Total/Partial Steam Ban 2014

The one that stands out to me was the 46115 incident in which the scot had a lineside fire preventing 4464 from doing those 2 90mph special tours. They were moved to December.

I love the Scot but she BETTER be in the best shape ever to not have things happen like that this summer.

 

I think you need to define "last years troubles" then. I've already given 2 examples where line-side fires were caused by non-WCRC maintained locos. Their locos may have more of a problem than others, but it's not a WCRC-only problem.

 

well thanks very much Big Al

 

In the course of several posts you have clearly established your position as critical of wcr and their locos. May I respectfully suggest you are becoming tedious and something of a bore. Have you anything constructive to advance on the subject?
If not the axe you seem to be grinding could do with being put away please.
By the way I am no wcr apologist nor have any affiliation.
Presumably wcr are meeting their objectives. Unless either they become more ambitious or market forces put more pressure on them to do things differently outcomes are likely to follow the well established pattern.

 

Why does every thread on this site turn into a massive Warzone and oneupmanship? It's really off putting...

 

To be fair, Drysdale's complaint concerns the locos that WCRC own/maintain (48151, 44932, 34067, et al) not all the ones they operate as TOC.

 

Define "significant" in this context.
"All"? Really? "Many" - sure; "most" - perhaps, though harder to support.

You may have a valid point, Drysdale, but it's being obscured by the way you are trying to make it.

 

Exactly!!

 

Absolutely right, and it does seem like the sensible thing to do would be not to plan any steam tours at all for July and August. On the other hand we've already had two very successful Torbay Expresses this July, neither of which had any fire related issues to my knowledge so it's probably better to leave things as is. As I think has been said before, the enthusiast isn't taken in by the sight of a diesel tucked inside a steam loco, and is well aware which loco is doing all the work. Whether the ordinary public are so aware, or even care that much if they are aware, I'm not so sure but leaving the "kettle at home" as another member put it further up thread would certainly be a way of finding out.

As others have already said, this topic always provokes a "heated exchange" so to speak which doesn't make for happy reading. I'm not sure it helps anyone to imply that a particular organisation doesn't maintain it's most valuable assets correctly. I wouldn't have thought a Businessman as astute as David Smith would allow that to happen frankly. I suspect it's got more to do with the conditions on the day, and, as has been pointed out already, the age of the design of the locomotive and accompanying spark arrestor involved.

 

What? Is that my brother writing? Have you gone funny in your old age?

Not really sure what the problem is anyway as many areas have had a lot of rain in July so far, particularly in the east and also in this area. 27ml so far and the New Forest fire index is still low.

Don (steam only)

 

Irrespective of the maintenance regime the conditions for lineside fires involves the crew(s) on the day and by definition if you criticise WCRC maintenance standards there is a corresponding criticism of WCRC crews; my (valid) point was that 60009 was crewed by WCRC staff and had no problems on the day. 46233 was crewed by DBS crews and had problems resulting in it being taken off the train at York and sent home loco + coach; was that down to maintenance standards or crew competence.

Whilst I am NOT suggesting it, the fact that WCRC crews achieved a successful conclusion and DBS crews failed to complete their scheduled turn of duty says more to define the accuracy of your statement than any other comment you appear to make against WCRC standards and crew competencies.

 

Hang on a minute. Wasn't the tour from which 46233 was removed The Scarborough Flyer, and a Vintage Trains excursion ? If so, I thought they used WCRC as their TOC. How did DBS become involved ?

 

As you say 46233 was a WCRC job not DBS:

THE SCARBOROUGH FLYER[Times](12/07)

​

Tyseley Warwick Rd-Scarborough (TY01) [wcrc]
46233: Tyseley-Scarborough-Derby
[46233 detached at York outward due to fire risk]

 

VT always use WCRC.

 

Probably cracking up after so many days and nights Owl watching in Scotland!

But, if steam hauled trains have to have a diesel in the consist, I personally feel it looks so much better if they are coupled to the steam loco at the front. Rather than tagged on the back of the train and looking like someone forgot to uncouple it after it hauled the ecs into such as Victoria etc.

There were some rather nice dual traction shots posted here last year on which I think I commented. Not sure I'll find the time, but if I do I'll try and link to them. I thought they gave a nice view of the mainline steam scene as it was at that time. Something a bit different.

 

Thank You Alastair. So Fred, did you get a little confuzzled there ?

 

Mea culpa - for some reason thought 46233 was on a tour from somewhere else; agree that Tyseley and WCRC work together but domestic difficulties are leading to sleep deprivation and poor postings ! Really must get to bed a little earlier !

 

Er, 46233 was only removed from her train at the insistence of Control at York, was she not, and for no other reason?

 

To be fair, the quantity of cinder particles is not really an effective measure of the spark arrestor performance. What is important is the particle size and whether the particles are still alight when they hit the ground. Spark arrestor performance is assessed during main line test runs. Ashpan arrangements are also important in preventing lineside fires.