The Steam Ban around York

If the suspension relates to the failure to comply with the protocol but the protocol is not currently being applied, because its got cooler/wetter and no FBU strikes, why is the suspension still in place?

 

Well, it looks as though we'll certainly see and end to Summer steam as we know it. If there was flagrant disregard of a protocol that was implemented and already flagged-up by NR to the TOC, then I'm in the NR camp. With hindsight, NR has actually been fairly lenient with WCRC in relation to various problems in the past, but inevitably, if you keep loading the camel, then its back will eventually break. Its just unfortunate that the monopoly held by WCRC over steam in Britain could well be the means of its demise.

Reading between the lines, the ban is probably still in place because NR are seeking assurances that WCRC will fully comply, and need to be satisfied that the TOC has systems in place that will prevent this from happening again. Possibly as a result of previous chances, NR is not yet happy that such systems are in place.

 

Reading between the lines that translates to the fact that ALL steam trips will be significantly "shoved" during the summer months without exception.
If not "full time".
If that is the case people just won't book, end of.
So the steam market drops through the roof & everybody looses out. Not least the loco owners who spend mega bucks & time to get their locos up to main line standard.
I don't know how the likes of Tyseley are taking this?
Edit, a couple of posts were made whilst I was writing this.

 

My guess... see: 5.iv, 6 & A above..leads to B.

The FBU strike or the weather does not appear to be a factor in this specific situation, in any of the public domain statements ..

 

What we don't know that might have a bearing on the outcome..

1. Any specific agreements on the day (if any)
2. Conversations between the parties prior or during (if any)
3. How the RAG system is agreed & administered (geographically, by region, centrally, or who/how it is determined and on what basis / duration etc).
4. Any specifics that could have mitigation on the event.

There's always more than we know out there.

 

There appears to something quite significant which is missing from the facts listed by ADB968008, namely "Source: WCRC". Up until this point, we have had no real evidence either way and so NR have been the villain because they have banned steam in LNE zone. We have now heard some evidence on their behalf and they begin to look less guilty .. but, other than a single press release, we have not heard WCRC's side of the argument, so I think I'll reserve judgement for the moment.

 

I think you are spot on there Ralph. No surprise of course as you do spend quite a lot of time working on some trains with a steam loco at the front.

The few of us who do care probably make very little difference to the finances of the operations.

 

What is "significant diesel assistance" though as that's a rather vague description, is it 50% of the workload, 90% or assistance on hills ?, also add into this steam can be agreed to work unassisted with certain circumstances under amber conditions (4965 on the Shakespeare with a lighter load and not being worked hard for example has happened due to local agreement and a decent record).

Doesn't really help NR's stance when the interpretation of "amber warning" is something less than crystal clear, who decides what conforms to significant assistance and what doesn't ?, if WCRC and the LNE bloke have different interpretations of what conforms to "significant diesel assistance" then who it right, with no obvious suggestion of what that conforms to ?.

 

Agreed there is very little from WCRC.
(Personally I think thats a good thing).

Note there are very few verifiable facts.. only quoted sources, from industry press, NR, WCRC, which we have to presume have facts (or statements) otherwise they would not have published them.

At the end of the day we are not judge and jury, just impacted passengers by the tribulations of the events unfolding who are left scratching their heads to figure it out and are concerned about the outcome.

 

Another issue arises if the diesel intended to assist becomes unable to do so. What if hypothetically 5972 was actually getting the train to a more convenient location rather than sitting down causing all sorts if chaos but complying with the protocol?

 

But if a box is to be a permanent feature of all summer steam then surely the cost of the tour rises. This increases the cost of what is already a fairly pricey commodity. That may influence how many bookings are taken. On the other hand, Jacobite continues to run box free as does the Torbays. I wouldn't read too much into this for the time being.

 

I think another thing NR ought to consider, given Mr Varser's personal opinion on steam seems to be something less than a state secret, there's always going to be a suspicion that any decision of his is taken with a vested interest, regardless of whether it's based on decent factual evidence to hand at the time or not, to be blunt, someone who's anti steam, really should not have a role that's involved in the running of it where someone impartial on the issue is required.

 

I suspect Mr Varser's personal opinion of steam has little to do with the current matter particularly if, as stated in the RM article, other operators are not subject to the current ban. It's worth noting that many senior railway managers might have an opinion on steam - they probably don't wear it on their sleeves and there will be as many who do their utmost to enable steam to run as there are those who would like to see the back of it. However there is a substantial body of opinion within and without Network rail, even amongst pro-steam folk, which would like to see steam limited to certain routes where any problems will impact less on other services. We've been very lucky over the last couple of decades but perhaps, whether we like it or not, there will be some rationalisation of steam over the coming years. The company that will suffer the most if this happens will have to recognise that they are partially responsible for the position they will find themselves in.

Regarding steam bans and the current situation, I believe that Nunney Castle needs to somehow get to Grosmont at some point this month. I'm guessing that WCRC will not be doing it and that it won't get there on the back of a road transporter. It might be worth waiting to see what happens in that particular case..

 

It would appear that they are............................

http://www.national-preservation.com/threads/lner-4464-merseyside-streak-1st-november-2014.340190/

 

Errm, Isn't that a WCRC operated train?

 

Sorry my mistake.

 

Trans Pennine Streak now rerouted to avoid Yorkshire, next the Tin Bath?

Then all the Christmas specials

oh boy a lot of money is going to be lost

Steam locos in Yorkshire as rare as hens teeth

Neil

 

It probably doesn't, but because of his opinion on it being well known, there will always be a suspicion to the contrary, I'm not suggesting he's letting personal feelings get involved, but by letting them be known like that does leave him open to suspicion/accusation.