Permitted Speeds for Steam Locomotives

Indeed it is, and yes technically if there is an issue of rail safety a driver must take his train to 75mph even if the owner and or his bumbling rep doesnt want it to go past 60mph... though that would be a rare circumstance

Think you're coming at this a bit head on me old china. What are you BTP ?
Quoting regs at us doesnt contribute much to the party when its accepted by all here that everything is done within section line speeds and train formation regulations ruling.
There is no need , apart from the few drivers on this forum (who presumably do already) for us to 'understand what we are allowed to do ' similarly no one has suggested that there is any flexibility in the permitted speeds. the question is should the permitted speeds be looked at...

The whole gist of this post is that there is an additional Reg for steam locos, ostensibly based on how big their wheels are:
the questions are a) Is the current driving wheel yardstick as sole arbiter a good system.
b) should certain individual Steam locomotive or classes of locomotive be permitted to run faster than they do currently - within the regs in order to mitigate their nuissance value on the network and underwhat circumstances / assessment criteria
c) If permitted speeds are increased, will paths not be squeezed in response to this, meaning that locos have to work just as hard/even harder which will defeat the other advantages of faster running speeds ie easier acceleration.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to spell it out to someone...

 

okay... so we stick to 75 with the exception of being able to 'push' if the owners rep / traction inspector sees fit. How does the signalman know this? If it's all gone tits up and there's a service train up your rear, how do they know you're planning on pushing your loco a little bit more when there's a convenient loop just ahead......

It requires too much joined up thinking between too many different organisation for a comparatively rare event.

 

No idea, as long as they stop 'pushing it' when they come up against restricted aspects.

Typical pie-in-the-sky thinking this.

 

BTP are hardly likely to be quoting the rules for loco hauled passenger stock at you, and there is a good reason for mentioning them. There's no point in upping the permitted speed for the loco, if the formation it is hauling is unlikely to be allowed over 75 most of the time. It's called putting the discussion in a real world context.

There was a little digression above, regarding speedo error, and what would be accepted. Again, worth clearing up. Many on the outside do not realise how tightly the railway is regulated.

There has to be some criteria for setting the speed of each loco. NR seem to be particularly concerned about unsprung weight, so if that could be measured for each type, perhaps that could be another benchmark?

 

Mobile phones in cabs are now a total no go!!

 

Must admit I shudder at the thought of a driver having a phone in one hand talking to 'control', with the other hand on the regulator at 75mph...! And, common sense of phone use on the footplate excepted - I imagine it would be almost impossible to have a telephone conversation from the footplate of a moving steam loco on the mainline due to the sheer noise. I've not been on the footplate of steam loco at anything like mainline speeds but even on a preserved line at sub 25mph you have to shout to have a conversation when the loco is working.

 

Just a different perspective from this side of the world - we use cab radio all the time to contact the RTC or in the states the dispatcher - when we are on the mainline with 2860 - the engineer ( driver ) is responsible for safe running & signals , the pilot is responsible for radio communication - calling signal aspects ( per rules ) over the radio - this is done in a steam cab environment quite safely - and yes it s noisy .

 

Rubbish. Plenty of freight drivers and operators of OTM use them.

 

Not if they want to keep their jobs they don't! I just love enthusiasts that tell me how to do my job!

Up to about three - four years ago, yes, many drivers made extensive use of phones for purposes directly relevant to the driving task. This was actively encouraged by some TOC's. Frankly they were the most useful too issued to loco crew since the Lucas firing shovel.

After that accident in the US, there has been a complete change of attitude. Whilst policies between companies vary slightly, there is a lot of pressure from "on high" for a total ban on their use, and from any in the cab to be switched off. At a stand, then fine, they can be used to contact signallers, etc, and then turned off again. Not for the purposes suggested by the OP's above.

Drivers are now reliant on the next to useless analogue NRN radio system, unless they are in an area fitted with Cab Secure Radio (which doesn't apply to steam anyway).

 

First of all, I'm not an enthusiast. I'm a signalman for Network Rail. I've worked in two boxes - Stirling-Kincardine Panel at Stirling Middle and I'm now at Worcester Tunnel Junction. I'm sure you'll retract your remarks now you know a little more about me.

My previous signalbox didn't have an internal line so there was no NRN number to dial for drivers. How do you suggest they were contacting me when the phone rang and it wasn't from an SPT. The driver states what train he's driving and what signal he's sat at on the external phone line. Was this by magic? Was it someone making a prank call? They knew the safety critical communications procedure if they if was a joke call.

How did the drivers of OTM, again at the same signalbox without a NRN number, phone me up to pass signals at danger to enter possessions or leave a possession and await instructions? Must have been a hallucination that I managed to deal with those safely.

Perhaps you'd inform me how the drivers in the yard at Worcester phone my external line at Tunnel Junction (we do have NRN at Tunnel on the internal line) and ask me how long they're going to wait signals? Or the driver from Bristol who I gave some advice regarding the layout at Worcester who phoned me up to ask what shunt I was going to get him to do? That was also on the external line (as he told he'd be phoning on his mobile) and there was no tell-tale signs of the crap NRN signal filtering through the conversation.

Perhaps you're more enlightened than I am, I am after all, just a mere 'enthusiast' telling you how to do your job.

 

Yes it's very common. A lot of freight drivers, if they're going to be kept at a signal for a while, will give the Signalmen their mobile phone number so they can contact them if they've got a chance of going early. Likewise during failures I've had the numbers of drivers of the failed train so I can keep him informed when his assisting engine is going to arrive. Again, the same thing happens with OTM drivers so you can keep in touch with them.

GSM-R will take away the need for this when it gets rolled out nationally, hopefully.

It isn't against the rules to use a mobile to contact the Signalman when waiting signals or receiving instructions. It's in S4 - Trains or vehicles detained at signals:

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Book/Rule Book Modules/S - Signals/GERT8000-S4 Iss 3.pdf

Drivers use NRN to contact the Signalmen when they're on the move quite often when dealing with line examinations and trespassers for example. I expect in some circumstances mobiles will be used where NRN coverage isn't good.

I had one odd phone call one night working the SK-Panel from a DBS driver who phoned me up to ask why he had just received a single yellow aspect on the approach to a loop - he was obviously on the move at the time and queried what I was doing (I was putting a Class 37 into the loop at the time).

 

Well I drive high speed loco hauled stuff for a living, and without wishing to dispute anything that you have written, I also know the mobile phone policy that I am expected to adhere to. Similarly, the colleague who received a two week suspension without pay, for using a mobile on the move, is not a figment of my imagination (and he was very, very lucky not to have been on a Clause IX. The rest of us have taken the hint!).

The examples that you quote are all for drivers at a stand. I've no problem with that, and use a mobile myself in such situations. However, it gets turned off before any movement is made. The same goes for any other person's phone. Driver manager, OHL bods, pilotmen, etc. We are even expected to use the SPT where one is available, rather than getting the mobile out.

I do network with others within the industry, and that includes members of the inspectorate. I've had discussions about the policies that are being introduced, and the lead from this is definitely from the very top. If your local TOC's aren't having to adhere to this sort of diktat yet, they soon will be. As a driver I think it is ridiculous. The phones could be restricted to railway numbers only, sms could be disabled, and we could be trusted to make a professional judgment as to when it is safe to make a call. A digital mobile phone is far less distracting to use, than the stone age NRN.

The posts above suggested the use of a phone on the move; that is most definitely now a "no go" area. A pity, as we're now no longer able to phone up delay attribution, as soon as one of your esteemed colleagues puts a class 6 out in front of us.

 

Just a thought - on main line steam is there not always an inspector on the footplate? In which case he/she could communicate with control or whoever, leaving the driver to concentrate on his job?

 

Thanks Edward and Neil for the real world dimension, telling it like it is is brilliant and thank you for taking the time to do it. telling us off for not having this insight is a little harsh...

I Didnt think direct communication between Cab and control was a norm, That Legendary Bristolian run was helped by presumably an Internet link on the train, and then communication (to traction inspector? ) ia a phone ? between train and loco.
Signalling obviously know where a train is at any given time... but have they any indication of how fast its moving in real time ? or only what speed it should be doing...

PS How difficult is it to get a job in your respective areas these days...

 

http://www.traindriver.org/

It's one of those jobs that you're either suited to, or you're not. If you're someone who is going to pass the aptitude tests (c 90% of those that try don't), then provided that you are located (or willing to relocate to) somewhere that there are vacancies, I'd suggest not that difficult. Think London suburban depots or Northern. Virtually all training is done by the unit operators, with the intercity and freight outfits largely poaching qualified drivers.

Quite a few of us from the NYMR have changed career into driving since privatisation.

 

Thanks for updating me Ralph.

 

That suprises me, I always thought that there had to be two people on the footplate at all times capable of taking the train forward to a safe point in case the designated driver should fall ill (in case of similar incidents like last year with the tragic Tynesider trip with Bittern). IIRC there was a controversial incident on the Jacobite a few years ago where a loco representative actually drove 'his' loco under guidance when the driver sustained an injury, in order to get him medical assitance, which highlighted the importance of this. In the DBS Case, the traction inspector is also normally a passed driver and it isn't uncommon for the two to switch duties through the trip. How does WCRC get around this if the driver and inspector are one and the same and they share the footplate with a fireman who isn't passed to drive on the national network?