RTC 2021

Scotsman wasn't an A3 when built. For complete authenticity it could only be in BR livery, even with a single chimney. It's fine as it is.

 

The Standard Tank was the Severn Valley's 80079 and it stalled twice on the branch close to MP19 on 2nd May 1998 and 17th October 1999. Not short of steam either time. Old Llandudno Jn driver told them at the Junction that the trains were overloaded and was actually waiting for us close to where we stalled.

 

Planned for 60mph max doesn't mean that will be the maximum speed on the day, it depends on the locomotive on the train.

 

Have I missed something, what sparked this discussion? I remember the Standard 4 incident well but I was not on the train. The Welsh Mountaineers I remember with most affection were those hauled by 61994. I was on a few of those.

 

I understand the argument, but the two workings are very similar (pretty much the same timings and loads as far as I can see) and I would have expected RTT to show 75mph for both. No matter the load I can't recall a Bulleid ever being given a 60mph 'rating' on RTT.

 

I agree. Comments like that were a treasonable offence a few years ago in some circles.
Some years ago, I had a rough time one evening when doing a slide show for suggesting that building a replica would be better value and the original could be stuffed and mounted. I guess it would have been harder to fundraise for a "new" Flying Scotsman, as many contributions were because of its name, not any historical significance.

Cheers, Neil

PS £4 million sticks in my memory as well. That would equate to roughly two ten year overhauls for large main line locos and ten year overhauls for another two small to medium size locos for heritage railway use.

 

But the S&C is limited to 60 mph so you might expect RTT to say that

 

We've been here before - the whole - lets bash Flying Scotsman for the money that was spent on it - has cropped up as many times as what colour should Loco X be painted!

If you build a "new" A3 that locomotive immediately becomes "just another steam locomotive" to the general public.

Immediately you have lost the USP that the locomotive is Flying Scotsman - it is this USP that draws the crowds of people across the entire country - we can bemoan trespass when it occurs but I don't know any other steam locomotive that garners the publics affection in the way that she does.
It is this encouragement, to see one of the most famous steam locomotives of them all (in steam...) that generates the interest needed in future generations for the railway preservation movement to continue to grow.

Still - I've digressed massively as this thread is supposed to be about RTC tours - of which I'm really looking forward to travelling behind Tornado over the South Devon banks on the first Royal Duchy tour of the year (all be it with a shorter steam section than originally envisaged).
My last tour was the RTC Christmas White Rose also behind Tornado in December 2019- it's been too long!

 

It depends what pool has been submitted to NR as part of the application. The times have been planned based on the loco requiring the slowest path. A black 5 would be a good shout here for example (as they are pathed for 60mph). 35018 is the main advertised loco, however if on short notice the merchant fails and a substitute is needed then that sub must come from the pool of locos that has been submitted and therefore the timings must still be able to suit the loco. Within this application all locos are gauged for the route etc. Timings have been noted to be similar and this is because this is the times that fit into the WTT.

Hope this make sense.

 

It does indeed, Will. A very lucid explanation that helps a lot.

 

Not a discussion; just clarifying something Davo raised in #198 on the thread.

 

There's an account with several pictures at http://www.zen70752.zen.co.uk/bat/out/miner/index.htm

 

A comprehensive description from RTC in response to a passenger on the train asking what caused the problem with Flying Scotsman last Saturday:

White Rose 19th June.

Following your trip with us on Saturday on the White Rose and having conducted a thorough investigation with all parties involved, yesterday, we are writing to update you as to the cause of the issues encountered on the day which led to the delay and eventual failure of Flying Scotsman on the outward journey to York.

The locomotive had run and performed well up until Peterborough where a short delay was encountered due to an overhead wire issue at Huntingdon.

This delay resulted in a challenge for the footplate crew as they were unable to regain sufficient steam to power the locomotive successfully. Losing the timed pathing position on the network and several stops to allow for passing service trains added to the ongoing complications. Despite many attempts and the hard work of the crew our slow progress on the East Coast Main Line was causing prolonged delays to the rail network so a decision was made after consultation with Network Rail that we were to terminate our journey with steam. Our operator, West Coast Railways, were fortunately able to negotiate a path on the network allowing for a diesel locomotive to come and take over hauling our train to York.

We acknowledge that on the day there were reports and information given that the coal supplied was of poor quality which in turn was reported to be causing the lack of steam. Our discussions have identified that the coal supplied was sourced from an alternative provider to that previously used for a number of years, owing to the unavailability of UK coal, however we can confirm that the supply of coal is currently being used to power many UK based steam hauled charter operations including others promoted by ourselves. On the same day, Saturday, 60163 Tornado successfully steam hauled, using the same coal, from York to Edinburgh.

After many discussions in the hope to be in a position to have a solid explanation to the events that occurred on Saturday it would appear that a catalogue of small operational issues, on this occasion, proved problematic for Flying Scotsman.

Such events, particularly after a challenging time for our industry, impact many organisations and personnel involved on a personal level and we would like to thank all, particularly our volunteer stewards, for their determination and hard work on the day to overcome the issues to the best of their abilities.

Every best effort was made by all on the day and the numerous messages of gratitude for the experience of travelling on Saturday already received are very much appreciated. We hope that this letter offers you some understanding of the complexity of the situation.

Please accept our most sincere apologies for any disappointment you experienced due to the issues, which were outside of our control, and we hope that despite the issues that you still enjoyed your day.

Kind regards

The Railway Touring Company

 

Interesting follow up is that according to Railway Herald, Steam Dreams' Flying Scotsman to Scotland tour due to run tomorrow is now to be diesel hauled throughout.

 

I know enough thanks.

Next door to you by the sound of it then!

 

It is good to see such openness but whilst the statement has seemingly ruled out the coal as the cause of the problems, it hasn't actually said what the "catalogue of small operational issues" were.