Mendip Rail traffic.

[Suraggu]

“Hope” and “if” don’t inspire confidence in afraid, what is certain is that there’s a host of at present undefined variables which could effect employment opportunities of the staff engaged in the current work.

Thus, no one at present can say 100% or even 51% that no staff will lose employment.

Railfreight need all the front line staff they can get at present. This idea that drivers and Shunters will lose jobs over arguably the biggest aggregates contract in the country is beyond laughable.

 

[Tom Quinne]

Are you one of the potentially effect members of staff then ?

I’d put money on the majority not funding the situation funny at all.

 

[Suraggu]

Are you one of the potentially effect members of staff then ?

I’d put money on the majority not funding the situation funny at all.

People are scaremongering other colleagues within this. It is actually laughable the level of scaremongering the posts on here has been created.

Yes I am directly affected by the change of operator. And the longevity of the contract shows how much drivers and shunters are needed. FLHH south West depots already have HOBC, Tata Steel and Coal to worry about without being able to take jobs from Mendip Drivers for instance all those frontline staff will be required along with merehead depot and quarry staff. If anything Merehead depot likely to get more work from servicing more locos for other FL contracts. Mendip Rail expect the best and the only way that is going to work if the trains have staff to run the service. Making redundancies will only be from the DB end and not from the FLHH end of things. If DB choose not to TUPE drivers over that's there business plan. FL would like the drivers to be TUPE over to continue running the service as stated to staff internally. The only folk who will cause issue with this is DB themselves and they have not exactly been in a great financial situation in recent months. Perhaps TUPE staff over could be a blessing for their balance books.

Look at British Steel Immingham depot when it went from DB to FL. No redundancies.

 

[Nic nic]

This may seem a daft question but... why are DB asking there junior driver applicants if they are willing to take Westbury as thier home depot?

 

[tiptoptaff]

This may seem a daft question but... why are DB asking there junior driver applicants if they are willing to take Westbury as thier home depot?

Contract hasn't started yet and there may be a minimum staffing clause

 

[Nic nic]

I see, that makes sense

 

[train_lover]

This may seem a daft question but... why are DB asking there junior driver applicants if they are willing to take Westbury as thier home depot?

I take it you have seen myself and others talking about this on the DB junior driver thread. I was asked if I'd relocate to Westbury before it was announced they had lost the contract. I'd imagine the loss contract is the reason why so many of us haven't heard anything.

 

[Nic nic]

Yes that is where I saw it train_lover, but I think tiptoptaff has a good point. I honestly didn't want to seem insensitive to yourself or in particular anyone who currently work for DB at Westbury I just found it curious.

 

[BRX]

It seems that Freightliner are now running trains between Whatley and Hothfield - but I thought the changeover was not happening until November?

 

[Suraggu]

It seems that Freightliner are now running trains between Whatley and Hothfield - but I thought the changeover was not happening until November?

This is a different customer. This is for the Tarmac South contract which started Sunday.

 

[BRX]

This is a different customer. This is for the Tarmac South contract which started Sunday.

Ah ok, thanks. This was run by DB previously, right? Or is this an additional/new contract?

 

[Suraggu]

Ah ok, thanks. This was run by DB previously, right? Or is this an additional/new contract?

Previously run by DB Cargo, FL won the Tarmac South Contract.

 

[class 9]

I think it can be safely said that they’ll be no job losses, FL have been advertising for trainee Train Drivers at Whatley for a while.

 

[ExRes]

News on WNXX that 70003 will be hauling a test train from Merehead to Acton thursday evening to test haulage capabilities, a 59 will run ahead for insurance purposes

 

[furnessvale]

News on WNXX that 70003 will be hauling a test train from Merehead to Acton thursday evening to test haulage capabilities, a 59 will run ahead for insurance purposes

Should the 59 not run immediately BEHIND the said train?

By the time they find out the 70 is in trouble, the 59 will be miles away!

 

[Plethora]

Should the 59 not run immediately BEHIND the said train?

By the time they find out the 70 is in trouble, the 59 will be miles away!

I read it as them running in multiple.

 

[800002]

News on WNXX that 70003 will be hauling a test train from Merehead to Acton thursday evening to test haulage capabilities, a 59 will run ahead for insurance purposes

Should the 59 not run immediately BEHIND the said train?

By the time they find out the 70 is in trouble, the 59 will be miles away!

At risk of speculating - but an educated guess, also. Thursday night, there is an STP loco move from merehead - 2223 to Westbury up TC, before the 2250 merehead Acton 4200 ton jumbo.

There is then another STP loco schedule out of westbury up tc at 0014 to Acton, which is more or less headway behind the jumbo all the way to Acton.

So it's infront to westbury and behind from westbury - Acton.

 

[800002]

I read it as them running in multiple.

I wouldn't think that would work, as the object of the exercise is to see if a cl.70 can haul the traffic.
It could be top and tailed, with the 59 dead on the back or ticking over to take its own weight.

 

[ExRes]

Should the 59 not run immediately BEHIND the said train?

By the time they find out the 70 is in trouble, the 59 will be miles away!

Is it not as broad as it is long? If the loco runs ahead then it runs at a speed relative to the 70 and its train, why would it be miles away? surely it will have a second person in the cab to keep in contact with the 70s progress and then it only needs to go back to rescue any failure and continue forward with it, if it trails the 70 then in the case of a failure it needs to return towards its point of origin wrong road causing who knows what grief to following traffic

 

[furnessvale]

Is it not as broad as it is long? If the loco runs ahead then it runs at a speed relative to the 70 and its train, why would it be miles away? surely it will have a second person in the cab to keep in contact with the 70s progress and then it only needs to go back to rescue any failure and continue forward with it, if it trails the 70 then in the case of a failure it needs to return towards its point of origin wrong road causing who knows what grief to following traffic

Maybe I am out of touch with modern operating practice, but, in my day a loco immediately in rear of a failed train could be called forward to propel the demic to the next point where the train could be put away.

By putting the loco in front of the train, it would be required to return to the failure wrong road, possibly over several blocks. More realistically it would return to the failure on the other line before either going behind to propel, or being allowed wrong road over the last block to draw the failure out. Either way, to me a longer procedure.

 

[800002]

Is it not as broad as it is long? If the loco runs ahead then it runs at a speed relative to the 70 and its train, why would it be miles away? surely it will have a second person in the cab to keep in contact with the 70s progress and then it only needs to go back to rescue any failure and continue forward with it, if it trails the 70 then in the case of a failure it needs to return towards its point of origin wrong road causing who knows what grief to following traffic

Maybe I am out of touch with modern operating practice, but, in my day a loco immediately in rear of a failed train could be called forward to propel the demic to the next point where the train could be put away.

By putting the loco in front of the train, it would be required to return to the failure wrong road, possibly over several blocks. More realistically it would return to the failure on the other line before either going behind to propel, or being allowed wrong road over the last block to draw the failure out. Either way, to me a longer procedure.

I think both approaches have thief merits and their cons (if needed to be implemented)

It all depends on where the train fails.

Assisting from the front (by reversing onto the failed set) would be easier if the standby loco is able to stay within avery close distance (withought giving off restrictive aspects for th train in rear of it).

Assisting from the rear, to push it off the mainline into say woodborough goods / Theale or reading where it could then runround and back onto the failed loco (if that's required) would be easier to achieve.

If it is just power thats required, push /pull should be sufficient I would've thought.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

By putting the loco in front of the train, it would be required to return to the failure wrong road, possibly over several blocks

It occurs to me that there wouldn't be anything else between the light engine and the freight so if the 70 failed it would be relatively straightforward to arrange for the 59 to run back to rescue it?

 

[Spekejunction]

It occurs to me that there wouldn't be anything else between the light engine and the freight so if the 70 failed it would be relatively straightforward to arrange for the 59 to run back to rescue it?

Perhaps the 59 could be placed Dead in train behind the 70
so available for immediate assistance should it be required.
For the trial to be correct weight a wagon or two might need to be removed..

 

[cossie4i]

For the test to be worthwhile the train needs to be at least 44 wagons as that is a regular load.
The train also needs to be stopped at strategic locations to see if it can restart the train, going up Lavington, near the top of Savernake etc.

 

[ExRes]

From what I've seen elsewhere this evening the timings seem to be

0C59 Merehead 2223 - Westbury Up Yard 2320

7A91 Merehead 2250 - Westbury 2345a 0008d - Acton Terminal 0255

0Z59 Westbury Up Yard 0014 - Acton Terminal 0301

 

[800002]

From what I've seen elsewhere this evening the timings seem to be

0C59 Merehead 2223 - Westbury Up Yard 2320

7A91 Merehead 2250 - Westbury 2345a 0008d - Acton Terminal 0255

0Z59 Westbury Up Yard 0014 - Acton Terminal 0301

Thanks for the headcodes (and presenting the info in a much more coherent fashion than i).

 

[800002]

Not sure why, but all three schedules for this evening are now showing as VSTP schedules... anyone with any ideas as to why?

 

[cossie4i]

70003 + 46 wagons
59205 as the Thunderbird

 

[Tom Quinne]

70003 with 46 wagons weighing in at 4500t !!!

Doing pretty well timing wise by the look of it.

 

[800002]

70003 with 46 wagons weighing in at 4500t !!!

Doing pretty well timing wise by the look of it.

Made up 8 minutes from Lavington - woodbrough (versus planned (and usual) schedule) - familiarity with this schedule is lacking somewhat. Is gaining 8 minutes on the schedule usual for this train?
And a further 6 minutes woodborough - bedwyn!
Doing pretty well indeed.

Going to take a look at previous schedule runs...