Following announcements that Ironbridge power station is to close there
exists the possibility of a group being formed to extend the SVR
northwards from Bridgnorth.

http://forum.svra.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=214&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

"m1ss_wh1te"  wrote in message 
news:1125666898.506346.176220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> Following announcements that Ironbridge power station is to close there
> exists the possibility of a group being formed to extend the SVR
> northwards from Bridgnorth.
>
> http://forum.svra.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=214&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30


I hadn't realised that it was possible to extend the SVR: isn't there a 
housing estate on the trackbed beyond Bridgnorth Station? I know this is the 
case beyond Alresford on the Watercress and I *think* I've read that the 
same is true for the SVR. Or is it a problem with the tunnel under 
Bridgnorth High Town that I'm thinking of?

If they can extend - ideally as far as Ironbridge with bus connections for 
Blists Hill Museum - that would be fantastic. But I wonder if it will ever 
happen.

Some posters on
http://forum.svra.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=214&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
suggest extension as far as the A4169 would be a better option. This
location has quite a large area of flat large adjacent to accomodate a
large car park and the SVR's 2nd turntable. The A4169 forms the
relatively new Ironbridge bypass with good connection to the M54.

Some posters on
http://forum.svra.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=214&postdays=0&postorder=asc...

suggest extension as far as the A4169 would be a better option. This
location has quite a large area of flat land adjacent to it to
accomodate a
large car park and the SVR's 2nd turntable. The A4169 forms the
relatively new Ironbridge bypass with good connection to the M54

Whilst there are quite a number of obstacles to overcome I think the
announcement by Telford Steam Trust of their planned extension has
prompted this action.

A concern is that the TST is quite a small affair that may not have the
resources complete such a task and this could reflect badly on the
heritage movement generally.

> I hadn't realised that it was possible to extend the SVR: isn't there a
> housing estate on the trackbed beyond Bridgnorth Station?


There is some development that obstructs the formation to an extent but
a filled cutting doesn't seem to have stopped the Bluebell.


> Or is it a problem with the tunnel under
> Bridgnorth High Town that I'm thinking of?


The tunnel is understood to be in pretty good shape.

>
> If they can extend - ideally as far as Ironbridge with bus connections for
> Blists Hill Museum


I think you'll find the scheme is to extend a little beyond Ironbridge
to Buildwas. There is much more space there for car parking, etc.

"1501"  wrote in message 
news:1125911584.994862.179120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> I hadn't realised that it was possible to extend the SVR: isn't there a
>> housing estate on the trackbed beyond Bridgnorth Station?
>
> There is some development that obstructs the formation to an extent but
> a filled cutting doesn't seem to have stopped the Bluebell.


True. On the other hand, I imagine it's much more costly to buy up houses 
that have been built on the trackbed than to clear out a filled cutting, 
given that a lot of the Bluebell's cutting-clearance can be done "free" by 
society members. What are the rules about compulsory purchase? Is it only 
local councils that can compulsory-purchase properties - eg along the route 
of a new road - or can private companies (eg a heritage railway) use this 
mechanism or do they have to buy each property individually at inflated 
prices if the occupants don't want to move?


>> Or is it a problem with the tunnel under
>> Bridgnorth High Town that I'm thinking of?
>
> The tunnel is understood to be in pretty good shape.


What's the condition of the rest of the trackbed between Bridgnorth and 
Buildwas? Are there any demolished bridges, filled cuttings or unsafe 
embankments?


>> If they can extend - ideally as far as Ironbridge with bus connections 
>> for
>> Blists Hill Museum
>
> I think you'll find the scheme is to extend a little beyond Ironbridge
> to Buildwas. There is much more space there for car parking, etc.


I presume they'll have a station at Ironbridge for visitors to the bridge 
but a larger park and ride station at Buildwas for onward connection to the 
various museum sites around there.

"Martin Underwood"  wrote in message 
news:431c13ba$0$97118$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...


> True. On the other hand, I imagine it's much more costly to buy up houses 
> that have been built on the trackbed than to clear out a filled cutting, 
> given that a lot of the Bluebell's cutting-clearance can be done "free" by 
> society members.


I don't believe this is true.  My understanding is the Bluebell will have to 
pay the full professional cost of the removal, as domestic waste tips are 
classified as hazardous waste.  I can't remember the figure but I think it 
was of the order of 1-2 million pounds.

James

What you have got to remember is this >
The Severn Valley Railway one way trip Kidd-Bnth takes 1h20-40min ish ?
Will dear mom & dad be able to cope with the kiddies screaming " Were
Bored " etc for over 2hr+++ ???

And for those without kiddies who would just like to go out and enjoy
either the Kettle or Diesel for the day ? Would you be able to
withstand the pain and noise from screaming kiddies & from the parents
who would nodoubt start getting loud towards their offspring ! Rather
like travelling on VT these days !

IM
(Trainee Grumpy Old Man) !!

James wrote:

> "Martin Underwood"  wrote in message
> news:431c13ba$0$97118$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>
> > True. On the other hand, I imagine it's much more costly to buy up houses
> > that have been built on the trackbed than to clear out a filled cutting,
> > given that a lot of the Bluebell's cutting-clearance can be done "free" by
> > society members.
>
> I don't believe this is true.  My understanding is the Bluebell will have to
> pay the full professional cost of the removal, as domestic waste tips are
> classified as hazardous waste.  I can't remember the figure but I think it
> was of the order of 1-2 million pounds.
> 
> James

wrote in message 
news:1125934398.595951.131880@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> What you have got to remember is this >
> The Severn Valley Railway one way trip Kidd-Bnth takes 1h20-40min ish ?
> Will dear mom & dad be able to cope with the kiddies screaming " Were
> Bored " etc for over 2hr+++ ???
>


Preserved railways also get the bulk of their income from non - enthusiast 
groups such as families.  It is unlikely such groups would want to pay more 
simply to get a longer ride.  Hence an extended railway means greater 
costs - but not necessarily a comparable increase in income.



James

"James"  wrote:


>
> wrote in message 
>news:1125934398.595951.131880@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> What you have got to remember is this >
>> The Severn Valley Railway one way trip Kidd-Bnth takes 1h20-40min ish ?
>> Will dear mom & dad be able to cope with the kiddies screaming " Were
>> Bored " etc for over 2hr+++ ???
>>
>
>Preserved railways also get the bulk of their income from non - enthusiast 
>groups such as families.  It is unlikely such groups would want to pay more 
>simply to get a longer ride.  Hence an extended railway means greater 
>costs - but not necessarily a comparable increase in income.



You're being very negative.

Instead, imagine the attraction of arriving at Bridgnorth station to
be offered the choice of two trips, one to Kidderminster and the other
to Ironbridge.  Yes please!

I suspect that few people would do both.

On 5/9/05 6:05 pm, in article giuoh1h18sm8fj615k54an4ao81kd72oqt@4ax.com,
"Tony   Polson"  wrote:


> 
> You're being very negative.
> 
> Instead, imagine the attraction of arriving at Bridgnorth station to
> be offered the choice of two trips, one to Kidderminster and the other
> to Ironbridge.  Yes please!
> 
> I suspect that few people would do both.
> 


Not on one day, but they might return later to do the other one, or visitors
to Ironbridge might like to take a ride to Bridgnorth.

Stephen Furley  wrote:


>
>
>
>On 5/9/05 6:05 pm, in article giuoh1h18sm8fj615k54an4ao81kd72oqt@4ax.com,
>"Tony   Polson"  wrote:
>
>> 
>> You're being very negative.
>> 
>> Instead, imagine the attraction of arriving at Bridgnorth station to
>> be offered the choice of two trips, one to Kidderminster and the other
>> to Ironbridge.  Yes please!
>> 
>> I suspect that few people would do both.
>> 
>
>Not on one day, but they might return later to do the other one, or visitors
>to Ironbridge might like to take a ride to Bridgnorth.



Exactly.  And there has to be potential for alleviating some of the
dreadful parking problems at Ironbridge.  I would love to visit
Ironbridge by train, not having to worry about parking.

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, James wrote:


>  wrote in message 
> news:1125934398.595951.131880@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > What you have got to remember is this > The Severn Valley Railway 
> > one way trip Kidd-Bnth takes 1h20-40min ish ? Will dear mom & dad 
> > be able to cope with the kiddies screaming " Were Bored " etc for 
> > over 2hr+++ ???
> 
> Preserved railways also get the bulk of their income from non - 
> enthusiast groups such as families.  It is unlikely such groups 
> would want to pay more simply to get a longer ride.  Hence an 
> extended railway means greater costs - but not necessarily a 
> comparable increase in income.


Gosh, what hopelessly negative attitudes.

The kiddies aren't forced to be taken the whole trip.  So offer the 
families a trip to an intermediate attraction, at a price that they 
find acceptable!  Those who seriously care about the whole trip should 
take it, and pay their way.  I've forked out some hair-curling fares 
for specific travel attractions in other countries (.de, .ch, .at 
etc.).

Or you could compare it with the fare for a return from Blythe Bridge 
(Caverswall Road) to Dilhorne Park.  Not exactly a bargain for a 
little trundle behind a kettle to nowhere much: but we went for a day 
out, we all had fun (including my little great-niece), and the fare 
itself was a drop in the ocean when you work out the overall cost of 
the day out.  I don't grudge them the price.

As the chief of Midland Red/BMMO was quoted as saying, years ago, 
about the cost of fares: the trouble with travel is that you can't 
wrap it in a brown paper bag and take it away with you.  I think he 
was saying that the comparison of the cost of travel with things you 
buy in a shop isn't obvious - it needs the application of intelligent 
thought.  

But this is a preserved railway too (which the Midland Red/BMMO was 
not, or at least wasn't supposed to be ;-) For those who grudge the 
fare, maybe they could volunteer to do some labouring at the depot?

"Alan J. Flavell"  wrote in message 
news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0509052207000.9224@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...

  Those who seriously care about the whole trip should

> take it, and pay their way.  I've forked out some hair-curling fares
> for specific travel attractions in other countries (.de, .ch, .at
> etc.).



I would also be prepared to pay a premium fare to travel from Ironbridge to 
Kidderminster - and would be delighted to do so.  The point I was making is 
that the majority of preserved railway income does not come from enthusiasts 
like ourselves, and a longer railway does not translate into proportionately 
greater income from the majority of (non enthusiast) visitors.

James

In message <431c13ba$0$97118$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, 
Martin Underwood  writes

>"1501"  wrote in message
>news:1125911584.994862.179120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> I hadn't realised that it was possible to extend the SVR: isn't there a
>>> housing estate on the trackbed beyond Bridgnorth Station?
>>
>> There is some development that obstructs the formation to an extent but
>> a filled cutting doesn't seem to have stopped the Bluebell.
>
>True. On the other hand, I imagine it's much more costly to buy up houses
>that have been built on the trackbed than to clear out a filled cutting,
>given that a lot of the Bluebell's cutting-clearance can be done "free" by
>society members. What are the rules about compulsory purchase? Is it only
>local councils that can compulsory-purchase properties - eg along the route
>of a new road - or can private companies (eg a heritage railway) use this
>mechanism or do they have to buy each property individually at inflated
>prices if the occupants don't want to move?
>
>>> Or is it a problem with the tunnel under
>>> Bridgnorth High Town that I'm thinking of?
>>
>> The tunnel is understood to be in pretty good shape.
>
>What's the condition of the rest of the trackbed between Bridgnorth and
>Buildwas? Are there any demolished bridges, filled cuttings or unsafe
>embankments?
>
[snip]
>

Quite a variety of problems in the Coalport/Jackfield/Ironbridge area. 
The trackbed is partly an official footpath and partly (south of 
Coalport) used for road access to neighbouring properties, though on 
what legal basis I don't know.

As locals will be aware the geology in the Severn Gorge is very 
unstable, notably around Jackfield/Calcutts where the trackbed is 
occupied for a few hundred metres by the road access to the area round 
the Boat Inn. Some years ago the road did its best to slide into the 
river and the replacement is made from sleepers linked together with 
metal bars so that it can flex with any further ground movement. I've no 
technical knowledge of the civil engineering required to solve the 
problems in this stretch but I could imagine it being fearsomely 
expensive relative to the resources of a preserved railway.

 From memory, there's a bit of encroachment by surrounding properties on 
to the formation north of the landslip section, but whether legally or 
not I couldn't _possibly_ comment. There are a couple of level crossings 
on this section, too. The access to the Iron Bridge itself from the 
south side with its car park, though now pedestrian, was also a level 
crossing.

North of Ironbridge there's a pretty serious retaining wall but last 
time I looked (a while ago, it must be said) nothing to suggest to the 
layman that it's in a poor condition.

This suggestion has done the rounds quite a few times over the years and 
has usually been dismissed, unofficially, as fantasy.  As I'm not 
involved with the SVR I don't know what their official attitude is. I've 
had some fringe contact with the local authorities in the area regarding 
a railway related idea a number of years ago, and found them 
uninterested (not unsympathetic particularly, just uninterested and 
uncomprehending). I can imagine some pretty serious NIMBYism in the 
Gorge, too. It's something I'd personally love to see as a local 
resident, but even if it's a remotely serious proposition, which I 
doubt, there do seem to be quite a number of practical difficulties. I 
guess if it ever did get serious it would really hinge on the attitude 
of the local authority and the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust.

Dave
-- 
Dave Spencer

> >What's the condition of the rest of the trackbed between Bridgnorth and
> >Buildwas? Are there any demolished bridges, filled cuttings or unsafe
> >embankments?


Having walked a sizable part of the formation I can confirm there are
few major problems south of Coalport. The £4 - £30 million land
stabilisation program will alleviate much of the geological problems
described.

SVR(H) withdrew its objections to the construction of National Cycle
Path 45 on the formation with the caveat that it could/would be
restored to railway use in the future.


>  From memory, there's a bit of encroachment by surrounding properties on
> to the formation north of the landslip section.


Pretty much only garden extensions. Whether legal or not, who knows?


> access to the Iron Bridge itself from the
> south side with its car park, though now pedestrian, was also a level
> crossing.


The SVR is well practiced in dealing with vehicles on level crossings.
The SVR has never been found wanting in procedure or practice.



> North of Ironbridge there's a pretty serious retaining wall but last
> time I looked (a while ago, it must be said) nothing to suggest to the
> layman that it's in a poor condition.


Not a retaining wall. A viaduct built onto the side of Benthall Wood
onto rock. Understood to be in pretty reasonable condition.



> This suggestion has done the rounds quite a few times over the years and
> has usually been dismissed, unofficially, as fantasy.  As I'm not
> involved with the SVR I don't know what their official attitude is.


Two points. Hithertoo there was nowhere in the Gorge for a northern
terminus. The planned closure of Ironbridge B power station will
release more than enough space for terminus, car park (large) and the
SVR's 2nd turntable.
If one of the current director of SVR(H) is to be believed the party
line is they would consider running the northern section if constructed
by another organisation. Hence SVR(E).


> it would really hinge on the attitude
> of the local authority and the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust.


A number of the local organisations would like to see traffic in the
Gorge reduced. There is growing support that such a scheme would solve
a significant part of the problem.

m1ss_wh1te wrote:


> SVR(H) withdrew its objections to the construction of National Cycle
> Path 45 on the formation with the caveat that it could/would be
> restored to railway use in the future.
>

> If one of the current director of SVR(H) is to be believed the party
> line is they would consider running the northern section if constructed
> by another organisation. Hence SVR(E).
>


Would you mind explaining what SVR(H) and SVR(E) are?
Or have I not read this thread carefully enough?

Thanks
Andy

> Would you mind explaining what SVR(H) and SVR(E) are?
> Or have I not read this thread carefully enough?



http://forum.svra.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=214&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

May help you understand that the SVR(H) is the owning company that
carries the liabilities for the Kidderminster to Bridgnorth section.
Operation of the railway is carried out by SVR(G).

The proponents of the scheme wish to protect thier 40 years (yes, that
long) of effort by creating a new company i.e. SVR(E) that would
eventually have an end-on junction with the SVR(H). That way should any
misfortune befall SVR(E) during (re)construction the existing southern
section would not go to the wall.

A bit like the two bits of the GCR but far further from bankrupcy.

In message , 
m1ss_wh1te  writes

>> >What's the condition of the rest of the trackbed between Bridgnorth and
>> >Buildwas? Are there any demolished bridges, filled cuttings or unsafe
>> >embankments?
>
>Having walked a sizable part of the formation I can confirm there are
>few major problems south of Coalport. The 4 - 30 million land
>stabilisation program will alleviate much of the geological problems
>described.
>
>SVR(H) withdrew its objections to the construction of National Cycle
>Path 45 on the formation with the caveat that it could/would be
>restored to railway use in the future.
>
>>  From memory, there's a bit of encroachment by surrounding properties on
>> to the formation north of the landslip section.
>
>Pretty much only garden extensions. Whether legal or not, who knows?
>
>> access to the Iron Bridge itself from the
>> south side with its car park, though now pedestrian, was also a level
>> crossing.
>
>The SVR is well practiced in dealing with vehicles on level crossings.
>The SVR has never been found wanting in procedure or practice.
>
>
>> North of Ironbridge there's a pretty serious retaining wall but last
>> time I looked (a while ago, it must be said) nothing to suggest to the
>> layman that it's in a poor condition.
>
>Not a retaining wall. A viaduct built onto the side of Benthall Wood
>onto rock. Understood to be in pretty reasonable condition.
>
>
>> This suggestion has done the rounds quite a few times over the years and
>> has usually been dismissed, unofficially, as fantasy.  As I'm not
>> involved with the SVR I don't know what their official attitude is.
>
>Two points. Hithertoo there was nowhere in the Gorge for a northern
>terminus. The planned closure of Ironbridge B power station will
>release more than enough space for terminus, car park (large) and the
>SVR's 2nd turntable.
>If one of the current director of SVR(H) is to be believed the party
>line is they would consider running the northern section if constructed
>by another organisation. Hence SVR(E).
>
>> it would really hinge on the attitude
>> of the local authority and the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust.
>
>A number of the local organisations would like to see traffic in the
>Gorge reduced. There is growing support that such a scheme would solve
>a significant part of the problem.
>

Thanks for your followup with various corrections/supplements to my 
failing memory! The traffic point is an interesting one in fact. The 
power station line's buffers are adjacent to the improved A4169 and 
little over 100 metres from the southern end of the Ironbridge bypass 
whence there is good quality access from M54.

<Pipedream mode>

  It would make a perfect P&R site for Ironbridge, with a dogbox or 
something similarly reversible (yes, OK, a 14XX and autocoach would be 
nice - but's let's be sensible) shuttling to a platform at the end of 
the Iron Bridge. Therefrom, the SVR could run to Bridgnorth for those 
'what wanted'. Add the TSR into the equation, pottering off up the Dale 
to Enginuity and the CBD Iron Works and hey presto - Buildwas Jn is back 
in business.

</Pipedream mode>

As for level crossings, I didn't intend for a moment to suggest that the 
SVR couldn't cope with level crossings. It's just an unfortunate fact 
that level crossing incidents have had a high profile for quite a few 
years. You have to wonder how well the reinstatement of old crossings 
would be received (one on a bus route, too, I think). It's an ideal 
cover for NIMBYs to shelter behind while they bleat about health and 
safety... But it can be done, even with new crossings on busy main roads 
(Fords branch, A48 near Bridgend, Cambrian line on the A5 Oswestry 
bypass).

Let's hope one day soon we'll see this subject line without the OP's 
'maybe'. Difficult or not, it would be a superb project. *And* I require 
the track :-)

Dave
-- 
Dave Spencer

"m1ss_wh1te"  wrote:


>A number of the local organisations would like to see traffic in the
>Gorge reduced. There is growing support that such a scheme would solve
>a significant part of the problem.



The Gorge is choked with traffic, and visiting by car is a stressful
experience if you don't get there very early, before the hordes begin
to arrive.  Rail access would be a wonderful enhancement to the
enjoyment of the Gorge and its priceless historical relics.

If ever there was a prime candidate for Lottery funding, this is it.

"m1ss_wh1te"  wrote:


>A bit like the two bits of the GCR but far further from bankrupcy.



The GCR has recently declared a loss of over 600,000 for the last
financial year, a record for a preserved railway.

The GCR blamed the size of the loss on their adoption of new
accounting rules that require changes in the values of historic assets
to be taken fully into account.

Tony Polson wrote:


> Instead, imagine the attraction of arriving at Bridgnorth station to
> be offered the choice of two trips, one to Kidderminster and the other
> to Ironbridge.  Yes please!


s/Bridgnorth/Porthmadog
s/Kidderminster/Blaenau
s/Ironbridge/Caernarfon

Ian

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:51:38 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>The GCR blamed the size of the loss on their adoption of new
>accounting rules that require changes in the values of historic assets
>to be taken fully into account.


I've never quite understood business accounting rules on contract
payments, asset depreciation and the likes.  I really don't see why
accounts can't be presented simply, such that if money is *actually*
received it is marked as an income, and if it is *actually* expended
it is an expenditure.  By all means show asset depreciation
separately, but it isn't in my mind a profit or a loss until said item
is sold.

That said, US business is worse - they always seem to manage to find a
way to turn what looks very much like a loss into a huge profit, not
to mention the whole idea of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which is a
downright dishonest concept in my mind.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:51:38, Tony  Polson  wrote:

>
>The GCR blamed the size of the loss on their adoption of new
>accounting rules that require changes in the values of historic assets
>to be taken fully into account.


Don't some historic assets increase in value?

Forty years ago, you could have bought a steam loco for a couple of
grand.  Now, you'd need a six-figure sum (seven figures if you want a
Peppercorn A1 Pacific!).

Paul Harley

-- 
Remove "eeek" to contact me!

Ian.usenet@talk21.com wrote:


>
>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> Instead, imagine the attraction of arriving at Bridgnorth station to
>> be offered the choice of two trips, one to Kidderminster and the other
>> to Ironbridge.  Yes please!
>
>s/Bridgnorth/Porthmadog
>s/Kidderminster/Blaenau
>s/Ironbridge/Caernarfon



Indeedy-doody.

;-)

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:


>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:51:38 +0100, Tony   Polson 
>wrote:
>
>>The GCR blamed the size of the loss on their adoption of new
>>accounting rules that require changes in the values of historic assets
>>to be taken fully into account.
>
>I've never quite understood business accounting rules on contract
>payments, asset depreciation and the likes.  I really don't see why
>accounts can't be presented simply, such that if money is *actually*
>received it is marked as an income, and if it is *actually* expended
>it is an expenditure.  By all means show asset depreciation
>separately, but it isn't in my mind a profit or a loss until said item
>is sold.
>
>That said, US business is worse - they always seem to manage to find a
>way to turn what looks very much like a loss into a huge profit, not
>to mention the whole idea of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which is a
>downright dishonest concept in my mind.



It works both ways.  Big profits can be turned into small profits, or
even small losses, to avoid tax.

However, I disagree about Chapter 11.  It is a very good thing, far
better than the UK alternative where a limited company goes bust, is
taken off the hands of the receivers by its former directors for a
song and is back in business with a slightly changed name, but free of
all debts and other encumbrances.

I know of one company that has gone bust four times, and still trades
under a very similar name, leaving four lots of unpaid creditors
(including me) in its wake.  Give me Chapter 11 any time.

;-)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:36:16 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:51:38 +0100, Tony   Polson 
>wrote:
>
>>The GCR blamed the size of the loss on their adoption of new
>>accounting rules that require changes in the values of historic assets
>>to be taken fully into account.
>
>I've never quite understood business accounting rules on contract
>payments, asset depreciation and the likes.  I really don't see why
>accounts can't be presented simply, such that if money is *actually*
>received it is marked as an income, and if it is *actually* expended
>it is an expenditure.  By all means show asset depreciation
>separately, but it isn't in my mind a profit or a loss until said item
>is sold.
>
>That said, US business is worse - they always seem to manage to find a
>way to turn what looks very much like a loss into a huge profit, not
>to mention the whole idea of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which is a
>downright dishonest concept in my mind.


It's better to look at cash flow. If it's positive you are making
money, in negative, you are losing it.

The accountants can make the rest look any way they want.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

Terry Harper  wrote:

> It's better to look at cash flow. If it's positive you are making
> money, in negative, you are losing it.


In the GCR's recent case the Board decided to take a 500,000
accounting hit which the auditor at the AGM described as an
"impairment of fixed assets" based on something called FRS11.  Now I'm
not accountant so I might have got the wrong end of the stick, but as
I understand it this is designed to show asset value in relation to
their benefit to cash flow.  Whereas depreciation happens annually,
impairment calculations can happen irregularly when cash flow
substatially alters.  The new GCR Board includes a finance chap who
explained that this impairment exercise was undertaken to ensure that
an accurate reflection of the company's assets was given.  According
to the auditor it is a very complex calculation.

No, I didn't understand it either... ;-)

Jim'll

"Paul Harley"  wrote in message
news:rv1sh1t61h9keb52tq3it4kk18i4ttneb0@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:51:38, Tony  Polson  wrote:
> >
> >The GCR blamed the size of the loss on their adoption of new
> >accounting rules that require changes in the values of historic assets
> >to be taken fully into account.
>
> Don't some historic assets increase in value?


As far as I can tell, a large amount of the loss in assets is because the
track itself was deliberately over-priced BR when it sold it to GCR 1976
Ltd.


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

"m1ss_wh1te"  wrote in message
news:1126019549.069678.241460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> A bit like the two bits of the GCR but far further from bankrupcy.


Yeah, but it's a nightmare trying to work out who's in charge of what with
all of these companies / groups  (none of which are just groups affiliated
with the line):

Great Central Railway Plc.
Great Central Railway Northern Development Association
Great Central Railway (Link) Ltd.
Great Central Railway (Nottingham) Ltd.
London and North Eastern Railway Co. Ltd.
London and North Eastern Railway (Great Central) Heritage Trust Ltd.
Main Line Steam Trust Ltd.
Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre Ltd.
Nottingham Heritage Centre Ltd.

I think there's a large case for stream-lining somewhere (And I'm not
talking Gresley A4s!)


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

Ronnie Clark  wrote:

> Yeah, but it's a nightmare trying to work out who's in charge of what with
> all of these companies / groups  (none of which are just groups affiliated
> with the line):


Take a squint at
<URL:http://www.nthc.co.uk/lnergcht/news/news_output/index.asp?id=176&page=1&checkSource=8>
which tries to describe the relationships between the groups from the
point of view of the northern folk.  It misses some out though (such
as the DCRT).

Jim'll

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
news:5mhrh1134rdq8kia2cbh5vne6d8j8pq230@4ax.com...

> "m1ss_wh1te"  wrote:
>
> >A number of the local organisations would like to see traffic in the
> >Gorge reduced. There is growing support that such a scheme would solve
> >a significant part of the problem.
>
>
> The Gorge is choked with traffic, and visiting by car is a stressful
> experience if you don't get there very early, before the hordes begin
> to arrive.  Rail access would be a wonderful enhancement to the
> enjoyment of the Gorge and its priceless historical relics.
>
> If ever there was a prime candidate for Lottery funding, this is it.
>
>

Is there anything that physically stops the Telford Steam Trust from linking
up with the mainline near Wellington or Telford?
A look at the map shows most of the trackbed to be still intact but the M54
may be the most severe blockage.

And how's this for craziness....? Link up the TST and SVR with a joint works
at the ex-power station site where you include a Park and Ride scheme and
new station for passengers to go north or south with ease via a new curve by
the bridge where the lines meet. All building funded by
EU/Lottery/regeneration funds with the option of direct trains from Telford
Central running down to Kidderminster.

OR....

How about this? Replace the power station with a Park & Ride station site
and extend the existing line via a curve round to a new halt by the
IronBridge, reopen the old stations along the other direction. Make it tough
for day visitors to just drive into the Ironbridge area (Ironbridge
Congestion Charge Zone, anyone?). You can then run services from at least
Wolverhampton to support the tourist season and get some commuter traffic
off the road.

Maybe I should go to bed and rethink all this, it doens't mkae sesne
aynmroe....

Nick

J.P.Knight@lboro.ac.uk wrote:


>Terry Harper  wrote:
>> It's better to look at cash flow. If it's positive you are making
>> money, in negative, you are losing it.
>
>In the GCR's recent case the Board decided to take a 500,000
>accounting hit which the auditor at the AGM described as an
>"impairment of fixed assets" based on something called FRS11.  Now I'm
>not accountant so I might have got the wrong end of the stick, but as
>I understand it this is designed to show asset value in relation to
>their benefit to cash flow.  Whereas depreciation happens annually,
>impairment calculations can happen irregularly when cash flow
>substatially alters.  The new GCR Board includes a finance chap who
>explained that this impairment exercise was undertaken to ensure that
>an accurate reflection of the company's assets was given.  According
>to the auditor it is a very complex calculation.
>
>No, I didn't understand it either... ;-)



Perhaps the accountant did what I did on Saturday, took a trip on the
train and saw the huge amount of unrestored locos and rolling stock
languishing in sidings all along the GCR route.  Much of it is in a
dreadful state, and looks beyond economic repair on a railway that
cannot seem to turn in a regular profit.

If the accountant downgraded the GCR's previous valuation of the
rolling stock to something approximating to its value as scrap, he
would have been wise, and that alone could explain the depreciation of
the company's asset value.

To me, the GCR appeared more like a seven mile long version of Vic
Berry's erstwhile Leicestershire scrapyard rather than the lovingly
preserved double track main line railway that it purports to be.  I
left Loughborough central with great sadness after my trip, especially
when I glanced back at the condition of the platform awnings, which
are in an appalling state of repair - although this is carefully
concealed from the view at platform level.

I hope the new management takes a very firm grip, and fast.

"Nick Pedley"  wrote:

>
>And how's this for craziness....? Link up the TST and SVR with a joint works
>at the ex-power station site where you include a Park and Ride scheme and
>new station for passengers to go north or south with ease via a new curve by
>the bridge where the lines meet. All building funded by
>EU/Lottery/regeneration funds with the option of direct trains from Telford
>Central running down to Kidderminster.
>
>OR....
>
>How about this? Replace the power station with a Park & Ride station site
>and extend the existing line via a curve round to a new halt by the
>IronBridge, reopen the old stations along the other direction. Make it tough
>for day visitors to just drive into the Ironbridge area (Ironbridge
>Congestion Charge Zone, anyone?). You can then run services from at least
>Wolverhampton to support the tourist season and get some commuter traffic
>off the road.
>
>Maybe I should go to bed and rethink all this, it doens't mkae sesne
>aynmroe....



Not crazy at all.  I just hope that some of the people with the power
to make things happen share some or all of your vision and enthusiasm.

> > If ever there was a prime candidate for Lottery funding, this is it.


European funding might even be forthcoming.

> >
> >
> Is there anything that physically stops the Telford Steam Trust from linking
> up with the mainline near Wellington or Telford?
> A look at the map shows most of the trackbed to be still intact but the M54
> may be the most severe blockage.


They have planned their northern terminus to be at Lawley common. There
is quite a bit of development work planned/happening.

The formation over the M54 would need to be raised (but it is thought
possible.

They would need to run over a section of NR metals to get into the bay
at Wellington. (A bit like the Swanage's situation at Wareham).


> Link up the TST and SVR with a joint works
> at the ex-power station site where you include a Park and Ride scheme and
> new station for passengers to go north or south


Very little space for a south facing curve. The SVR has to spent some
serious money (over £100K) on Victoria Bridge every 10 years. If TST
want to cross the Severn they would be looking at a similar amount for
Albert Edward Bridge.


> How about this? Replace the power station with a Park & Ride station site


Exactly what has been suggested before (please pay attention).

> Not crazy at all.  I just hope that some of the people with the power
> to make things happen share some or all of your vision and enthusiasm.


The power to do all this comes from having the money. (Lots).

The SVR(H), understandably, will not commit itself to such capital
expenditure. The subsequent upkeep, who knows.

The SVR(G) appears to be willing to operate it.

But to rebuild the northern section needs the "new" company to be
formed. Hence SVR(E).

> > Link up the TST and SVR with a joint works
> > at the ex-power station site where you include a Park and Ride scheme and
> > new station for passengers to go north or south
>
> Very little space for a south facing curve. The SVR has to spent some
> serious money (over £100K) on Victoria Bridge every 10 years. If TST
> want to cross the Severn they would be looking at a similar amount for
> Albert Edward Bridge.


I'm unsure that the TST want to cross the river. I seem to recall they
announced when the line between Madeley and Buildwas closes to coal
traffic they want to relay the line through Doseley (some materials
on-site), construct a bridge over the A4169, slew the track at
Lightmoor and construct a new station in the Coalbrookdale area. Being
such a small organisation I think they might struggle to achieve all
that, let alone bridge the Severn and develop any joint facility with
the SVR.

Perhaps someone closer to TST knows better.

> Very little space for a south facing curve. The SVR has to spent some
> serious money (over £100K) on Victoria Bridge every 10 years. If TST
> want to cross the Severn they would be looking at a similar amount for
> Albert Edward Bridge.


Go to
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=364000.447280912&Y=305000.393258795&width=500&height=300&gride=364149.447280912&gridn=304592.393258795&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=25000&downright.x=63&downright.y=1

Then go to Aerial view. You can just about make out the path of the
railway south of the Albert Edward bridge. The line passed along the
edge of Benthall Edge Wood on a viaduct that was right alongside the
river. The land climbs very steeply from the river there.

Any new curve constructed from the existing line coming from the
Coalbrookdale direction would have to be an impossibly tight radius to
turn south.

Follow the Multimap link and check it out for youself.

> And how's this for craziness....? Link up the TST and SVR with a joint works
> at the ex-power station site where you include a Park and Ride scheme and
> new station for passengers to go north or south with ease via a new curve by
> the bridge where the lines meet.


Do you mean a curve between the line from Coalbrookdale towards the
south?

Almost impossiblely small radius curve.


> the option of direct trains from Telford
> Central running down to Kidderminster.


Madeley Junction points the wrong way to enable trains to run directly
unless you want to demolish half of a modern industrial estate to lay a
new curve.



> How about this? Replace the power station with a Park & Ride station site
> and extend the existing line via a curve round to a new halt by the
> IronBridge, reopen the old stations along the other direction. Make it tough
> for day visitors to just drive into the Ironbridge area (Ironbridge
> Congestion Charge Zone, anyone?).


Sort of getting that way already. Just try parking anywhere in the
Gorge on a summer weekend. Not cheap either!


> Maybe I should go to bed and rethink all this, it doens't mkae sesne
> aynmroe....


Many bright minds are applied to thinking through the northern
extension and its difficulties and solutions are slowly emerging.

> Many bright minds are applied to thinking through the northern
> extension and its difficulties and solutions are slowly emerging.


"Planning is an unnatural process - it is much more fun to do something
else - and the nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as
a complete surprise, rather than being preceded by a period of worry
and depression".

Sir John Harvey Jones

"m1ss_wh1te"  wrote in message
news:1126082743.201137.309240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


>> How about this? Replace the power station with a Park & Ride station site

>Exactly what has been suggested before (please pay attention).


Huh? I did pay attention to previous messages, that's where I took the idea
for the P&R from.
(Why won't this reply to your message wrap and quote properly? Are you using
some obscure software to post with?)

Nick

wrote in message
news:1126096275.944875.107450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > And how's this for craziness....? Link up the TST and SVR with a joint
works
> > at the ex-power station site where you include a Park and Ride scheme
and
> > new station for passengers to go north or south with ease via a new
curve by
> > the bridge where the lines meet.
>
> Do you mean a curve between the line from Coalbrookdale towards the
> south?
>
> Almost impossiblely small radius curve.
>

I guess you might be right there. When I get down that way in November again
I'll have a look for myself.


> > the option of direct trains from Telford
> > Central running down to Kidderminster.
>
> Madeley Junction points the wrong way to enable trains to run directly
> unless you want to demolish half of a modern industrial estate to lay a
> new curve.
>

Go and look at a map of where the TST line runs and where it would come out
if reopened northwards. No need to play with Madeley Junction, just some
huge and expensive works around J6 of the M54!
Admittedly it might affect the car park of a factory for a new junction to
point towards to Telford Central, but what about towards Shrewsbury?

Nick

> Go and look at a map of where the TST line runs and where it would come out
> if reopened northwards. No need to play with Madeley Junction, just some
> huge and expensive works around J6 of the M54!
> Admittedly it might affect the car park of a factory for a new junction to
> point towards to Telford Central, but what about towards Shrewsbury?
>
> Nick


Hi Nick

Let me get this right. Are you suggesting continuing thier existing
northern extension but creating a new junction with the Wolverhampton
to Shrewsbury line such that it points east (towards Telford Central).
I.e. Trains from the Wolverhampton direction would be able to run
directly onto TST's branch?

Extending the original alignment of TST's formation would
(theoretically) enable them to run westwards into the bay at
Wellington. This was mentioned by another poster but they also pointed
out this would entail some operation over NR's tracks. Such an
operation would permit cross-platform connection to (insert the
appropriate TOC) trains from the east.

IMHO I think neither of the options above would be a starter for TST
unless some fairy-godmother donates boat loads of cash.

I suspect if such a slush fund exists the owner of that cash would feel
more comfortable putting in the direction of the SVR because of its
track (no pun intended) record. An existance longer than the LMS, LNER
or SR speaks volumms of creditability. (I wasn't going to mention the
length the GWR existed for, since that would take us way OT).

Dave Spencer wrote:


> As for level crossings, I didn't intend for a moment to suggest that the
> SVR couldn't cope with level crossings. It's just an unfortunate fact
> that level crossing incidents have had a high profile for quite a few
> years. You have to wonder how well the reinstatement of old crossings
> would be received (one on a bus route, too, I think).


Isn't the current HSE position with regard to level crossings that it
is desirable to eliminate existing ones where possible, and that new
ones will only be permitted under 'exceptional circumstances', or words
to that effect.  I have no idea what 'exceptional circumstances' means,
but I doubt that the case under consideration here would be included.
My guess is that it would be for only the most minor of roads, and a
railway seeing very infrequent use.

wrote in message
news:1126168707.990504.58170@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


> I suspect if such a slush fund exists the owner of that cash would feel
> more comfortable putting in the direction of the SVR because of its
> track (no pun intended) record. An existance longer than the LMS, LNER
> or SR speaks volumms of creditability. (I wasn't going to mention the
> length the GWR existed for, since that would take us way OT).


I'm afraid the LNER still exists, and is now the holding company for the
Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre Ltd. and the Great Central Railway
(Nottingham) Ltd.


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

> Isn't the current HSE position with regard to level crossings that it
> is desirable to eliminate existing ones where possible, and that new
> ones will only be permitted under 'exceptional circumstances', or words
> to that effect.  I have no idea what 'exceptional circumstances' means,
> but I doubt that the case under consideration here would be included.
> My guess is that it would be for only the most minor of roads, and a
> railway seeing very infrequent use.


I cannot say for sure but I understand the existing SVR has a LRO that
restricts it to 25mph. That may have a significant influence on any
decision the HSE may make.

It should also be remembered that the topology of the land in the Gorge
may make replacement of a level crossing with a bridge impossible and
the potential traffic reduction benefits that may ensue from its
construction.

It should also be noted that the TST will be reinstating a level
crossing at Doseley as it presses on with its extension.

> I'm afraid the LNER still exists,


I think he meant the original one!

> Any new curve constructed from the existing line coming from the
> Coalbrookdale direction would have to be an impossibly tight radius to
> turn south.


Looking really carefully at the map, if the southern-most cooling tower
was to be demolished and new connection was to pass right through the
middle of where is was there just might, might be enough space for the
curve to go in before the ground rises too sharply.

"1501"  wrote in message
news:1126188990.246319.232750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> Any new curve constructed from the existing line coming from the
>> Coalbrookdale direction would have to be an impossibly tight radius to
>> turn south.
>
> Looking really carefully at the map, if the southern-most cooling tower
> was to be demolished and new connection was to pass right through the
> middle of where is was there just might, might be enough space for the
> curve to go in before the ground rises too sharply.


I hadn't realised that the original junction only faced north-west (towards
Buildwas) and not also north-east (towards Coalbrookdale). The comparison
between old and new maps shows the situation:

old-maps.co.uk http://shorterlink.com/?8BWQUT (expand image by clicking on
bottom right-hand corner)

Multimap http://shorterlink.com/?PK6U5E

"m1ss_wh1te"  wrote in message
news:1126187519.128973.215460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> > I'm afraid the LNER still exists,
>
> I think he meant the original one!


Yep - so do I! It's the same company - not a new company with the same name!


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

> I hadn't realised that the original junction only faced north-west (towards
> Buildwas) and not also north-east (towards Coalbrookdale). The comparison
> between old and new maps shows the situation:
>
> old-maps.co.uk http://shorterlink.com/?8BWQUT (expand image by clicking on
> bottom right-hand corner)
>
> Multimap http://shorterlink.com/?PK6U5E


You've got it. Ironbridge B power station stands on the site of
Buildwas Junction station. I guess the station buildings were
demolished when the power station was built because a number of
original station buildings survive north of Bridgnorth. The site of
Ironbridge and Broseley is now the car park near the iron bridge.
Coalport survives as private dwelling, notably complete, with a
carriage sitting between the platforms. Even the waiting room on the
down platform is intact.
I believe Linley is also a private dwelling, remarkably named inasmuch
as it is a fair distance from the village of Linley.

> www.greatcentralrailway.com


Loosing money hand over fist

> > www.greatcentralrailway.com
>
> Loosing money hand over fist


I think thier posted loss may have been more of an accounting exercise.

Interestingly how several of the more creditable heritage railways have
got expansion plans. The GCR, the Bluebell, the SVR and the Kent and
East Sussex.

The GCR will once again become an intercity railway, the Bluebell will
gain a NR connection, the SVR will carry visitors to the Ironbridge
Gorge Museums and the K&ES will tap into Robertsbridge.

Little did the preservation pioneers realise what they started.

> The GCR will once again become an intercity railway, the Bluebell will
> gain a NR connection, the SVR will carry visitors to the Ironbridge
> Gorge Museums and the K&ES will tap into Robertsbridge.



It will be great if all the plans come to fruition. What sort of
timescales do you reckon these project will take?

On 9/9/05 10:02 am, in article
1126256550.890973.47190@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "1501"
 wrote:

 

> You've got it. Ironbridge B power station stands on the site of
> Buildwas Junction station.


A large number of power stations have closed in the past ten years or so,
but we don't seem to hear of large new ones being built.  The coal fairly
modern coal-fired station from the '50s, and even the '60s are now closing;
I think the last new coal-fired station opened in about 1975.  The
first-generation nuclear stations are also reaching the end of their life,
and several have closed.

All we seem to hear of opening these days are small gas turbine or combined
cycle stations, and a few waste incineration plants that produce power as a
by-product.  There's the d.c. Cable from France of course, and I believe
that has been upgraded in recent years, but surely this, and the small new
stations cannot make up for the loss of generating capacity due to the
closure of the large coal-fired stations.  Where is our electricity coming
from today?

Even the newish gas turbine stations are not immune to closure; Bulls Bridge
went some years ago.

I really think that one of the traditional stations ought to preserved as a
museum, complete with all of its plant, but I would guess that the value of
land, local opposition and use of asbestos would probably prevent that.  My
choice for preservation would have been either Blyth 'A', or Croydon 'B',
but both of these have now gone.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:56:06 +0100 someone who may be Stephen Furley
 wrote this:-


>A large number of power stations have closed in the past ten years or so,
>but we don't seem to hear of large new ones being built.


Power stations have always been closed from time to time, this is
nothing new. A number were mothballed, some still are and are
brought back into use from time to time.

A few days ago one company was making the following announcement
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/4222692.stm 

"Electricity company E.ON UK have applied to construct a new
gas-fired station on the site of the former coal-fired power station
at Drakelow."


>Where is our electricity coming from today?


According to the report I have mentioned before
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/media/list/wind.html

Coal 32.7%, Oil 1%, Gas 41%, Nuclear 19.1%, Renewables 3.2%, Other
fuels 1.1% and Net imports 1.9%. Figures for the UK in 2004.


>I really think that one of the traditional stations ought to preserved as a
>museum, complete with all of its plant, but I would guess that the value of
>land, local opposition and use of asbestos would probably prevent that.  My
>choice for preservation would have been either Blyth 'A', or Croydon 'B',
>but both of these have now gone.


I think it would need to be combined with other things to be a
success. An industrial railway and lorry museum might be compatible.
However, it depends what one means by traditional. The relatively
small "in town" power stations are rather different to the later
large coal-fired stations.

The latter in particular illustrate the dangers of not thinking in
total energy terms. As well as not killing people in smogs the
stations were built in remote areas to generate electricity at the
cheapest possible price. While this may seem a laudable aim it means
that most of the heat is thrown up the cooling towers. Smaller power
stations in or near towns would have meant that the heat could be
used for other things, such as heating buildings.



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On 11/9/05 9:33 am, in article 1so7i1dkkme3kh3drmk58qetofvnqr2kcd@4ax.com,
"David Hansen"  wrote:


> Power stations have always been closed from time to time, this is
> nothing new. A number were mothballed, some still are and are
> brought back into use from time to time.


This is true of course, but look at the history of power generation; I would
say that until recently there have been five phases: (pun not intended!)

In the earliest days a building which wanted an electrical supply would have
to install its own generator, and engine to drive it.

Next came the first public supplies, provided by private companies operating
small generating stations such as Grosvenor Gallery.

After the First World War the use of electricity increased rapidly, and much
larger stations were built during the '20s and '30s, though still small by
modern standards, often municipally owned and operated.  Even small towns
would have their own power station, supplying the local area.

By the '50s the size of stations increased yet again, and the grid was
starting to develop.  Voltage and frequency was becoming standardised
throughout the country.  Typical generating stations would be places like
Bankside, Blyth, Croydon 'B', High Marnham etc., which have been closed in
fairly recent times.

The '70s saw the very large stations opening, with the exception of Didcot
almost all of the coal-fired ones were located fairly close to coal mining
areas.  Most of these stations are still operating, but will be likely to
reach the end of their lives in the next ten years or so.

During this time the total number of operating stations would have fallen,
due to the closure of the many small local ones, but the total installed
capacity almost certainly rose, due to the very large units then being
installed.

As you say, power station closures are nothing new, but in the past what
normally happened was that old small stations were replaced by new larger
ones.  Today we seem to be closing large ones, and building small ones, but
not enough of them to replace the capacity of the large stations which are
now closing.

Do you have any figures for the total installed capacity over the last
twenty years or so?  Is it in fact falling?

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:36:39 +0100 someone who may be Stephen Furley
 wrote this:-


>As you say, power station closures are nothing new, but in the past what
>normally happened was that old small stations were replaced by new larger
>ones.  Today we seem to be closing large ones, and building small ones, but
>not enough of them to replace the capacity of the large stations which are
>now closing.
>
>Do you have any figures for the total installed capacity over the last
>twenty years or so?  Is it in fact falling?


Afraid not. However, the DTI may have some amongst their statistics
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_stats/electricity/index.shtml
is a good starting point.

The concept of a small number of large power stations has/had
advantages, including institutional ones at the time. However, it
suffers from a number of flaws. Transmission losses and inability to
provide district heating are some. There is also the question of
providing backup for the failure of the largest station (or
transmission line).

A large number of small power stations is more difficult to
organise, though in these days of computer assistance and control
this is easier than it was. The "Hydro Board" in Scotland now runs
all their hydro stations from ISTR two control rooms. Backup is
easier as a large number of small stations are unlikely to fail at
the same time. There are other more subtle advantages to small scale
local generation. A detailed study of the effect of the wind farm at
Delabole on the local supply system showed that the tap changers at
the 33/11kV substation were operating far less frequently than
before the wind farm was connected.

Scotland shows the best and worst. The hilly areas have a large
number of mostly small hydro-electric power stations. Although some
initially just supplied their local area most are now part of an
integrated system. The experience of controlling this diverse
collection of plants over a very large area is useful for other
parts of the UK.

OTOH the non-hilly parts of Scotland show the dangers of a small
number of large power stations. A decade ago five power stations
(Torness, Hunterston B, Peterhead, Longannet and Cockenzie) supplied
80% of demand (they also exported a fair amount to England). If one
included the mothballed Inverkip power station then installed
capacity was double maximum demand.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In message , 
mick_wilson1960@yahoo.co.uk writes

>The GCR will once again become an intercity railway, the Bluebell will 
>gain a NR connection, the SVR will carry visitors to the Ironbridge 
>Gorge Museums and the K&ES will tap into Robertsbridge.
>
>Little did the preservation pioneers realise what they started.

Isn't the West Somerset railway from Minehead to Bishops Lydeard being 
extended to Taunton to do cross platform interchange with the main line?
-- 
Clive

> Isn't the West Somerset railway from Minehead to Bishops Lydeard being
> extended to Taunton to do cross platform interchange with the main line?


My understanding is thier first step is to create a triangle for
turning locos at the junction with NR. Thier next step, if my
understanding is correct, is to enlarge it to enable loco plus support
coach to turn. (Extracted form HR or some such).

The SVR has no need for triangles since it has a turntable already
installed at Kidderminster.

The ludittes would like to install the second TT it owns somewhere at
Bridgnorth (but where)?

The extensionists realise a large plot of level land will become
available in due course at Buildwas.

On Apr 18, 2005 cherry_p wrote

"Extension northwards it's not physically or commercially feasible;
people keep bringing up this subject, but it's not something worth
pursuing. As it stands, we have a 16-mile railway, for which people pay
£11.50 return. if you (say) doubled the length of the line, you'd
double all your costs, but there's no way you would double your income;
More people would decide they had neither the time nor money to go
further."

But the supports of "Rails in the Gorge" disagree. The extension to
Buildwas would NOT double the length of the SVR.

>> On http://forum.svra.org.uk/index.php on Apr 18, 2005 cherry_p wrote
>>
>> " if you (say) doubled the length of the line, you'd
>> double all your costs, but there's no way you would double your income;
>> More people would decide they had neither the time nor money to go
>> further."




>> On http://forum.svra.org.uk/index.php hassell_a on Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:26 >> am Posted

>> "snip - Extending the line by 50% just is not in the list of priorities - >> snip


Please can someone enlighten us on exactly how long such an extension
would be? The seems to be significant disagreement within the
detractors of such an extension.

Clive  wrote:


>In message , 
>mick_wilson1960@yahoo.co.uk writes
>>The GCR will once again become an intercity railway, the Bluebell will 
>>gain a NR connection, the SVR will carry visitors to the Ironbridge 
>>Gorge Museums and the K&ES will tap into Robertsbridge.
>>
>>Little did the preservation pioneers realise what they started.
>Isn't the West Somerset railway from Minehead to Bishops Lydeard being 
>extended to Taunton to do cross platform interchange with the main line?



The West Somerset Railway have been claiming that since 1972.  

I will believe it when it happens ...

.... if it happens in my lifetime, that is.

;-)

wrote in message
news:1126467251.894873.284080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>>>

On Apr 18, 2005 cherry_p wrote

"Extension northwards it's not physically or commercially feasible;
people keep bringing up this subject, but it's not something worth
pursuing. As it stands, we have a 16-mile railway, for which people pay
11.50 return. if you (say) doubled the length of the line, you'd
double all your costs, but there's no way you would double your income;
More people would decide they had neither the time nor money to go
further."

But the supports of "Rails in the Gorge" disagree. The extension to
Buildwas would NOT double the length of the SVR.

>>>


I make the distance to be 8 miles, making it a 1/3rd extension. Anyone more
accurate than that?

Nick

Nick Pedley wrote:

>  wrote in message
> As it stands, we have a 16-mile railway <snip>

> I make the (extension) distance to be 8 miles, making it a 1/3rd
> extension. Anyone more accurate than that? 


Well, calling it a 1/2 extension might be thought more accurate. ;-)

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12598522.html
(45 120 at Leicester, 3 Sep 1979)

> I make the distance to be 8 miles, making it a 1/3rd extension.
Anyone more

> accurate than that?
>
> Nick


I'm pretty certain from the stop blocks at the north end of Bridgnorth
carriage sidings to the stop blocks near the A4169 is nearer 9 miles.

But 8 or 9 certainly doesn't double the SVR's length.

> >Isn't the West Somerset railway from Minehead to Bishops Lydeard being
> >extended to Taunton to do cross platform interchange with the main line?
>
>
> The West Somerset Railway have been claiming that since 1972.
>
> I will believe it when it happens ...
>
> ... if it happens in my lifetime, that is.
>

And hence the reason for the triangle mentioned earlier. Turntables
being few and far between nowadays.

Out of interest and a bit OT, what heritage lines have turntables.

For starters.

The Swanage have 1.
The SVR have 2, but only 1 installed.

> And hence the reason for the triangle mentioned earlier. Turntables
> being few and far between nowadays.
>
> Out of interest and a bit OT, what heritage lines have turntables.
>
> For starters.
>
> The Swanage have 1.
> The SVR have 2, but only 1 installed.


South Devon Railway acquired the 60 foot table from Hull (Botanic
Gardens). I don't think it is installed yet.

I suppose the ex-Marylebone one now at Lochaber on the West Highland
doesn't count.

> > Out of interest and a bit OT, what heritage lines have turntables.
> >
> > For starters.
> >
> > The Swanage have 1.
> > The SVR have 2, but only 1 installed.
>
> South Devon Railway acquired the 60 foot table from Hull (Botanic
> Gardens). I don't think it is installed yet.
>
> I suppose the ex-Marylebone one now at Lochaber on the West Highland
> doesn't count.


I think there is one on the K&WVR.

Does anyone know how big each one is?

wrote in message
news:1126514070.629183.237310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> > I make the distance to be 8 miles, making it a 1/3rd extension.
> Anyone more
> > accurate than that?
> >
> > Nick
>
> I'm pretty certain from the stop blocks at the north end of Bridgnorth
> carriage sidings to the stop blocks near the A4169 is nearer 9 miles.
>
> But 8 or 9 certainly doesn't double the SVR's length.
>

According to Bradshaw,
Kidderminster to Bridgnorth 16.25 miles
Bridgnorth - Buildwas 10.25 miles.

Peter

> Bridgnorth - Buildwas 10.25 miles.
>
> Peter


Thanks for the accurate information. That means SVR(E) needs to build
approximately 9 miles of railway.

Achievable.

On SVR Online  http://forum.svra.org.uk/viewforum.php?f=1

Chris Walton, A Director of SVR(H), said

"The position of the Board of Directors is that the SVR does not
currently have the financial or material resources to contemplate
considering this as an SVR initiated project. However dependant upon
resource being provided from elsewhere the SVR has an active interest
in being a part of whatever concept is put forward that develops from
these suggestions. 
Chris Walton"

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:56:06 +0100, Stephen Furley
 wrote:


>A large number of power stations have closed in the past ten years or so,
>but we don't seem to hear of large new ones being built.  The coal fairly
>modern coal-fired station from the '50s, and even the '60s are now closing;
>I think the last new coal-fired station opened in about 1975.  The
>first-generation nuclear stations are also reaching the end of their life,
>and several have closed.
>
>All we seem to hear of opening these days are small gas turbine or combined
>cycle stations, and a few waste incineration plants that produce power as a
>by-product.  There's the d.c. Cable from France of course, and I believe
>that has been upgraded in recent years, but surely this, and the small new
>stations cannot make up for the loss of generating capacity due to the
>closure of the large coal-fired stations.  Where is our electricity coming
>from today?
>
>Even the newish gas turbine stations are not immune to closure; Bulls Bridge
>went some years ago.
>
>I really think that one of the traditional stations ought to preserved as a
>museum, complete with all of its plant, but I would guess that the value of
>land, local opposition and use of asbestos would probably prevent that.  My
>choice for preservation would have been either Blyth 'A', or Croydon 'B',
>but both of these have now gone.


Actually some of the Combined Cycle units are pretty big. The Shoreham
one is about 400MW IIRC. That's a single generator. Because they don't
need all the infrastructure of a coal-fired unit, having a number
scattered around is probably more economical than building several on
the same site.

I was involved in a project to convert Llynfi (a mid-40s station, I
believe) into a refuse incineration plant, some 20-25 years ago. That
failed because of local politics. I doubt if you would get a station
preserved, because of the value of brown-field sites.  Ince has been
demolished to accommodate the new Sean Quinn glass factory.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:14:40 +0100 someone who may be Terry Harper
 wrote this:-


>I doubt if you would get a station
>preserved, because of the value of brown-field sites.


There is also the question of re-using sites which have electrical
connections. This makes the cost of the new station lower than it
would be on a new site (assuming the connection can be re-used).

The site of many old power stations can be discerned, because that
is where circuits are still terminated. Some of the land may have
been sold off, alternatively it may have been used to terminate a
larger line.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote:


> The site of many old power stations can be discerned, because that
> is where circuits are still terminated. Some of the land may have
> been sold off, alternatively it may have been used to terminate a
> larger line.



Or even terminate the Severn Valley Line!

The message 
from Terry Harper  contains these words:


> Ince has been
> demolished to accommodate the new Sean Quinn glass factory.


Ince was converted from coal-fired to use "Orimulsion", an oil-based
product pipelined into the PS from Stanlow refinery(allegedly - because
I have seen tankers tied up at a jetty on the MSC at Ince, and was told
that they were discharging into the PS).

There was much head-scratching after closure was proposed, and after the
PS was demolished,  before the glass factory was approved.

I got an interesting bit of video of the PS chimney being demolished,
but I missed the date for the cooling towers coming down...  

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

wrote in message 
news:1126529199.277935.227510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> And hence the reason for the triangle mentioned earlier. Turntables
>> being few and far between nowadays.
>>
>> Out of interest and a bit OT, what heritage lines have turntables.
>>
>> For starters.
>>
>> The Swanage have 1.
>> The SVR have 2, but only 1 installed.

> South Devon Railway acquired the 60 foot table from Hull (Botanic
> Gardens). I don't think it is installed yet.
>
> I suppose the ex-Marylebone one now at Lochaber on the West Highland
> doesn't count.


The Torbay & Dartmouth have one at Churston.
-- 
David Biddulph

1501 wrote:

> > I hadn't realised that it was possible to extend the SVR: isn't there a
> > housing estate on the trackbed beyond Bridgnorth Station?
>
> There is some development that obstructs the formation to an extent but
> a filled cutting doesn't seem to have stopped the Bluebell.
> 


from where I'm standing I still see a filled cutting

> > There is some development that obstructs the formation to an extent but
> > a filled cutting doesn't seem to have stopped the Bluebell.
> >
>
> from where I'm standing I still see a filled cutting


But if you visit the Bluebell web site they are begining to shift some
of it. I understand there is toxic stuff under the overburden which
will need the use of specialist contractors.

That'll be expensive. But so will almost any extension. The SVR's
included.

Few people outside the heritage movement fully realise how expensive
this stuff is and how much work it takes.

mick_wilson1960@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


>> I think
>> the main problem is that the extension is not everyone in the
>> Bluebell's main priority, there are many other expensive schemes going
>> on in the society at the moment; one reason I left the society (along
>> with their diesel ban). Just have to hope they can keep renewing their
>> planning application. ISTR having this conversation 25 years ago when
>> the entire extension was costed at 1m and the logistics of digging
>> out the cutting were a lot simpler.
>
>You sound like you do not support thier extension. Why not? It will
>allow them to tap into more potential passengers arriving by rail.
>
>One of the SVR's best moves was pressing on to Kidderminster.



Perhaps the Bluebell volunteers, in which group there is - for a
preserved railway - a disproportionate representation of middle class
and professional Sussex people, are keen to retain the present
clientele, in which there is a disproportionate representation of
middle class and professional Sussex people.

I suggest that many of these volunteers may be less than enthusiastic
about the prospect of the railway being opened up to much greater
numbers of common, unwashed, repulsive Sarf Londoners and their loud,
badly behaved and even more repulsive children, thanks to a main line
connection at East Grinstead with trains from Croydon.

;-)

On a more serious note, I understood that the removal of the infilling
to the cutting was originally expected to cost less than nothing,
because the expected grant aid would have been greater than the cost
of physical removal and disposal.  The changes in the fiscal framework
of landfill mean that is no longer the case, so what would effectively
have cost nothing has suddenly become a very expensive project.

When a "free" project suddenly becomes a 4 million project, it is
quite understandable if people become less enthusiastic about it.

Tony Polson wrote:



> I suggest that many of these volunteers may be less than enthusiastic
> about the prospect of the railway being opened up to much greater
> numbers of common, unwashed, repulsive Sarf Londoners and their loud,


snippity; well there was debate about whether a physical connection
would be installed or just an end on.


> When a "free" project suddenly becomes a £4 million project, it is
> quite understandable if people become less enthusiastic about it.


ITYF all of the LTC they did receive went on buying land at inflated
prices; much though I admire the hard work that has gone into the
extension so far they need to actually borrow some money and stop
playing Scoop Muck and Dizzy or else it's going to be legislated out of
all reach.

"MartinM"  wrote:

>
>snippity; well there was debate about whether a physical connection
>would be installed or just an end on.


Either would involve the same perceived problem that I suggested may
account partly for a perceived lack of enthusiasm.


>> When a "free" project suddenly becomes a 4 million project, it is
>> quite understandable if people become less enthusiastic about it.
>
>ITYF all of the LTC they did receive went on buying land at inflated
>prices; much though I admire the hard work that has gone into the
>extension so far they need to actually borrow some money and stop
>playing Scoop Muck and Dizzy or else it's going to be legislated out of
>all reach.


ITYF that the issue of the Landfill Tax has added enormously to the
costs.  A 4 million project is not something to be taken lightly.

> I think
> the main problem is that the extension is not everyone in the
> Bluebell's main priority, there are many other expensive schemes going
> on in the society at the moment; one reason I left the society (along
> with their diesel ban). Just have to hope they can keep renewing their
> planning application. ISTR having this conversation 25 years ago when
> the entire extension was costed at £1m and the logistics of digging
> out the cutting were a lot simpler.


You sound like you do not support thier extension. Why not? It will
allow them to tap into more potential passengers arriving by rail.

One of the SVR's best moves was pressing on to Kidderminster.

Tony Polson wrote:

> "MartinM"  wrote:
> >
> >snippity; well there was debate about whether a physical connection
> >would be installed or just an end on.
>
> Either would involve the same perceived problem that I suggested may
> account partly for a perceived lack of enthusiasm.


I think much of the problem is the different groups within the
preservation movement. Some want to preserve the lines and trains as a
valuable tourist industry, others want to play fat controllers, others
want a bit of both. The Fat controller faction are busy re-creating
(their) past in some cases so the actual destination of the trains is
not of the same importance. The bus link to Kingscote loses money. I do
not know how the physical connections of the MHR and SVR to BR improved
their finances; I certainly would not out of choice use isolated
preserved lines and did not visit either of the above until they were
connected.

I took my kids on the Bluebell's Memories of the LBSCR weekend as did
many parents. Some tw*t wrote to the Bluebell complaining about the
number of kids and suggested they put an age limit on such events. I
wonder if he actually remembered the LBSCR?

MartinM wrote:


> I took my kids on the Bluebell's Memories of the LBSCR weekend as did
> many parents. Some tw*t wrote to the Bluebell complaining about the
> number of kids and suggested they put an age limit on such events.


How do you know this? Are you involved with the running of the line?

FWIW, the only thing I've got against tiny tots being taken to preserved
lines is the fact that because the preserved lines like the income from
getting them there, they put on "Thomas" events. (Usually on the few
spare dates available to me.) The kids themselves are no problem at all.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683727.html
(51610 (Class 127) at Rogart, 6 Jun 1999)

Chris Tolley wrote:

> MartinM wrote:
>
> > I took my kids on the Bluebell's Memories of the LBSCR weekend as did
> > many parents. Some tw*t wrote to the Bluebell complaining about the
> > number of kids and suggested they put an age limit on such events.
>
> How do you know this? Are you involved with the running of the line?


no I read it in the Bluebell News as a letter.

MartinM wrote:

> Chris Tolley wrote:
>> Are you involved with the running of the line?
> 
> no I read it in the Bluebell News as a letter.


Oh dear. I've just written a letter offering a few criticisms and
suggestions to another preserved railway. (Things like not blocking the
view on a gala day by parking a set of coaches at the main platform for
several hours, and not blocking access to toilets by putting a weighing
machine behind the door.) I wonder if that will end up being broadcast
similarly.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14486540.html
(43 000 at Crewe Locomotive Works, 22 Sep 1979)

Chris Tolley wrote:

> MartinM wrote:
> > Chris Tolley wrote:
> >> Are you involved with the running of the line?
> >
> > no I read it in the Bluebell News as a letter.



I replied to him and that was also published, I suggested if he wanted
steam trains without hordes of screaming kids he go on the VSOE ;-)

Chris Tolley  wrote:


>
>Oh dear. I've just written a letter offering a few criticisms and
>suggestions to another preserved railway. (Things like not blocking the
>view on a gala day by parking a set of coaches at the main platform for
>several hours, and not blocking access to toilets by putting a weighing
>machine behind the door.) I wonder if that will end up being broadcast
>similarly.



It just was.  The culprit is a guy called Chris Tolley.

;-)

Tony Polson wrote:

> Chris Tolley  wrote:
>>
>>Oh dear. I've just written a letter offering a few criticisms and
>>suggestions to another preserved railway. (Things like not blocking the
>>view on a gala day by parking a set of coaches at the main platform for
>>several hours, and not blocking access to toilets by putting a weighing
>>machine behind the door.) I wonder if that will end up being broadcast
>>similarly.
> 
> It just was.  The culprit is a guy called Chris Tolley.
> 
> ;-)


It's a fair cop. 
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14515947.html
(56 072 at Helsby, 5 Jun 1985)

mick_wilson1960@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> Do you really think the stock was left there to block your view?

Oh yes; they knew I was coming and it was all a plot. Daft question.

The 5-coach set was being used on the hourly runs. It had been used with
a 27, then a 20, and the next run was booked for an 08. But the 08 came
in with its own coaches and toddled off leaving these 5 coaches filling
the platform. I assume that the plan was for the stock to be left there
so that the buffet could be replenished in time for the evening's
"beerex" run. But by the time the 08 came back, nothing had been done.

Meanwhile, on this "diesel gala day", there was no static display of
diesels, and the only movements apart from the hourly run coming and
going were a 27 that was trundling up and down on the track *behind* the
coaches, out of sight, for people to try driving it. If an event is
advertised as a diesel gala, I'd expect to *see* some diesels! There was
*one* parked diesel fully visible from the platform - a teddybear. And
then the train was parked there, obscuring it. Very disappointing.

In article ,
   m1ss_wh1te  wrote:

> > >Isn't the West Somerset railway from Minehead to Bishops Lydeard being
> > >extended to Taunton to do cross platform interchange with the main line?
> >
> >
> > The West Somerset Railway have been claiming that since 1972.
> >
> > I will believe it when it happens ...
> >
> > ... if it happens in my lifetime, that is.
> >
> And hence the reason for the triangle mentioned earlier. Turntables
> being few and far between nowadays.

> Out of interest and a bit OT, what heritage lines have turntables.

> For starters.

> The Swanage have 1.
> The SVR have 2, but only 1 installed.



These are the surviving standard gauge turntables that I know of:

Aviemore (ex Kyle of Lochalsh)
Keighley KWVR
Pickering NYMR
Barrow Hill
Ferme Park (no longer operational)
St Blazey EWS Depot
Old Oak Common EWS Depot
Didcot GWS (ex Southampton Docks)
Swindon (non-operational)
Kidderminster SVR
Fort William (ex Marylebone)
Yeovil Junction (SW Stean Centre)
York NRM
Scarborough (Network Rail)
Heaton Depot
Churston PDSR
Carnforth Steamtown WCRC
Swanage SR
Tyseley Loco Works
Wansford NVR

There are also dismantled turntables stored at
Minehead WSR (ex Pwllhelli)
Buckfastleigh SDR
Bewdley SVR
Tyseley (for Stratford)

.... and possibly others too ?

David

"gwr4090"  wrote in message
news:4daccb7324usenet@no-spam.drandles.net...

> There are also dismantled turntables stored at
> Minehead WSR (ex Pwllhelli)
> Buckfastleigh SDR
> Bewdley SVR
> Tyseley (for Stratford)
>
> ... and possibly others too ?


There is one being reinstated (if that's the right word - the pit is
original but the equipment is from elsewhere) by Peak Rail at Rowsley South.

Roger

On 19/9/05 11:36 am, in article 4daccb7324usenet@no-spam.drandles.net,
"gwr4090"  wrote:



> 
> These are the surviving standard gauge turntables that I know of:
> 
> Aviemore (ex Kyle of Lochalsh)
> Keighley KWVR
> Pickering NYMR
> Barrow Hill
> Ferme Park (no longer operational)
> St Blazey EWS Depot
> Old Oak Common EWS Depot
> Didcot GWS (ex Southampton Docks)
> Swindon (non-operational)
> Kidderminster SVR
> Fort William (ex Marylebone)
> Yeovil Junction (SW Stean Centre)
> York NRM
> Scarborough (Network Rail)
> Heaton Depot
> Churston PDSR
> Carnforth Steamtown WCRC
> Swanage SR
> Tyseley Loco Works
> Wansford NVR
> 
> There are also dismantled turntables stored at
> Minehead WSR (ex Pwllhelli)
> Buckfastleigh SDR
> Bewdley SVR
> Tyseley (for Stratford)
> 
> ... and possibly others too ?


There has been one stored at Quainton Road for as long as I can remember;
must be at least twenty years now.  I assume that it's still there,
Somewhere near the South African locomotive , I think.

What happened to the second one from the NRM, that went to York Works when
it re-opened?

Some time in the last ten years or so I remember seeing one on the left when
travelling North on the ECML; maybe Darlington?  Didn't look operational.
Is that one still there?

Where's the one at Kidderminster, I've never noticed it?

"Yokel"  wrote in message
news:3p0k1kF7o4ajU1@individual.net...


> There was some talk about putting the "Up Relief" back to allow an
> independent WSR route into Taunton, but this would also be extremely
> expensive and would not necessarily avoid the need for having main line
> certification / safety case.  I do not think anyone with any authority in
> the WSR or WSRA is seriously hoping for this any more.


It would be nice if at some point in the future, franchisees who wanted to
run service trains to Minehead could reinstate the north-west bay at Taunton
to save having to run all the way to bristol to allow interchange. I think
until such time as the HSE decides that ALL trains must run to main-line
standards (and they're probably thinking about it), WSR trains to Taunton
are unlikely.


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

gwr4090 wrote:


> These are the surviving standard gauge turntables that I know of:
>
> Aviemore (ex Kyle of Lochalsh)
> Keighley KWVR
> Pickering NYMR
> Barrow Hill
> Ferme Park (no longer operational)
> St Blazey EWS Depot
> Old Oak Common EWS Depot
> Didcot GWS (ex Southampton Docks)
> Swindon (non-operational)
> Kidderminster SVR
> Fort William (ex Marylebone)
> Yeovil Junction (SW Stean Centre)
> York NRM
> Scarborough (Network Rail)
> Heaton Depot
> Churston PDSR
> Carnforth Steamtown WCRC
> Swanage SR
> Tyseley Loco Works
> Wansford NVR
>
> There are also dismantled turntables stored at
> Minehead WSR (ex Pwllhelli)
> Buckfastleigh SDR
> Bewdley SVR
> Tyseley (for Stratford)


Thanks. I wonder if it would be possible to distinguish:

a. Original turntables still in their original locations
b. Places where a turntable has been removed, then reinstated by
preservationists
c. preservation-installed turntables where there never was one in BR
days

I note that you have restricted the list to standard gauge turntables.
I don't imagine there are many narrow gauge contenteders, but I believe
there is one at Boston Lodge on the Ffestiniog; I don't think it has
been used in the preservation era and there is now shed standing right
on top of it .

Andy

In message 
          "Andy Kirkham"  wrote:

[snip]

> 
> I note that you have restricted the list to standard gauge turntables.
> I don't imagine there are many narrow gauge contenteders, but I believe
> there is one at Boston Lodge on the Ffestiniog; I don't think it has
> been used in the preservation era and there is now shed standing right
> on top of it .
> 


lal Rattie has one IIRC

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

Graeme Wall wrote:

> In message 
>           "Andy Kirkham"  wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > I note that you have restricted the list to standard gauge turntables.
> > I don't imagine there are many narrow gauge contenteders, but I believe
> > there is one at Boston Lodge on the Ffestiniog; I don't think it has
> > been used in the preservation era and there is now shed standing right
> > on top of it .
> >
>
> lal Rattie has one IIRC
>


Indeed; it has one at each end so its locos always face the right way.
A unique feature for a heritage line?

Andy

In message 
          "Andy Kirkham"  wrote:


> Graeme Wall wrote:
> > In message 
> >           "Andy Kirkham"  wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > I note that you have restricted the list to standard gauge turntables.
> > > I don't imagine there are many narrow gauge contenteders, but I believe
> > > there is one at Boston Lodge on the Ffestiniog; I don't think it has
> > > been used in the preservation era and there is now shed standing right
> > > on top of it .
> > >
> >
> > lal Rattie has one IIRC
> >
> 
> Indeed; it has one at each end so its locos always face the right way.
> A unique feature for a heritage line?
> 


RH&DR has one at Hythe and a loop at Dungeness, I think they also have one at
Romney itself.


-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In article ,
   Andy Kirkham  wrote:

> I note that you have restricted the list to standard gauge turntables.
> I don't imagine there are many narrow gauge contenteders, but I believe
> there is one at Boston Lodge on the Ffestiniog; I don't think it has
> been used in the preservation era and there is now shed standing right
> on top of it .


There are several narrow gauge turntables. The Kirklees Light Railway has
one at the western terminus; apart from turning the locomotive it routes it
on to the other track for the return journey.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

Ronnie Clark wrote:

> "Yokel"  wrote in message
> news:3p0k1kF7o4ajU1@individual.net...
> 
> 
>>There was some talk about putting the "Up Relief" back to allow an
>>independent WSR route into Taunton, but this would also be extremely
>>expensive and would not necessarily avoid the need for having main line
>>certification / safety case.  I do not think anyone with any authority in
>>the WSR or WSRA is seriously hoping for this any more.
> 
> 
> It would be nice if at some point in the future, franchisees who wanted to
> run service trains to Minehead could reinstate the north-west bay at Taunton
> to save having to run all the way to bristol to allow interchange. I think
> until such time as the HSE decides that ALL trains must run to main-line
> standards (and they're probably thinking about it), WSR trains to Taunton
> are unlikely.
> 
> 

And yet that sort of thinking from HSE would negate the current 
aspirations for community railways - of which the WSR could become a 
good example. Branch lines do not require Main line standards.

In article ,
   Andy Kirkham  wrote:


> Thanks. I wonder if it would be possible to distinguish:

> a. Original turntables still in their original locations
> b. Places where a turntable has been removed, then reinstated by
> preservationists
> c. preservation-installed turntables where there never was one in BR
> days

> Andy




Not sure about some of these, but here goes...

c? Aviemore (ex Kyle of Lochalsh)
b? Keighley KWVR
c? Pickering NYMR
a? Barrow Hill
a. Ferme Park (no longer operational)
a. St Blazey EWS Depot
a. Old Oak Common EWS Depot
b. Didcot GWS (ex Southampton Docks)
a. Swindon (non-operational)
c. Kidderminster SVR
b. Fort William (ex Marylebone)
a. Yeovil Junction (SW Stean Centre)
b? York NRM
b? Scarborough (Network Rail)
a? Heaton Depot
c. Churston PDSR
a. Carnforth Steamtown WCRC
a? Swanage SR
a. Tyseley Loco Works
c. Wansford NVR

David

In article <dgnquk$kh1$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
   Ronnie Clark
 wrote:


> "Yokel"  wrote in message
> news:3p0k1kF7o4ajU1@individual.net...

> > There was some talk about putting the "Up Relief" back to allow an
> > independent WSR route into Taunton, but this would also be extremely
> > expensive and would not necessarily avoid the need for having main line
> > certification / safety case.  I do not think anyone with any authority in
> > the WSR or WSRA is seriously hoping for this any more.

> It would be nice if at some point in the future, franchisees who wanted
> to run service trains to Minehead could reinstate the north-west bay at
> Taunton to save having to run all the way to bristol to allow
> interchange. I think until such time as the HSE decides that ALL trains
> must run to main-line standards (and they're probably thinking about
> it), WSR trains to Taunton are unlikely.



I think an extension of some Bristol-Taunton local services to Bishops
Lydeard (to connect with WSR trains) is more likely in the first instance,
rather than a service through to Minehead. This could probably be done
with minimum impact on stock utilisation and hence at marginal cost to the
ToC. Signalling at Bishops Lydeard allows this with minimum interference
between mainline and WSR trains. 

David

"gwr4090"  wrote in message 
news:4daccb7324usenet@no-spam.drandles.net...

> In article ,
>   m1ss_wh1te  wrote:
>> > >Isn't the West Somerset railway from Minehead to Bishops Lydeard being
>> > >extended to Taunton to do cross platform interchange with the main 
>> > >line?
>> >
>> >
>> > The West Somerset Railway have been claiming that since 1972.
>> >
>> > I will believe it when it happens ...
>> >
>> > ... if it happens in my lifetime, that is.
>> >
>> And hence the reason for the triangle mentioned earlier. Turntables
>> being few and far between nowadays.
>
>> Out of interest and a bit OT, what heritage lines have turntables.
>
>> For starters.
>
>> The Swanage have 1.
>> The SVR have 2, but only 1 installed.
>
>
> These are the surviving standard gauge turntables that I know of:
>
> Aviemore (ex Kyle of Lochalsh)
> Keighley KWVR
> Pickering NYMR
> Barrow Hill
> Ferme Park (no longer operational)
> St Blazey EWS Depot
> Old Oak Common EWS Depot
> Didcot GWS (ex Southampton Docks)
> Swindon (non-operational)
> Kidderminster SVR
> Fort William (ex Marylebone)
> Yeovil Junction (SW Stean Centre)
> York NRM
> Scarborough (Network Rail)
> Heaton Depot
> Churston PDSR
> Carnforth Steamtown WCRC
> Swanage SR
> Tyseley Loco Works
> Wansford NVR
>
> There are also dismantled turntables stored at
> Minehead WSR (ex Pwllhelli)
> Buckfastleigh SDR
> Bewdley SVR
> Tyseley (for Stratford)
>
> ... and possibly others too ?
>
> David
>


Has the one at Perth New Yard been removed?
It was there mid 90's at least.

MartinM wrote:

> Not sure if this gala was put on by the railway in the title of this
> thread, 

No, it wasn't. Not even the same country.


> but their galas have always been superb, although static photos
> again took a bit of hunting down. The only downside was that being a
> steam railway half the turns are steam as it is highly likely that many
> visitors, having turned up to find no kettles, are likely to commit
> murder, or at the very least go and tell all their friends that the
> line has been re-nationalised.

<g>, I wouldn't have minded seeing some kettles, even though it was the
diesels I went for, but the only kettle visible was an ex-industrial got
up to look like a certain blue tank engine.  

Beforehand, I'd found that the line was home to nearly 20 diesel locos,
and a few DMU's. It was the DMU's I most wanted to see, but in 3.5 hours
there, the tally was 5 locos, 0 DMU cars, and unexpectedly, 1 EMU set.

In article , gwr4090 
 writes

>
>There are also dismantled turntables stored at
>Minehead WSR (ex Pwllhelli)
>Buckfastleigh SDR
>Bewdley SVR
>Tyseley (for Stratford)
>
>... and possibly others too ?
>

Mid-Hants has one, lurking in the nettles somewhere at Ropley. 
Unfortunately, nowhere (at present) to set it up.
-- 
Sue
The Sir Nigel Gresley Locomotive Preservation Trust is now at
http://www.sirnigelgresley.co.uk
Including - 00 gauge Hornby and Bachmann models for sale.

Tim Holden wrote:


> How about "Did it occur to you to give us a ring/ check our website
> before setting off on your 100 mile journey sir?"


Well, if I had been asked that, I would have said:
"yes, I did check the website, but there were no details on it of the
gala day, other than the date, and so I sent an email to the website
owner using the link at the site, three weeks before the date, asking
for the details, but he did not reply."

Oh, and it was effectively a 250 mile journey.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p15036434.html
(66 241 at Winwick, 10 May 2005)

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
news:1skspkbb2ix35.trxe4qys2qh.dlg@40tude.net...

> Tim Holden wrote:
>
>> How about "Did it occur to you to give us a ring/ check our website
>> before setting off on your 100 mile journey sir?"
>
> Well, if I had been asked that, I would have said:
> "yes, I did check the website, but there were no details on it of the
> gala day, other than the date, and so I sent an email to the website
> owner using the link at the site, three weeks before the date, asking
> for the details, but he did not reply."
>
> Oh, and it was effectively a 250 mile journey.


Did you get lost Chris?

KW

In message <9ead48ad4d%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>, Graeme Wall 
 writes

>lal Rattie has one IIRC

La'll ratty does indeed have one at the top end, and used every train.
-- 
Clive

Ken Ward wrote:


> "Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
> news:1skspkbb2ix35.trxe4qys2qh.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Tim Holden wrote:
>>
>>> How about "Did it occur to you to give us a ring/ check our website
>>> before setting off on your 100 mile journey sir?"
>>
>> Well, if I had been asked that, I would have said:
>> "yes, I did check the website, but there were no details on it of the
>> gala day, other than the date, and so I sent an email to the website
>> owner using the link at the site, three weeks before the date, asking
>> for the details, but he did not reply."
>>
>> Oh, and it was effectively a 250 mile journey.
> 
> Did you get lost Chris?


Not at any stage.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683638.html
(50478 (Class 104) at Southport, 29 Sep 1979)

mick_wilson1960@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> > I think
> > the main problem is that the extension is not everyone in the
> > Bluebell's main priority, there are many other expensive schemes going
> > on in the society at the moment; one reason I left the society (along
> > with their diesel ban). Just have to hope they can keep renewing their
> > planning application. ISTR having this conversation 25 years ago when
> > the entire extension was costed at £1m and the logistics of digging
> > out the cutting were a lot simpler.
>
> You sound like you do not support thier extension. Why not? It will
> allow them to tap into more potential passengers arriving by rail.


I support it entirely, just wish they would get on with it having
looked out of my window at the viaduct for 8 years; it is clearly a
project beyond a volunteer force, and needs a clear business plan.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:35:12 +0100, Graeme Wall
 wrote:


>In message 
>          "Andy Kirkham"  wrote:
>
>> Graeme Wall wrote:
>> > In message 
>> >           "Andy Kirkham"  wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> > >
>> > > I note that you have restricted the list to standard gauge turntables.
>> > > I don't imagine there are many narrow gauge contenteders
>> 
>
>RH&DR has one at Hythe and a loop at Dungeness, I think they also have one at
>Romney itself.


ISTR that one of the Turntables came fom the Lynton and Barnstable but
have a feeling his was replaced sometime back. Wonder what happened to
it.

G.Harman.

Stephen Furley wrote:

> >
> > You've got it. Ironbridge B power station stands on the site of
> > Buildwas Junction station.

> I really think that one of the traditional stations ought to preserved as a
> museum, complete with all of its plant, but I would guess that the value of
> land, local opposition and use of asbestos would probably prevent that.  My
> choice for preservation would have been either Blyth 'A', or Croydon 'B',
> but both of these have now gone.


I'd like to see Ironbridge power station, or at least its cooling
towers, preserved when it does finally close. It's dramatic, scenic
valley location is a selling point. Plus the fact that it is close to
all the other industrial heritage sites of the gorge. Weren't the
towers built out of specially coloured concrete to blend in with the
local geology? I also heard that the heat output of the station raises
the temperature in the gorge and causes spring plants to come out
earlier than they should.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:01:10 UTC, Chris Tolley  
wrote:

: It's a fair cop

Like Hutch? 

Ian

--

Dont know about that but fish normally found in the Nile have been found in 
the Severn !!!

"RichardC"  wrote in message 
news:1127333924.885136.157700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Stephen Furley wrote:
>> >
>> > You've got it. Ironbridge B power station stands on the site of
>> > Buildwas Junction station.
>
>> I really think that one of the traditional stations ought to preserved as 
>> a
>> museum, complete with all of its plant, but I would guess that the value 
>> of
>> land, local opposition and use of asbestos would probably prevent that. 
>> My
>> choice for preservation would have been either Blyth 'A', or Croydon 'B',
>> but both of these have now gone.
>
> I'd like to see Ironbridge power station, or at least its cooling
> towers, preserved when it does finally close. It's dramatic, scenic
> valley location is a selling point. Plus the fact that it is close to
> all the other industrial heritage sites of the gorge. Weren't the
> towers built out of specially coloured concrete to blend in with the
> local geology? I also heard that the heat output of the station raises
> the temperature in the gorge and causes spring plants to come out
> earlier than they should.
>