GWSR General Discussion and Operations

I think the SVR (& Ffestiniog!) approach was 'as big as we can get away with'!!

The Ffestiniog then covered theirs with Solar Panels to try and earn some money from it as well.

 

What does your long term plan say about how many carriages you need to operate the line (including those awaiting overhaul). Because that sets how big it needs to be

OK, that’s a bit of a trite answer. But the important point is that those things need to join up - in other words your service plan dictates how much stock you need, and your stock requirement dictates how much storage and maintenance capacity you need.

What might be a difficult question at a line like the GWSR is to what extent you need storage at both ends - but again, that’s not independent of the service pattern. If that is “start and end the day at Toddington, and send trains out in either direction” then you just need a big shed there. If you intend trains to start at each end, then you need two sheds - but also probably need two smaller loco depots, car parks etc. so all those decisions are linked. (And then you can add the real-world constraints that stop you going the ideal!)

Tom

 

There you have part of the problem, there is no room for an 8 coach carriage shed at Toddington, where services start.
There is room both sides of the line at Winchcombe.
Then, from which end do you approach it?
How many roads, given that the operating rakes will always stay at Toddington?

 

Maybe, but that assumes that you shunt the sets into the shed every day. Even at Kidderminster, that rarely happens. Two of the four sets that will be used tomorrow are in the station (Platform 1 and 2 Engine Line), the other two are at Bewdley and Bridgnorth.

 

Up to a point - in an ideal world, even if you didn't shunt stock every day in the running season, it would be good to have the capability to put it away during winter shut down periods. So the ideal is to have undercover space for everything, even if you don't always put it all away every night during the running season. (I should say we aren't at that ideal yet, though we do have space for everything except the Mark 1s, including all the unrestored stuff).

I'd say that is less of a concern than you might think. Obviously this starts to get into the realms of your scope for track layout, signalling etc, but in a hypothetical case where you have a single-ended shed and stock comes out and goes away every day, then the direction will be right at one end of the day, and wrong the other. As an example at the Bluebell, any stock berthed in the Sheffield Park carriage shed requires a reversal and run round after extracting it in the morning, but can be put straight away in the evening. By contrast, stock berthed in the Newick siding (which is the main storage for the Mark 1 service set) can be drawn straight out in the morning, but requires a run round and shunt in the evening. A consequence of that is that typically, the loco assigned to the Mark 1 set has 15 minutes less between off shed and departure in the morning than the loco assigned to the vintage set, but needs 15 minutes more at the end of the day before going back on shed if the stock is being put back in the Newick.

Tom

 

Ah yes, the great GWSR carriage shed conundrum! It is being actively looked at, lots of people have different opinions and there are various conflicting constraints.

For what it's worth, my own view currently is that there will always be a need to have at least 1 rake stabled at Toddington during the running season. There is also no room for a carriage shed at Toddington. Various options have been explored including the yard and the North siding but they're all non-starters.

So any carriage shed has to be at Winchcombe. Trouble is Winchcombe is on a curve, which has its own challenges. If you have it on the Down (C&W) side of the yard, that's a lot of re-signalling, new track layout, clear a load of other stuff, major operation. The Up (P'way) side of the yard already has signalling and track layout not a million miles away from being good to go. It all needs renewing but fundamentally the basics are there. The North face of the Up side embankment is not the most stable though. And there's still the question of curves.

Then of course there's what you do with it, how you use it both operationally and functionally. What will get shunted in there on a regular basis, and what activities might you be doing to coaches whilst they're sat in there.

Sticking all that together, my humble view is you build a simple roof and 3/4 sides barn type shed on the Up side, over the inner two roads, and a cantilever roof out covering the road nearest the edge. Straighten the curves a little, but ensure all roads are 7 coaches long, without encroaching on the vacant trackbed.

The two covered roads would be for what we currently think of as set 3, permanently based at Winchcombe, and 1 of sets 1 or 2, maybe on rotation to suit operational requirements/limitations, which gets collected/shunted back again every day, LE from Todd. Cantilever road to house freight train and spares. It's not perfect, and there'd be lots of details to work out, but that's what I'd do if it were purely down to me (it isn't!). I'm not a fan of the school of thought that you build for winter accommodation for everything, as that seems to me to lead to a very expensive asset standing empty for much of the year.

Very much a personal view from being on the periphery of discussions on that front on and off for a few years, nothing official there!

 

Absolutely, the stuff that gets used everyday will get opportunity to dry out when in use. Its the carriages that are just sat there that will deteriorate the quickest and conversely these are probably already the ones in poorer condition (the 'best' carriages being the ones put out every day).
As Tom says, being able to put everything away for winter and low season is key, even regular service carriages are probably actually used only a small percentage of the year.

 

Despite the enormous size of Kidderminster shed and the fact that daily use sets are stored in the platform, it is exceptionally versatile and gets used for all sorts of other reasons. Light and medium maintenance is undertaken, cleaning and there are even a few locos in there too for storage. It is never stood empty!
I would be firmly of the belief build it as big as you can make / afford it - you will always find a use!

 

The GWSR seems, compared with most other heritage railways, to be very well provided with storage and maintenance facilities (at Toddington) for both steam and diesel locomotives. You have the carriage workshops at Winchcombe, but a carriage running and storage shed is the obvious missing component.

Have you formed a view on what size of shed is needed? I think the GWSR has around 40 coaches, plus vans and DMU vehicles. You indicate that the operational rakes (currently two of 7 coaches each?) would continue to be berthed at Toddington. Two or three vehicles will be in the workshops, and a few are used for static displays and storage. That seems to leave around 20-25 vehicles for which a shed would be particularly beneficial?

 

You could go the Launceston route and stick them on the platform under those nice new canopies for the winter ...

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DHQdcSxskxT/

(When we visited I wondered why there was a siding that ran up the platform ramp and onto the platform. Turns out it's so they can store the carriages for the winter under cover! I assume in the real depths they add some form of tarpaulin or additional cover).

Tom

 

Overall station canopies at Toddington have been suggested tongue in cheek in the past!

 

There is a huge amount to catch up with after spending the day putting a canvas on one of our Gresley Brakes today.

As Acorb says, at the SVR we currently have 58 serviceable coaches, 78 in the total fleet with 12 red carded, 3 under overhaul and 5 under long term restoration. As mentioned, the carriage shed could well be our best investment to date. Whilst it is not perfect nor does it have all the right facilities, it does slow down the rate of detoriation by roughly 10 years. This figure is based on 1 carriage, SK 25346. It was painted just before the shed was finished and has only received a revarnish in the last 26 years. It is now due.... 26 years is a very long time between paintjobs.

Another point made by Matt78..? Mk1s coming to the end of their useable lives. Can i be rude and say B******s. A Mk1 is one of the easiest carriages to work on and repair. The vast majority of major structural parts are available from SDR or other sources. Yes they may be the cinderella coach but they will take a hammering today and still be useable tomorrow.
Embracing modern technology can also reduce the cost of repairs. People really need to remove the rose tinted glasses sometimes.

I often use the phrase and ask other people. Would you take your prized classic car around the M25 everyday, or use your easy to run, easy to maintain modern car? The same applies to vintage carriages and Mk1s. For instance, this summer has seen our Gresleys suffer panel shrinkage and door issues as the teak shrinks, causing the door locks to play up. Serious consideration has been given to reducing their use during very hot spells to manage the risk of a door failing whilst in use.

As for contract work, I have noticed a down turn in the amount that is coming through as other railways are in the same position regarding finance. Yes the work is out there, and there is plenty of it but who is going to pay for it? Budgets are constantly being squeezed ever tighter and if it means red-carding a carriage for a few years until the finance is there or the nuclear option of " we need funds, we dont use that carriage, sell it" comes into play.

JNC mentioned the length of carriage sets. We know the ORR are looking at platform lengths versus train length post Loughborough but that doesnt mean you cant run long sets, you have to mitigate the risk of people stepping and falling out of doors when they aren't on the platform. As for "sets", at the SVR we work to having a core of 7 carriages per set with upto 2 spares for each. Come spring next year we will have 11 1/2 staniers in the fleet which means some will be under overhaul but having the flexibility of spares does make planning overhauls much easier. We also work our plan out to avoid having the main/ bigger brake vehicles available for Christmas, any wheelchair accessible vehicle must have a replacement and buffet cars should also have a spare. Im sure the GWSR will have the same thought and Tom mentions this, what is the optimal length of train plus 1 spare. If the core service warrants x3 7 coach sets then a fleet of no more than say 30 is needed. That leaves 6 carriages either under or awaiting overhaul, going off the 7 + 1 logic.

That, to me is very tight, where as having a 4th set sat spare, enabling maintenance, cleaning to take place, always leaves plenty of breathing room. Which pushes the total fleet size upto 32-35 coaches.

I can hand on heart say we are victims of our own success at Kidderminster, by having such a large fleet, our ops and events teams will always use the maximum they can/ need. However with such a large fleet, comes a cost. I have to work on retrimming 3 carriages a year, repainting a minimum of 4 and completing bodywork overhauls on at least 2 to standstill. We are being pushed to do contract repaints on some diesels with limited space, staff and time. Any contract work that goes into Pickfords paintshop will always be to the detriment of one of our own. Plus contract work doesnt always pay for say new tools, machinery, upgrades to the paintshop etc.

On a more positive note, Im sure all of us have noticed a marked uptick in railways now focusing on their carriage fleets. For far too long, they have traded on BR era overhauls/ works visits and now they are in need of some serious cash spent on them.

 

That figure of 26 years between repaints is quite frankly astounding!
I think business case is made!!

 

to respond to the “rude” paragraph….

the point I was making is that many MK1’s have beeen in service for 30 years (plus) on some heritage lines without major repairs.

Case in point our TSO 4420 - arrived in 1993 and in constant use since then. Out for overhaul last year which included new ends x2 , (from the SDR) new doors, new side sheets along the length of the coach (both sides) , new floor, new ceiling, new interior panels, new seat covers.

So yes of course it is repairable with new components but the point is to not expect some to solder on for the next 40 years as they have done. They will need to have the repairs done and not all railways will have the same ability to do that (financially or practically or both).

Not all railways have the same facilities as, or access to the same capabilities as the SVR.

Matt

 

Well, what is the alternative to mk 1s?
If you don't repair them (at whatever the cost is), there's nothing down the line to replace them.

 

I think everyone is on the same sheet here. For too long Mk 1s have been cinderella vehicles and 30 years ago there was a good supply, so if one got a bit tired you could easily get another in reasonable condition. As @Bikermike says that supply has gone (unless Carnforth starts selling!) and any residual life will have disappeared. Major investment will be needed, just as required on steam locos. Carriages are the shop front and a tatty Mk 1 leaves a bad impression.
Mk 1s are repairable (more so than any other coach), but if railways are to invest money then they don't want to be back doing it again anytime soon. Keeping vehicles undercover is therefore a sound investment to ensure money is well spent. If that vehicle lasts 20 years rather than 10, then that is an extra repair available to be done on another vehicle rather than patching up the same coach twice.

 

It would not be the highest RoI, for the capital sunk into the shed (as you point out, it would be an expensive asset standing empty for much of the year), but maximizing RoI is not what heritage lines are about. I think the right way to look at it as 'what does that money buy you - and if it was used elsewhere, would that other use buy you more than the carriage shed would' (which is, if I understand it, is the point of @acorb's post: "the carriage shed there was probably the single best investment they have ever made").

Given that the GWSR already has good engine shops. C+W shop, etc, what other thing do you think they should invest in, that would be of greater use than a carriage shed? (Serious question; I'm not trying to give you grief.) A mainline connection at Honeybourne? I find it hard to think of something else major the line doesn't already have. (Assuming they could find the money for any of these, of course! ;-)

Noel