Saphos Trains 'Golden Arrow' - 26/10/19

Just to clear up on an earlier comment.

RE: mk1s/mk2s and their weight, this varies depending on type of vehicle but as a rule mk2s tend to be 1 to 1.5 tonnes lighter than a Mk1. It's mk3s that are in fact heavier than a Mk1 FO/TSO. Generator and kitchen cars are heavier regardless of vehicle type, with brake vans being a little lighter if not doubling up as a generator car. The weight of travelling persons (passengers plus staff) should not been seen as inconsiderate too, especially on a full train. This can be the equivalent of adding an extra carriage or so of weight to the train depending on class of each carriage, average weight of each passenger etc.

So ECS v class one is ever so slightly different albeit no planning tool assumes as such? A good example I can recall is the stalling of a powerful and usually reliable GM diesel locomotive on Old Hill Bank on class one with 13 and dead diesel on rear, yet it crawled up at the pace of a push bike with no assistance 18 hours later on an ECS with little else changed apart from the loss of a few dozen tonnes of passengers. There were no adhesion issues and it was not autumn. Interestingly several other locomotives around those few years had managed the climb on equivalent weights, and indeed in autumn conditions slowing to around 20mph typically so on balance the stall incident possibly should not have occurred, especially as the engine in question was fitted with sanders. Its a very tricky science and indeed a slow approach to a tricky incline or standing start can make a world of difference even in dry seasons.

 

In hindsight, the 47 should have stayed on the rear, or shadowed the train, due to the rail head conditions , that would have enabled a quick rescue, if shadowing, or provided assistance if attached, This time of year leaf fall is a known problem, and the decision should have been made to either run with only 10 if unassisted, or accept rear end insurance.

 

Never shared a video before, but this should be coming through West Malling

 

Taken during the servicing layover at Canterbury yesterday, adjacent to the former Goods Shed.

 

One would assume that there was a contract for DB to provide the crew and that contract would include provision that the train should be within acceptable and achievable loading?

From later comment suggesting that the crew were expecting a diesel from LSL but none was provided further muddies the water as its putting the driver in a very awkward spot if he is turning up to drive a train somewhat different to advertised, I assume he could make the call not to take but that's a lot of pressure to put on someone's shoulders.

Imagine there will be some rather tricky conversations come tomorrow morning...

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

 

No, from what I remember we slipped twice, then came to a stand as the brakes were finally put on to prevent us rolling back too far. Slips were had every time we attempted to restart. Where hand sanding was attempted, we did move off a distance only to slip to a stand again on untreated rail. There was plenty of grease on the up line rails so not a chance of making progress without manually laying down a desert. The railhead on the up side almost looked like it was covered in lard, such was the muck on it.

Hindsight is frequently useless after the event, but lessons were still there to see from past experience in the area, so not sure what was to be gained by sending it that way (maybe, in theory, an extra hour at Canterbury?) without assistance. An out and back via Tonbridge would have been a slightly better bet if the pathing was available in the morning.

Can't complain about the stewards, who kept their heads in a crisis and were happy to chat. There could have been better communication with the passengers about what was/was not happening, but I suspect there was an element of plans changing every few minutes.

 

Bit boring to bring this up again, but it's a pity LSL and NR didn't take any notice of the so-called Industry Guidelines. Have attached them.
The Guidelines define the leaf fall season as 15th September – 31st December which is a bit long but errs on the side of safety.
For a Class 7 in this period the load should be 10 with a corresponding weight of 360 tons. What can you say? Who did the risk assessment? A tree-lined 1 in 60 with a 20mph approach? Seriously?

 

I wasn't referring to the issues yesterday with the "on balance" part of that comment. I have little knowledge of that area of Kent or said operation, other than being well aware it's far from flat and the date fell on a wet autumn day. My reference here was that the stalling of the diesel, on another occasion circa 2011/12, on Old Hill wasn't anticipated by those concerned on the morning in question following on from it not being the norm on similar operations (luckily assistance was just a few mins walk to the rear). A similar one off incident occurred at Burnley M.R. one November evening eastbound, but alas the train got going at a walking pace for over 10min until traction was eventually gained. In other words the science of perfect knowledge is difficult sometimes, even if risk management is frequently visited. I have always, perhaps controversially on this forum, personally favoured locos on the rear for most types of diesel and steam operations (or a nearby available rescue option at the least) but am fully aware of all sides of the debate and it is up those concerned in each train operation and NR to decide what is acceptable, not anybody spectating, even if a view can be formed by any of us publicly or privately.

I never suggested I have footplate experience but I guess I have known many of those with it over the years well enough to glean useful experience where eyes alone aren't sufficient!

Hope that clears things up Al.

 

Graham

Thanks for attaching that.

Compare that to the SD EastGrinstead to trip to Bath on the 5/10. The trip was orginally due to be the Duchess and load 10, but they reduced it to load 9 for the B1 in the week prior to the trip. There is a 10mph speed restriction on Cooks Pond Viaduct (which I think is the level section)between Dormans and East Grinstead with a gradient of 1/70 and 1/67 either side on the return to East Grinstead.The rail head cleaning train was out in the morning and sent ahead of the train, although the max gradient outward is 1 in 100 out of Oxted.

Paul

 

The weight may not be "inconsiderate", or even 'inconsiderable'.

We must be looking at different data sources for carriage weights, as my sources show Mk2s as heavier (for a start, they have the air-con equipment), but no matter.

 

Excellent shot.

 

Ah, but is it?

 

Hmm - not really in hindsight - the issue is a very well-known one and it seems that lessons from not far in the past simply have not been adopted. It's not as if it was a problem that's never been encountered before! This one seems especially bizarre - to leave off the tailing loco with particularly difficult train weight/conditions, when locos are often left on in far better circumstances!

 

I have no idea whether what was submitted was what ran - that I did take as a given. Have there been cases where significantly different trains have turned up on the day without notice? Regarding being fit for purpose - absolutely; if there is a mechanical defect with the train supplied, a failure will be squarely with the TOC. However, a train in fully working condition slipping to a stand owing to poor rail conditions and an overweight train approved to run by NR, is not.

 

Air con or Pressure Vent may vary the weight indeed and indeed possibly bogie type for mk1s so that is a tangent that can be gone off on and perhaps I wasn't clear enough on that specific point. The latter can use either B4 (lighter?) or commenwealth (heavier?) on the mainline to be cleared for 100mph. On private railways BR1 (90mph) bogies are still commonplace.

 

Is there not also the consideration that MkIIa - MkIIc are also fitted for steam heat with appropriate weight variations

 

I suspect the point about difference in weights between Mark 1 or Mark 2 - or for that matter full or empty - is missing the point. If you are reliant on the odd few tons to determine whether or not you get up a bank, the train is already overloaded.

Tom

 

The Guidelines (thank-you for posting these) get us right back to the heart of the issue - but with one notable qualification. I'm not sure that Load 10/ 360 tons should be regarded as the appropriate Load for yesterday's Golden Arrow itinerary. As I explained in my previous post the "Significant Gradients" table appended to these guidelines, which applies to routes with single or multiple inclines graded at greater than 1 in 100, imposes a stricter recommendation on maximum load.

On re-reading the guidelines, I am sure that due note of this exceptional factor, as well as the seasonal factor, would have needed to be taken in the light of Points 8-11 in the Guidelines which, for ease of reference are as follows.....

- Any gradient steeper than 1-in-100 shall be regarded as a ‘significant gradient’

- The load each ‘bracket’ of engine can take unassisted over a ‘significant gradient’ is tabulated in an accompanying document; these gradients are identified on a Sectional Appendix ‘line of route’ basis

- The limit stated should only be exceeded if an assisting locomotive is provided for the incline in question

- Where the planned route of a train will take it over multiple ‘significant gradients’, the most severe gradient shall set the limit for the whole route of the train (unless an assisting locomotive is provided)

So by my interpretation of this, the recommendation for this itinerary would have specified a maximum unassisted load of eight/ 288 tons tare (or maybe even seven/ 252 tons tare if Parkstone in the Up direction, which unlike Bearsted is mentioned in the table, could be regarded as a relevant comparison). Just worth bringing this up one more time, because the Guidelines may be open to interpretation, but the contrast with Load 12 is so stark, and even with Load 10 would be at the very least "significant" in difficult conditions.