Non - Stop BRISTOLIAN 17/4/2010!

That last page read like the Daily Mail , for goodness sake, this is a non - stop Bristolian, what does it matter whether one way is in an HST? From the VT website, it seems that FGW is actively involving themselves in the GWR175 celebrations, which they are in no way obliged to do, so I think we should be grateful for their support. Many people don't seem to appreciate that we are able to run steam on the mainline at all!

In a few decades, seats will be selling out on "historic" trips into "yesteryear" on HSTs between London and Bristol anyway! :smile:

 

Forced? who is forcing you? We live in a free market economy .VT have put a product out into the market, if you want to buy it buy it, if you don't don't. Simples.

If you think there is a demand for an alternate product, produce it.

 

Bach on the water issue. A popular magazine has said that 6024's water carrier is not an option. Wonder why? its ready-made for the job after all....

 

Wouldn't Handel be more appropriate?

 

Already quoted further back in thread

6024's water carrier - air brake only

5043 - vac only

 

Ah, thanks David. Missed that post. I confess to only skipping through this thread!

 

Food for thought...

http://www.6024.com/docs/6024_Water_Carrier.pdf

 

If you are relying on this collection of rather inaccurate ramblings to feed your thought process, I fear that your thoughts are going to be a little hungry.

 

Whatever form the water carrier Tyseley use will take, would anyone be able to tell us the likely range of a loco using it ?, could open a few doors if future usage is possible.

 

Crewe Hall, what was the point of taking a swipe at ADB968008 when all he has done ispoint us to a document which discusses the case for a water carrier. It's not his work yet he gets a complete uncalled for sarcastic remark.
Would you not be better either putting forward your alternatives to the author or just shutting up.....

 

I'd imagine what Tyseleys got in mind would be very helpful for running Pannier tanks on longer distances in the future too.

CreweHalls entitled to his opinion, not sure for the swipe either..maybe it's aimed at me i'm not sure it's a swipe at all ?

However I dont think the document is too far inaccurate a few pages back someone else came to a similar conclusion on the Castles water requirements for the same trip, unless of course they are both wrong.

Having done my research I believe "Crewe Hall" are very much in the know and very influential on this, therefore there positive input would be very welcome.. i'm sure they are enjoying all the discussion thats taking place about this trip... and maybe this post wasnt quite meant to be inflammatory, but sublime humour delivered by an occupant of 35470...i'm sure a few of them are having a laugh there.

 

on a different tact...

Are the positioning trains going to take advantage of the extra water capacity and go for longer runs ?

 

If the extra water capacity is available I'm sure they'll use it, but the train stops at Solihull, Dorridge, Warwick Parkway, Banbury and Oxford before Slough anyway. After that I presume the train will stable at Southall overnight?

 

Though I don't have the money to go on this trip it is a very exciting prospect and hopefully will be completed. Be a good celebration of Brunel and the GW.

 

That was the one - was reading about it fairly recently. A petrol engine, iirc.

 

Double headed Pannier's over Shap anyone?

 

Not a swipe at you at all ADB, sorry if you thought it was , because that was not the intent at all. I was just pointing out that there is not much food for thought in the panel which you quoted as the figures don't add up and given the quantity of water in said water carrier (approx 8000gallons which alone weigh almost 36 tons plus the tare weight of the tank and vehicle), the gross laden weights for the vehicle could be out by at least 100%. Not sure of the tare of a freightliner flat but that and the tare of the tanks must be knocking on 30 tons

With regard to water consumptions quoted (7500 galls, which works out at something like 64 gallons a mile which is rather heavy and suggests that the engine could do with some fine tuning. Certainly there are examples of logs with Castles in the 40's betweeen London and Bristol taking 10 coaches (albeit lighter GW ones) on water consumptions of around 3800 gallons.

 

I am tempted to book but discovered that rolling stock will be Mk2s and Pullmans. If the essence of this trip is re-inactment of the Bristolian why could we not have Mk1s in the right livery?

 

That sounds like the Tysley set, cheaper than hiring a set from Riviera Trains or WCRC or another rolling stock owner