The Steam Ban around York

Mike does this sort of ban happen in America









s.a.s likes this

 

The triangle at Southport should be able to be used as Merseyrail still use the sidings at Southport for stabling extra units during the day & overnight. If it was found to be unusable though, there is a triangle at Wigan between Springs Branch, Ince Moss & Bamfurlong Junctions.

 

Out of curiousity, who actually owns Scarborough turntable, is it considered NR property or has someone their name against it ?.

 

If it was network rail, they could move it to Blackpool...
And the York one to Weymouth...

 

Maybe not but we do have some major issues going on at the wreaking stinks out of THE Union Pacific steam shops in Cheyenne, Wyoming where 844 and 3985 are not being maintained to there normal high standards. The people don't know how to manage and take care of their locomotives unlike the guys. 844 has had some

So we have many obstacles that need some resolving over here too. That is the biggest bag of worms we have and it is a terrible and unfortunate situation with those 2 great locomotives

 

Mike does this sort of ban happen in America???

Oil firing has a lot of advantages.....

 

This latest solution opportunity, (LOL!), does perhaps bring such a move back on the agenda in the UK.

A couple of oil fired locos in the WCR stable could be rather useful.

 

I highly reccomend the article in this months railway mag.
There's some very key tidbits there if you read carefully, that may change many peoples opinions of understanding current events.

Most posts here focus on the event and current state missing the crucial parts of the story.. what happened before the trip, and what happens next in this case. Based on that article and some specific statements by network rail, in relation to before the event, during and requests afterwards are listed in that article, and as such, I now revise my initial opinions on posts 170 and 188.

Its my opinion Network rail may not be the Ogre of the event any longer and very defendable in their actions and puts them in position to dictate the rest of the story that follows, it also explains WCR statements (which without the NR statements seemed a bit strangely worded ).


My reading of it, suggests that mainline steam as we know it could be under threat or permanent change by recent changes depending on the possible outcomes of this dispute...

 

Any chance of elaborating a bit please?
Not everyone reads RM.
Unless a similar article is published elsewhere like SR.

 

Surely running 19th century based technology on a 21st century railway has been spelling the end of mainline steam as we know it for a long time?

Sadly the fragmented nature of railway preservation means we don't have a long double track preserved "main line" anywhere that could be, or could have been though all the processes to already have been upgraded to normal speed operation. I vaguely seem to recall there were "opportunities" a long way back, but that would have needed a focus that didn't exist as, quite naturally, people spending the time and money directed that at their local branch line or similar.

 

So on the strength of a magazine article and a dispute between a toc and only one region of network rail we are facing the prospect of an end to mainline steam?

 

The RM article also clearly states no other TOC is suspended for steam operation. That being the case WCR must be lacking in some regard that DBS is not. The question remains whether the WCR loco being blamed has affected the ability of WCR to operate locos owned by others or whether it is simply the case that rules were disobeyed and circumstantially the loco happened to be owned by the same parent company as the TOC. Is it an engineering matter or an operational one?

 

If the dispute escalates to include other regions, somebody somewhere must be thinking about setting up a rival TOC. Doubt this would be a quick and easy task though.

 

DBS won't come into the equation if they don't operate any steam tours in the NR region in question. There hasn't been any steam operations by any toc in the York area afaik since this all kicked off in July. When is the next DBS tour to York booked for? Time will tell as they say.....

 

For those who want to, you can download a digital issue of the latest RM for £2.99 from here.
http://www.pocketmags.com/viewmagazine.aspx?titleid=1379&title=Railway Magazine

I assume this is the appropriate part.
Railtours
West Coast and Network Rail at loggerheads.

 

taking the sum of what we know from the public domain:, WCRC, NR statements and the railway mag article, observations on NP..:

1. Network Rail has agreed a Red/Amber/Green protocol towards safety of operating steam starting this summer. (Source: RM)

2. Several days Prior to the 5972 railtour, NR issues an Amber warning. (Source : RM, Note: the article does not state whether it was a local, national or regional, or the duration or it's conditions or how it expires)

3. If an Amber warning is given by Network Rail, it is mandated that "significant diesel assistance should be provided"... (Source: RM)

4. "5972 was under power when it should not" (Source: Network Rail, additionally NR has collected evidence incluing “has voice recordings”)..

you can deduce that this means, in Network Rail's view, 5972 should have been a figurehead at the front of the train, being pushed by a diesel under an Amber warning..

5. A fire occurred. (Fact, Source: WCRC/NR).

It therefore could be alleged by Network Rail...
i. that this was proof of the need for the protocol and,
ii. that a breach of protocol directly caused it and,
iii. therefore immediate relief was needed (all WCRC steam was stopped) and,
iv. escalation to get guarantees needs to be sought to prevent it in the future.

6. NR stopped steam activities to minimize the risk, instigated a ban until / and seek & received assurances from WCRC. (Source: NR - presumably assurance is to adhere to protocol).

7. NR has performed investigations (and has voice, graphic and WCRC supplied detailed evidence: Source: RM) to support the above.


I’m guessing: NR feels this is evidence of Breach of protocol, and further more could demonstrate both the reasonability / proportionality of the protocol, because the breach was attributed to the cause of the fire.

What else we know..

A. WCRC hasn't yet satisfied NR's requirements to settle it (make of that what you will). (- Source: the ban being still in effect, NR statements as to how to achieve resolution, WCRC comments about paperwork vs operation)
B. The ban is still in place. (Fact - there is no LNE Steam, Source: WCRC)
C. We have seen diesels on the back pushing on many trips this summer (Fact) and many have commented on this activity (Source :NP) , if the RM article is correct.. then that is the defacto/approved state/protocol to operating steam in the future… this might be the change to how we see will probably see steam in the future on the mainline..
D. It affects all Steam locomotives, not just WCRC specific or 5972/46115 etc. (45305/46233 have been impacted - Source :RM)

so if maintaining status quo of "significant diesel assistance should be provided" in an Amber warning situation is not sufficient to settle NR's requirement...

then what are NR insisting on..? that is so difficult, thats holding WCRC back and indeed even going public ? - there is some suggestion in other articles in public domain, but for now i'm keeping that opinion to myself... but one loco group has declared maintenance will now take place in the Summer.. not the Winter in 2015 - make of that what you will ?


Again, I recommend reading the Railway Magazine article (and the rest of the page)... there's more context there.