Severn valley railway news and updates.

[Wilts Wanderer]

Well it was a ''mighty shame'' someone got seriously injured. Let's just await publication of the report.

That’s a loaded response if I ever saw one, care to elaborate? The report is relating to an incident on another railway so I doubt it will specifically mention GWR coaching stock on the SVR.

Are you assuming that a risk assessment has automatically translated to a ban? Surely it's possible that the risk has been assessed and a workable solution found, for example putting a steward at any set of doors not fully platformed if staff are available.

The rumour I heard isn’t a ban, it’s relating to the length of a rake of vehicles vs the platform length. The fact that it was specific to GWR era coaches and mentioned non-sprung door handles specifically made me think there is something else in play here besides the GCR issue. The SVR of course being the only railway with a large number of GWR coaches, more than two complete 8-coach rakes if you count the dining vehicles as well.

 

[12LDA28C]

The rumour I heard isn’t a ban, it’s relating to the length of a rake of vehicles vs the platform length. The fact that it was specific to GWR era coaches and mentioned non-sprung door handles specifically made me think there is something else in play here besides the GCR issue. The SVR of course being the only railway with a large number of GWR coaches, more than two complete 8-coach rakes if you count the dining vehicles as well.

I meant a ban on trains running which are longer than the platforms, which can be overcome in the manner I suggested - not a ban on trains formed of that stock running at all.

 

[Trainfan344]

At the moment SVR have a plan to not use a full GWR set of stock at the moment due to it having a higher number of incidents than other coaching sets.

Pendennis Castle is scheduled for a photo charter with the GWR stock but this won't be carrying any passengers.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I meant a ban on trains running which are longer than the platforms, which can be overcome in the manner I suggested - not a ban on trains formed of that stock running at all.

Which I imagine would affect most railways, not just the SVR! But it wasn’t the question I was asking.

At the moment SVR have a plan to not use a full GWR set of stock at the moment due to it having a higher number of incidents than other coaching sets.

Pendennis Castle is scheduled for a photo charter with the GWR stock but this won't be carrying any passengers.

Oh dear, so there is truth to it after all. Do you know if the GWR stock might therefore be broken up into the ‘short sets’ in use at the gala or does this leave them short of stock?

 

[Trainfan344]

From the discuss on the "Unofficial Severn Valley Railway" Facebook group the plan is indeed short sets but it's all up in the air at the moment

 

[Paul Hitchcock]

That’s a loaded response if I ever saw one, care to elaborate? The report is relating to an incident on another railway so I doubt it will specifically mention GWR coaching stock on the SVR.



The rumour I heard isn’t a ban, it’s relating to the length of a rake of vehicles vs the platform length. The fact that it was specific to GWR era coaches and mentioned non-sprung door handles specifically made me think there is something else in play here besides the GCR issue. The SVR of course being the only railway with a large number of GWR coaches, more than two complete 8-coach rakes if you count the dining vehicles as well.

If an item of equipment is found likely to lead to particular problems why on earth shouldn't safety warnings be issued? Notices to Mariners are issued in comparable circumstances at sea.

As said before we not in possession of all the facts before the report is published.

 

[xotGD]

what would?

A required Type 3, or several.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

If an item of equipment is found likely to lead to particular problems why on earth shouldn't safety warnings be issued? Notices to Mariners are issued in comparable circumstances at sea.

As said before we not in possession of all the facts before the report is published.

What do you think the report into the GCR incident is going to tell us about SVR’s GWR coaches? It may be that the rumour I’ve encountered has conflated two unrelated issues but it seemed a coincidence.

(People on this forum love saying ‘wait for the report’ in a manner intended to shut down discussion on a topic - why?)

 

[Intercity110]

A required Type 3, or several.

Cromptons, hymeks or 37s? I quite like 33s, but have never seen a 37

 

[DarloRich]

The report is relating to an incident on another railway so I doubt it will specifically mention GWR coaching stock on the SVR.

To follow your logic: An ORR report into an issue with, say, Southern should be ignored by Scotrail?

(People on this forum love saying ‘wait for the report’ in a manner intended to shut down discussion on a topic - why?)

Because some of us want to discuss facts rather than feelings, rumours or half understood Chinese whispers

Each to their own of course but, personally, I am more worried someone was hurt enjoying a day out on a preserved railway and would like to find out why rather than worry that a chuffer has the right carriages behind it.

A required Type 3, or several.

what is a type 3? A class 47? Maybe one of those with a boiler or summat

 

[Paul Hitchcock]

What do you think the report into the GCR incident is going to tell us about SVR’s GWR coaches? It may be that the rumour I’ve encountered has conflated two unrelated issues but it seemed a coincidence.

(People on this forum love saying ‘wait for the report’ in a manner intended to shut down discussion on a topic - why?)

I don't know what the report will say and I suspect no-one apart from those involved in the investigation will either.

To follow your logic: ORR report into an issue with, say, Southern should be ignored by Scotrail?

Because some of us want to discuss facts rather than feelings, rumours or half understood Chinese whispers

Each to their own of course but, personally, I am more worried someone was hurt enjoying a day out on a preserved railway and would like to find out why rather than worry that a chuffer has the right carriages behind it.

+1
what is a type 3? A class 47? Maybe one of those with a boiler or summat

 

[Forty29]

Well according to BLS gen its a DBC 60,GBRF 66 & 69, DRS 88,dunno if that's right but nobody is saying it isnt

Class 88 is just a rumour

 

[Intercity110]

what is a type 3? A class 47? Maybe one of those with a boiler or summat

they’re cromptons hymeks and 37s

 

[Townsend Hook]

My understanding is the GWR set needs Mk1-style slam locks fitting before they can run in service again. They’re not the only line with this issue, the Talyllyn is fundraising to fit slam locks to it’s entire carriage fleet (apart from the 1860s vintage set IIRC).

 

[xotGD]

Cromptons, hymeks or 37s? I quite like 33s, but have never seen a 37

You've not seen my profile picture then?

Actually, the chance to red pen a 33 or 35 might also get me setting an early alarm.

 

[DarloRich]

This is a link to the Urgent Safety Advice notice issued by the RAIB in relation to Passenger doors not centrally controlled and/or locked by train crew:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ntrally-controlled-andor-locked-by-train-crew

Duty holders should ensure that a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks is carried out and that any appropriate control measures identified are implemented. These assessments should consider:

the type and location of passenger doors on the relevant rolling stock
the length of passenger trains compared to the platforms at which they may call
the capabilities of the braking systems of the trains involved and the level of precision which is reasonably achievable by them when stopping
the level of accuracy in stopping position required of train crew and if this is supported by relevant competency and assessment processes
if the level of stopping position accuracy required of train crew aligns with the capability of the trains involved and the accuracy required at the relevant platforms
the effectiveness of existing measures intended to manage the risk of passengers exiting a train that is not fully platformed or which may stop in line with areas not intended for public use, such as platform ramps
the visibility from the cab of different traction units and the effectiveness of any stopping markers in place.

 

[kje7812]

Have heard a rumour today that following the RAIB notice to heritage railways about risk assessing slam door operations after a member of the public was injured at Loughborough Central in January attempting to alight from a door that was not fully platformed (I.e. down the ramp), the Severn Valley Railway is now unable to run full length trains formed of heritage GWR-era stock due to the added risk of non-sprung door handles.

Can anyone corroborate this assertion, and does anyone know if it will affect the upcoming gala weekends at all? It will be a mighty shame if 4079 Pendennis Castle is unable to run with a full rake of matching GWR coaches because of a risk assessment of an incident on another railway. I’ll refrain from using the terms ‘knee jerk’ and ‘heavy handed response’ until someone has confirmed the RAIB are actually behind this.

I heard about the 'ban' on the use of the GW set before I saw the RAIB investigation notice. There's been a number of issues/incidents recently, particularly over the christmas period that it was felt that a review was required.
Of course then the incident at the GCR has occurred and that's with slam door stock

It will be interesting to see what the outcomes of the report and recommendations. The majority of SVR platforms are shorter than the normal length of the train so limiting train length to the shortest platform length would make things impractical.

 

[Batz47082]

A 57/3 now confirmed.

Not my thing, but will appeal to many I guess.

 

[SuperLuke2334]

A 57/3 now confirmed.

Not my thing, but will appeal to many I guess.

Rumour has it that it will be 57307 but whether that will happen I don't know.

 

[Batz47082]

Rumour has it that it will be 57307 but whether that will happen I don't know.

Thanks for the info

 

[Intercity110]

Any confirmation On that 57?

 

[SuperLuke2334]

Any confirmation On that 57?

We know a 57 is coming but no confirmation on which one until closer to the time I'd imagine.

 

[Intercity110]

We know a 57 is coming but no confirmation on which one until closer to the time I'd imagine.

Alright thanks

 

[Batz47082]

It could well be 57 311 from what I am hearing.

 

[12LDA28C]

It could well be 57 311 from what I am hearing.

Really? Last I heard it was nowhere near ready - missing wheelsets for a start.

 

[SuperLuke2334]

It could well be 57 311 from what I am hearing.

I thought that was an LSL loco, not a DRS / Avanti thunderbird one?

 

[43096]

It could well be 57 311 from what I am hearing.

It’s not a DRS loco.

 

[Batz47082]

It is indeed an LSL loco, just mentioning what I heard. I don't know one way or the other.

Either way, can't wait for the gala to start now.

 

[12LDA28C]

It is indeed an LSL loco, just mentioning what I heard. I don't know one way or the other.

Either way, can't wait for the gala to start now.

The SVR website specifically says it's a 'Thunderbird' AWC / DRS Class 57/3 that will attend which would rule out 57311 which AFAIK is some way off a return to service for LSL.

 

[Batz47082]

The SVR website specifically says it's a 'Thunderbird' AWC / DRS Class 57/3 that will attend which would rule out 57311 which AFAIK is some way off a return to service for LSL.

Received and understood.