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

If as stated, in the on board piece above, that the Brit got the train moving on a treated/sanded rail then that proves it wasn't power related. It seems more likely that an atrocious rail head was to blame.

 

Critiques accepted.

 

When I said it was a red herring I meant that with that load on a wet rail at any time of year it would almost certainly have been in trouble. As I understand it the loco stalled, not just slipped to a standstill on a greasy rail, with the hand sanding making no difference. That suggests that it just didn't have the power to lift that sort of load up the 1 in 60.

 

Maybe insufficient power to restart on a 1 in 60 but if sufficient adhesion was available then the train wouldn't have slipped to a stand on the climb in the first place. Poor railhead conditions were always going cause problems.

 

Coincidentally, a very similar mileage to 60163 on April 14th last year when an even worse disaster struck.

Or double head - 34046+70000.

 

Did you read the report above? It didn't stall, it slipped repeatedly on a 'black rail' as advised in the same account. When it was on treated rail, if the report is correct, the loco got the train moving again comfortably before slipping to a stand once again on a poor rail. Sounds like it wouldn't have gone up even if the load had been 8, 9 or 10 vehicles.

This is an engine that lifted 11 up Copy Pit from a standing start in the rain without a murmur. Slightly less steep and much longer but very similar by the sounds of it.

So i go back to my original point, its autumn the rail head is horrendous who's responsibility is it?

 

It seems that you have not quite grasped what the on-board accounts are saying. Where hand sanding had been applied, the train restarted (ie. moved from stationary) with relatively little problem, even with 12 carriages. The issue was hitting the next bit of greasy rail, when it slipped to a stand again. The crew would have had to hand sand up the remainder of the bank, which was not really feasible.

Where the extra carriages might have impacted is a quicker loss of momentum once the slipping started. However, the conditions on the day were such that it would probably have been impossible without a tail gunner.

 

Yes Al it was both. Interesting Jeremy Hosking in his letter received today blamed rail conditions. Big refund though

 

Not taking the blame for sending an overloaded train and not thinking hmmm we better take the 47 with us its a tad slippery out there,Just in case its better to be safe then sorry.

Interesting to say the least.

 

Thanks Graham. So you gave up and went home as well. Very sensible. Couple of comments. It was 73.12 miles behind steam. I count them all as the 66 only pushed up Bearsted and the top of Lenham and the Brit was still working. It took the whole 580 tons apart from that. We were close behind a Blackfriars train all round the Catford loop which would have accounted for some of the slow running. Also speed reached 39.0 just before Bromley South and fell to 33.3 at Blackbrook Bridge the summit. Lineside observers there and at the previous bridge said the Brit wasn’t working very hard on the 1-95.

 

I won't try to add anything to what has already been said about this event by members who are much more knowledgeable than I am. However, I would like to voice support and appreciation for LSL/Saphos. They went to enormous lengths to present a superb locomotive and a high quality train as close as possible to a historical re-enactment. Reports are that the quality of the stock and the attitude of staff were of the highest order. On this occasion a serious mistake was made, but I hope they will learn from this, get better and not be discouraged from planning future high quality tours with pure steam.

 

Thanks Don. Didn't realise a service was that close in front of us. As far as steam miles is concerned, you know me, I take a very purist view and don't count diesel on the back as steam mileage unless its switched off.

 

In a way that's what I don't understand, from our esteemed colleagues extensive report above it would appear that 70000 was doing a pretty good impression of Bambi on Ice on just about anything bar pan flat from leaving Victoria. Now its been suggested that the driver was expecting a tail gunner and was concerned when it became clear that they were going solo, now as said tail gunner was actually on the train at Victoria could he have not asked that the diesel remain attached and refused to set off solo if concerned? I know that possibly there would have been an issue with driver hours on the 47, however one would assume that the driver who took it back to Southall would at least have had time to do that bit so with a new driver being dispatched to say Ashford to continue if needed?

Likewise many on here who know the route (TBH I thought Kent was flat!) have suggested that the train didn't have a cat in hells chance of making it up the money gradients solo, so again a little unclear why the driver already experiencing the problems unfold did not at some stage previous ask the signaller to be put inside somewhere and be on the blower to his control asking for an assisting loco before the inevitable happened?

I would emphasise that I am in no way blaming the poor bugger at the regulator who seems to have been stuck between a rock and a hard place? A DBS driver delivering a sub contract to LSL so I assume his first port of call would be DBS control and then they would have to speak to LSL Control to try and sort the mess out whilst he was firefighting on the ground so to speak?

Ultimately a train went out 2 carriages over the max prescribed on the (I assume industry agreed) guidelines, on the limit of what would have been acceptable on a dry sunny spring day, a substantial knacker has been dropped somewhere?

BTW off on a tangent but what was done about rail head treatment in the old days (I know the main method was not to line cuttings with trees!) I have seen pictures of weed killing trains but no more than that?

 

Your last paragraph is not quite true. A few years ago Kent had the great Network Rail chainsaw massacre and Sole St, Martin Mill Bank around Walmer plus a few other places were cleared and have been kept clear. I’m not sure if they got around to Bearsted

 

It was 3 minutes ahead at Beckenham Hill so we would have caught it making its Ravensborne call. We also caught it in the Nunhead area

 

Just what we didn't need this time of year Don, though it happens all too often these days all over the network. Getting more and more difficult to path steam hauled trains and it will probably get worse after the December Timetable changes and the extra trains being promised. Out of interest, was the service on time?

 

Yes 1046 from Blackfriars and pathed just in front of us. Slipping on the climb then didn't help of course but then no problem up to Bickley Junction probably because this section is almost tree free.

 

According to RTT the 47 went back to Wembley not Southall, so the driver may have already left for home if a different driver was rostered for the evening. The stock appeared to have left Crewe at 0240 so he may have done that ECS as well. I assume these days no DBC driver is approved to drive/man a 47 so I suspect you could not have used one of them to get the LS loco to wherever you recess the train.

 

I was thinking along the same lines. Interested to know what the role of the Traction Inspector on the footplate is in this kind of situation, does he have the authority to do something like the above? Or is that just not how things work?