourist trade) Bournmouth ( yet more tourist trade) to Eastleigh then through Romsey to Salisbury, where the engine can be serviced and turned , then the return is the same route, so no need to turn the engine on arrival at Swanage until whenever it hauls its next tour how many coaches can Swanages platform take? as i would think that arrival would be after the last sceduled steam service to enur the platform was free

 

I think that they actually did this at the Ex BREL York works, when the new build stock got too long for the City end traversers.

 

Swanage operate 5 coaches in a set however it can operate a set of 6 coaches but a shutter is needed at Swanage station due to the length of the loop at platform 2.
Weymouth was going to have a turntable and there were plans but the local population decided they wanted to keep they quay line.

 

The RH&DR does....

(Well you did say any railway!)

 

There has been a long standing aspiration to extend Swanage loop to 6 coaches by the reinstatement of a double slip instead of the two back to back crossovers. However Swanage does accommodate much longer arriving charters by running to the stops to get as many coaches on the platform as possible and then disembarking the rest by walking forward through the train. IIRC you can accommodate 12 or 13 coaches before the back of the train blocks the access to the bay platform. Corfe loop is long enough to pass this sort of train.

The intention behind mainlining 31874 is more around 'shuttle service' than 'tour' but its early days and I'm sure something like the Salisbury tour Martin describes will be inevitable sooner or later as it could be a good revenue boost in the quiet season.

Not sure but it would take up a lot of valuable space which is in very short supply on the Swanage. TT is more compact. The other problem with Furzebrook which is not immediately obvious from looking at a map is that only the throat of the sidings is at track level. The line climbs towards swanage and the height difference quickly becomes significant. Furzebrook could accommodate the TT or we could find some neighboring land at Norden or work it in to a scheme similar to the current planning permission at Swanage.

For a local shuttle service it could run tender first in one direction and there wouldn't be a requirement to turn. If we were to do the occasional 'short tour' we could split the loco and tender and turn on the existing table.

 

Well, technically it's not a turntable at the Dungeness end, but point taken - however, turning at Dungeness effectively adds no time to the journey, and at Hythe it is really not much more hassle than a simple loco release crossover would be, so my general point stands about the increase in time that would be needed on most standard gauge railways to turn at both ends as part of routine operations, and the impact that would have on the need for locomotives and crews to run a service or given intensity.

Anyway, we digress...

Tom