Summer CME's

5690 was last reported stopped for boiler work and annual exam. Sounds as if now complete then.
Agree that a major change in the advertised product should be accompanied by the offer of a partial refund to reflect same. Offer doesn't have to be accepted by those not bothered.

 

May I clarify - the reduced mileage is not because of a shortage of WCR crews, it was at the specific request of the loco owner, because he only has a small support crew to look after 5690 and who simply weren't available, for what would have been at least a three-day job for them. The CMEs were planned around Crewe-based locos but the general shortage of locos, this summer, meant a Carnforth-based loco has stood in.

I should point out, at the same time, that the removal of 34067 at Eastleigh, on last Saturday's 'Royal Wessex' was for much the same reason (the ecs had to out-stable away from Southall, on Saturday night).

Support crews are volunteers and put up with an awful lot, mainly because they enjoy it immensely, but there are limits (usually linked to the day job and their own 'support crews'!).

JS

 

Without wishing to be challenging James, why roster 5690 in that case, instead of 46115 say, which has fuller resources to call upon? The engine should fit the job not vice versa surely?
At least that's how it seems from the armchair!
Danny

 

My apologies, I misread the letter. I hope that I have supported WCRC, both on this forum and perhaps more importantly by booking on several more trains than usual, during what has been a problematic year. I do appreciate the commitment and efforts of volunteer support crews. In return tour operators and WCRC must appreciate that without (satisfied) customers you do not have a business. I do not intend to debate the merits of one loco vs another; we all have our favourites, but steam haulage Hellified-Carlisle-Carnforth is not the same as Crewe-Carlisle-Crewe. If another loco with an available support crew could genuinely not be found, is it right to expect passengers to pay the full fare?

 

That's really a matter for the promoter - as is the selection of the locomotive (certainly in this case, in answer to Mr Maxim's question).

 

Thanks for the clarification about locomotive selection, I've never been sure about where the responsibility rested.

 

With the greatest of respect Mr Shuttleworth, as we seem to be on formal terms, it is a bit disingenuous to suggest this TOC is passive in respect of loco rostering, isn't it?
If RTC wanted 5690 even after being told it would require a greatly curtailed steam portion that's pretty shabby IF a viable alternative was genuinely available.
The obvious question is could a different loco have been provided that would give greater steam haulage?

 

Maybe they wanted the Scot but 46115 may not be ready for this or that reason. I don't know.

 

Al that is for sure. JS responded to the RTC statement that the curtailed steam section was because of a WCR crew shortage. Not so according to JS, only that the requested loco came with owner requirements that limited its fuller use.
The point being, taking what JS says at face value if a loco other than 5690 was used the crewing limitation wouldn't apply. Did RTC have this choice?

 

The statement about Crewe is a very valid one as there's nothing's there! 70013's return to steam has been delayed; 45305 isn't mainlining. The Duchess went down south. No9 is in Scotland. This has to be the worst year yet for engine availability. I really sympathise with RTC and SD. Thank goodness for the Rugby World Cup as soon we'll be into the diesel assistance time of year anyway, first in the leaf fall season (mid Oct for a few weeks) and then for train heating!!!

 

Danny

You are attempting to twist my words and making the assumption that there is an infinite availability of Carnforth locos and we could have provided something else or, indeed, that it should be our responsibility to do so.

5690 was the only loco available but subject to the owner's quite reasonable conditions. Al is quite correct that whilst there is a lot of cross-co-operation, 5690 is an entirely separate entity.

My point was that this alteration was not as a result of WCR train crew shortage but support crew limitations; whilst the RTC letter didn't actually say that, the earlier quote was, as the poster said, not quite accurate, either.

 

James, that was the only clarification being asked of you. Specifically, was there any other loco and you have provided a clear answer - no. There was no actual or attempted twisting if your words. Nor am I under any illusion about loco availability at Carnforth which, like any other loco department, is probably a fluid situation.
You took it upon yourself to clear up the misrepresentation of a WCR crew position said to be affecting the steam haulage on Saturday. What you are in fact telling us is that there is a shortage of loco rather than crew. It was therefore an irrelevance what loco RTC requested, as you first said, because only 5690 could be provided and only with the entirely understandable limitation you explained. That is where I think we have been at cross purposes because I understood your initial explanation as meaning RTC had asked for 5690 and accepted it, even though the caveat applied, as a matter of preference. I inferred from your comments that WCR had no operational issues of relevance. What you meant, however, was there were no WCR crew issues, neglecting to mention the loco situation.
Back to the original gripe, however, will RTC offer a partial refund notwithstanding the commendable efforts of the 5690 lads to get steam at all?
And before you say it, that is a matter for the tour promoter to resolve with its customers.

 

Any news on the steam section of todays train please?

 

Footage of 45690 hard at work towards Bleamoor tunnel .

 

Many thanks, most enjoyable. Especially watching in Kent on a bright and sunny day!

 

A touch brighter for the return over Shap!

Thrimby Grange:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/iancawthorne/21360897235/

 

With the rain starting LMS 5XP Class 4-6-0 No. 45690 'Leander ' works through Helwith Bridge with the northbound 'Cumbrian Mountain Express' rail charter



A welcome drop of sunshine as LMS 5XP Class 4-6-0 N0. 45690 'Leander' powers through Shapback Gate with the return leg of the 'Cumbrian Mountain Express'

 

Cracking shots Shep , nice clean exhaust on the return LOL .