The Cathedrals Express Sun 27th September

With respect, I think backing an employee in public, regardless of what happens in the confines of "the boss's office", was always considered good management! Anything else can often be seen as risking undermining the employee and making them reluctant to exercise such authority as their role is charged with.

Why is it that Railway Enthusiasts have such a "persecution complex"? In many ways, steam operations should be such a small part of what Network Rail are involved in as to not even get noticed enough for anyone to waste effort trying to force them off the network! Is perhaps the problem that they get themselves "noticed" to a disproportionate degree?

You only have to read the general media to know the issues with project implementation, timescales and budgets that Network Rail face. It is clear the organisation has problems far beyond when gauging decisions become known for steam traction.

The "system" means that if the appropriate "case" can be made for safe operation, and the necessary standards met, then traction equipment can be used on the network. If that traction equipment is the cause of major and recurring delays and difficulties for the wider network and other operators on it, then Network Rail have the right (dare I even say duty) to suspend its use. If there is any move to remove steam traction, then that would be the route followed - no need for surreptitious means or underhand methods - the moment has potentially been prepared for, just as it has should any other type of traction prove to be a major disruptive influence.

In reality, "steam" covers a wide range of different locomotive classes, owners and operators (in the widest sense). However, other than restrictions such as fire risk bans, I am not aware of a single instance of even a single loco being temporarily banned from the network, even though there are one or two who which seem quite keen on getting that accolade of being the first!

I hate to say it, but it in this life, things are usually "chock-up" rather than "conspiracy"!

Steven

 

If NR are too busy to check whether a particular loco is OK for a particular route, fair enough, but then they should say so up front, well before the date of the tour, and without spending time working out a path.

 

Booking 4936 for these tours can be seen as a "brave" decision, given the recent issues getting her to the P&D, the general problems with finding suitable routes for Halls, and the tardiness of NR checking gauging at the moment. The loco owners, tour promoter and TOC between them should have been aware of the potential problems and assured themselves they could work around them before advertising the motive power. In particular, they should have decided on a cut-off date for receiving gauge clearance, and had an alternative, gauge-cleared loco on stand-by in case it wasn't received in time.

Don't get me wrong. I applaud the attempt to use a Hall on these trips. On paper, it's a very good idea, and an example of the sort of operation I think we'll see a lot more of. Use a diesel to whisk the passengers from suburban pick-up stations to Westbury, swap locos for the "interesting" sections (Brewham, Whiteball, Torre, etc.), swap back on the way back, and get everyone home in good time. Swapping locos at Taunton (or Norton Fitzwarren) is less attractive to passengers, especially if it means the DL is more likely to stay with the train down to Paignton, but perhaps an understandable compromise, since it saves 2 light-engine moves, and the associated footplate crew hours. However, if that's they way the TOC wants to run things, then that's what should be advertised by the Tour Promoter.

 

Ashamed, maybe the fit should be checked before the times are worked out, or is that to easy???

And remember they have a duty of care to return the "envelope" back to what it was before they started work, the fact they don't is why these issues continually crop up.

However, as long as they are allowed to get away with it, bash on, its status quo......

 

I blame Collett

 

Is it the problem though? Is it that loco "fail" gauging or gauging can't be undertaken in time? I believe that gauging has quite a short "expiry date" before it needs re-doing and the impression I have had is more that, under that rule, locos are not known whether they are in gauge or not.

On curves etc., track does move, so locos may become out of gauge without anyone knowingly touching the track. Network rail are a risk adverse organisation and (probably rightly) have assume something doesn't fit unless they have proof it does.

Steven

 

That's fair, though personally I'd have thought that if a line is built and open to certain tolerances, Network Rail should be ensuring that it is maintained to those tolerances and that any work done is compliant with them. A Hall may be tricky because of its width, but the story I've heard that a class 50 is out of gauge in Cornwall leaves me really gob smacked.

 

Its the fact that contractors are under such time pressures that mistakes crop up, and maybe the cannot go the extra mile to ensure the envelope is protected, and rather than return, its left with knock on effects.

Surely the work areas are measured before being handed back, that's the first point to consider the new envelope and not a week before something "different" is due to pass through.

Steven will have experience in what is involved after the NYMR experienced issues with a bridge at Battersby, not allowing certain locos to leave, the platform at Grosmont on the NR side is another.

 

I am probably being incredibly simplistic here but if a hall fitted in 1964, and 1994 at privitisation then unless NR have consulted on a network change then shouldn't it fit now. Whilst I don't want to hark back to a certain vociferous poster on here but NR seem to be quietly making the loading gauge smaller with no consultation and nothing is being done about it. I can understand why WCR are possibly not taking them to task after the last 12 months, but others should at least be asking the question?

 

My understanding is that part of the issue is that the principles behind gauging have changed, so that the rules are no longer designed to support what you suggest. That's why I believe in a definitive system of gauging.

 

That's exactly the point - Predictive and Probalistic Gauging: The Shoehorn Effect should give some idea of the complexity involved.

The RSSB's 'Guide to Gauging' is also worth a look, it even has a few paragraphs specifically addressing Steam:

The 21st century railway is very different from the steam age, although there is a belief that if a steam locomotive was designed to run on the Great Western, then it should still be able to operate on that route today. In the meantime, our standards for safe operation have improved, our network is required to be capable of carrying high speed passenger and containerised freight on the same tracks, and we have re-aligned tracks to achieve better alignments and capacity. The stock of masonry arch bridges (fortunately still performing long beyond their anticipated life) means that in order to carry tall rectangular boxes, tracks must be aligned towards the centres of these arches. Conflicting requirements of wide-bodied trains requires that tracks should be as far apart as possible (subject to not conflicting with platforms).

Just because a steam locomotive used to run on a route for many years, you cannot rely on these ‘grandfather rights’ to do so on the same route without any further checks today – you need to do a compatibility assessment to GE/RT8270 Issue 2 - just like any other rolling stock route introduction. Steam locomotives are presently cleared as ‘out-ofgauge’ loads, using a process within Network Rail known as RT3973EXL, to give limited location and duration permission to operate.
​

Chris

 

And my comment is an observation that, within these constraints, there should be a system that defines the cleared parameters for all lines, rather than treating them as out of gauge for specific clearance at all times.

 

Deleted: being re-written

 

Near the beginning of that document is this statement: "As a result of using these advanced techniques, it is possible to run larger trains than the rail network was originally designed for."

So, paradoxically, you can run larger trains but possibly not some of those that you used to run.

 

But the kinetic envelope seems to be expanding in a vertical direction whilst being restricted at a horizontal level - and it is the horizontal plane that seems to cause most problems especially in terms of station platform / bridge / tunnel clearances. I begin to wonder if NR is trying to return to the 1970s when steam traction was confined to a number of specific routes but are trying to do so without publicising it as it represents a restriction on "Open Access" that is not allowed within the current rules of operation.

 

NR would be very foolish indeed to try and unofficially restrict a legal requirement, you can't keep stuff like that quiet, someone would find out and the brown stuff would hit the air movement device - ask Volkswagen.

I do wish people wouldn't constantly try and invent some secret anti steam agenda, it detracts from the real reason, that being that NR are
failing in their primary task of keeping the network within spec, because they are inefficient.

 

I understand the first part of your response but to me there is something so wrong about the constant attacks on NR, (some of which may well be deserved, but I just don't know that for 100% sure), without us here knowing that organisation has at least had the opportunity to respond. Whether they choose to use that opportunity or not.

Oh well, back to getting through the day!

 

Keep calm chaps! When Mr Corbyn gets in as our new Prime Minister, the railways will be nationalised and we will be back to the good old days of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's with no open access and when steam will possibly be assigned routes of a secondary nature.

Come on Jeremy you know you and your lefties can transform our railways. The country needs you!