NORTH WALES COAST EXPRESS 2012

***Breaking News***

No 9 has unfortunately failed for todays run but is going to be replaced by 6233 DoS at very short notice.

However, 6233 will run light and meet the train at Chester and take the train on from there.

Great effort by the 6233 guys for standing in at this late hour!

 

No. 9 has failed. Stock is currently being brought into platform 5. Well, pushed by 47798 and 47580. No news of what's going to happen, or what the fault is with No. 9.

 

As above 5944!!!

***Breaking News***

No 9 has unfortunately failed for todays run but is going to be replaced by 6233 DoS at very short notice.

However, 6233 will run light and meet the train at Chester and take the train on from there.

Great effort by the 6233 guys for standing in at this late hour!

 

46233 is being steamed up, but won't haul the outward. It may haul the return from Holyhead according to the announcement on the train, but only as far as Chester if it isn't permitted via Frodsham. 47580 is currently running round to take the train to Holyhead.

 

Departed Crewe 09.51.

 

Since when, as the Duchess has been on that line before, so what has changed?

(Makes no difference to me today as I'm off to work now)

 

I did this tour behind 6233 a coule of years ago so why the restricition?

 

Further update, 46233 is now only running from Holyhead to Chester. No other info available at the minute.

 

If it was the normal route from Crewe - Chester via Beeston, then the Duchess is fine for that, however the route the train currently takes to Chester via Frodsham is out of gauge for the Duchess, so presumably she travels via Beeston to meet/leave the train at Chester.

 

Further update and bad news unfortunately.

Network Rail have pulled the plug on 46233 moving light engine & support coach to Holyhead to meet the train so there's now no steam at all on today's run.

I have no news as to why they've pulled the plug but diesel all day now.

 

When the train passed us at Oxford Road it looked very lightly loaded.

A great shame for those who had paid to ride - but Network Rail yet again have managed to make a disaster out of a probable success story!

 

Err... so the marketing by RTC for this tour listing 46233 (and 6201 as i pressume the same restrictions apply to Lizzie as well) as one of the pool of locos was inaccurate? Opens up potential claims?

 

Watch out for those "exclusion clauses"

 

Would never pass as valid in a Civil Court - Balance of Probablilty is the measure

 

Afraid im going to have to side with Frank and the like here, NR should pay out to RTC who in turn should pass a percentage of it onto passengers, you can't account for the A4 failing, but there was a replacement ready and willing to go but NR vetoed it due to "Olympics restrictions" despite the North Wales coast route being at least 150 miles from any Olympics venue...

Pull the other one NR, this was just a case of "Can't be arsed" and if I was a passenger I'd be pretty anoyed there was a steamer sitting on Crewe which RTC and WCRC were prepared to use and NR said no.

 

Ralph - There is only one loco for each route as things currently stand - 6201 hasn't been in the pool, and 6233 can't cross the Weaver, but NR seem to move the goal posts with gay abandon so who am I to comment?
The Ouse Bridge has been unfit to carry an A4 all season although it weighs less and has a lower axle load than the duchess which has crossed several times this year - so now they have relented and No 9 is going on the 17th. Engineers and common sense never did mix - I had thirty years of that!

Accordingly there isn't a pool - just a high risk one loco strategy which has back fired, and could leave RTC open to claims for poor advance planning and management.

NR - "can't path due to the Olympics" Wonder how long and what they were smoking to think that one up!

 

As the marketing information forms a significant part of the contract, what locos are listed in the pool are 100% relevant. If it can't be used it should not be sold as an attraction.

That said, all credit to all concerned for trying to make a part solution fit the day. Shame on NR for preventing this.

 

Maybe so, but how can a loco be classed as a "standby loco" and "in the pool" for the route, it's not gauged for the said route ? That can only mean that whoever included it in the pool knew that if it had to be used it couldn't run the full itinerary. Is that misleading or not ?