Talk:Route availability

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: in UK / in Scotland Low‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as Mid-importance). This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

I believed that the original 4 car class 222s were barred from the Matlock branch line when introduced because they were too heavy. This was at the time when Class 170 DMUs were operating the route which I would guess are no lighter than a 158, therefore the 222s should be higher than RA2. Does anyone have any further information on this? Maybe this wasn't the real reason they weren't allowed on the line!

195.137.3.245 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two articles with heavy overlap. The present Network Rail system of classifying locomotives by route availability is a direct descendant of the LNER system (see Route Availability), and there is little need to have them in separate articles. I suggest merging them at Route availability. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A Suporter--86.24.24.53 (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been.--Wipsenade (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it may seem obvious to most, perhaps a sentence lining out exactly WHY things like axle load and spacing are important, and why rails and embankments and infrastructure must be separated into classes, would be nice? All it says is that A: they are divided into classes, and B: that axle load (and spacing) is important in figuring out which class is to be assigned. Explaining that exceeding the load on any given axle, or a load over a certain distance of track can cause damage wouldn't be out of the scope of the article, would it? It only infers this information as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The loading gauge of a particular route may be the cause of a lower Route Availablity. One case in point was the Hastings Line pre-1986, where the restricted bores of the tunnels restricted stock to no more than 8' 0¼" width. This meant that dedicated rolling stock had to be used, such as the Schools class, The Hastings Units (6S, 6L and 6L) and the Class 33/2 locomotives. This should really be mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Do you have a source? From what I've read elsewhere (over some 30 years), the loading gauge and the route availability are two independent measures. Loading gauge is primarily based on cross-section, including shape, width and height; it takes little account of length and none of weight. By contrast, RA is primarily based upon axle load and wheelbase, and takes no account of width or height. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Beecroft, Geoffrey (1986). The Hastings Diesels Story. Chessington: Southern Electric Group. pp. 6, 8. ISBN 0-906988-20-9.

Restriction 0 - can operate over all lines.

Restriction 1 - can operate over all lines except Grove Jcn - Battle.

Restriction 4 - can operate over all lines except Tonbridge - Battle and Grove Jcn - Tunbridge Wells West. This equates to BR's C1 loading gauge.

So there we have it, route availability restricted by loading gauge, not axle loading. Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got that book - it's pp. 8, 10, not pp. 6, 8. Nowhere does it use the term "route availability", it uses "loading gauge restriction" and "restriction". The SR restrictions were much more akin to BR's rolling stock restrictions, notice that on p. 10 it says "in later years, restriction '4' coincided with British Railways 'C1' loading gauge" (which is still in use, see GE/GN8573 issue 3, Guidance on Gauging). Route availability is described in GE/RT8006 issue 2, Assessment of Compatibility of Rail Vehicle Weights and Underline Bridges. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Route Availability on this line was restricted due to the loading gauge, not the axle loading. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that explicitly state that? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aready given it - Beecroft. The 1960 Sectional Appendix (p133-36) makes no mention of any axle load restriction on the line. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beecroft calls it "loading gauge restriction" or "restriction", not route availability. If there is no axle load restriction, the line is effectively RA 10. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Route availability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071211225925/http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Rail-41549/GERT8006.pdf to http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Rail-41549/GERT8006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the page titled Route Availability on the Network Rail website is now unavailable, but archived here. I don't know the procedure or etiquette around changing this. Xan asmodi (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]