Royal Duchy 2015

Very sorry to see that Tangmere slipped to a stand on Hemerdon. I believe this is the first instance of a failure to surmount the S Devon banks since steam was allowed back in the early 1990s following the GWR 150 difficulties, though there have been a few close calls.

Diesels on the back are NOT the answer. Quite frankly, what's the point? Any diesel on the Duchy, Weymouth or Torbay would have to assist at some point. I don't buy the 'taking its own weight' nonsense either.

But what we clearly DO need is back up much closer to hand, with a diesel shadowing the tour. There are surely places at Taunton, Exeter and Plymouth where it could get out of the way? And at Pen Mill as I have suggested for the Weymouth.

This would give confidence to the punters that they will get steam and more confidence to NR that if there are difficulties they will be promptly resolved. If that means higher prices I'm willing to pay.

But I am not going to pay good money to be shoved around by a diesel. If you want to see the scenic railways of S W England by diesel then a rover ticket is far better value!

 

That sounds about right. The Tractive Effort for a West Country is lower than might be apparent, especially after the boiler pressure was reduced from 280 to 250psi - at 27,700lbf, it's more or less the same as a Hall and rather less than a Castle.

The acceptable limit should be what the engine can reliably start on the steepest gradient: having a run at a bank will enable it to be climbed more quickly and it may even be reasonable to base the scheduled timetable on that expectation, but you have to allow for the possibility that, for any reason, a train may have to come to a stand on the steepest gradient on the route, and it is surely a bare minimum of rostering that, if so, the train should be able to restart from that situation. Anything more is overloaded - you can't rewrite the laws of physics, though it seems that the promoters of steam tours keep trying...

Tom

 

Not such a thickmike!

 

I suspect if you want "all steam", enthusiasts are going to have to recalibrate their expectations of the relationship between load, route, motive power and price. As an example - want a West Country on the Devon Banks without assistance? That probably means only 7 coaches, so the ticket price needs to be set to make money from that reduced number of passengers. It is startling how quickly the permissible load starts to drop off once you reach about 1 in 100.

Here's a left-field suggestion: would it be possible to run a tour with, say, 11 coaches to a reasonable destination on the flat, then knock off four (and the passengers) for those who want to pay a bit extra for the section on the hills. For example, you could run e.g. London to Bristol or Exeter, say, with a West Country and 11; 4 coaches of passengers have paid a somewhat reduced fare and get a few hours at their leisure in Exeter, and those who want to pay a supplement then get the run to Plymouth and back over the hills, but with a more realistic load. You could even have a diesel on the back for the initial run, so there is a diesel for shunting and it would be nearby for a backup if required, but the bit on the serious hills (which I suspect would be where the true "steam only" enthusiasts would really want to know that it was genuinely steam-only) would not have a diesel, but with the reassurance of one nearby.

Tom

 

I really cannot see the 21st railway accepting that an additional loco pathway should be operated for such as a diesel loco to follow such steam hauled trains just in case they stall somewhere.

If the economic loading of a train takes it into stalling territory then the diesel needs to be in the consist at the start. And those booking tickets should know that is a possibility when they part with their cash.

The point being as I have consistently suggested is that it is a fairly small number of paying customers who only want pure steam. Most others, I suggest, are not that bothered. A shame there aren't on train surveys about this. Or perhaps better, surveys of customer databases.

For the avoidance of doubt I am a pure steam man. And I haven't found a main line steam trip that meets my rather narrow and somewhat demanding expectations since July 9th 2012. So my gricing since then has been from the comfort of my armchair. And do you know what, I think there are even more main line steam trips running now than when I was a paying customer. Somehow all have survived my loss!

 

As I said earlier, it's not just the promoters either. It's the TOC and NR too. Acceptance of an overloaded train is NR's end responsibility as they can simply say no to running it.

 

But isn't that exactly what happens with the Great Britain, a diesel shadowing the tour?

 

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer that Big Al has just made.

 

But you said that you couldn't see the 21st Century railway accepting such a path where in fact such a thing does happen. The cost/prestige of the tour in question wasn't part of the discussion at the time. I accept that the busier the route, the fewer paths available but if there is one available I can't see NR saying no.

 

We'll only find out if people are prepared to pay a higher fee for guaranteed steam with lighter loads if someone tests the water. 61306 has done a few runs unassisted with shorter trains but I've no idea if the promoters have decided if it's viable at the fares they charged. Would I be happy paying the current £79 for a Royal Duchy with a diesel shoving up the banks? The answer is an emphatic "NO!" Would I be prepared to pay £90 for a diesel free train, most certainly yes. $64,000 question being, "how many likeminded souls are there?"

 

Sounds like while waiting for the 47 at Plymouth someone might have got to work and sorted it out. Hope so as I am told by RYTC that she is the replacement for 6023 on the Pembroke Coast on the 23rd.

 

Cost/prestige and I will also add the unique nature of a trip has a lot to do with it and if they weren't part of the discussion before they should have been. And in any case they have been added to the discussion now.

My understanding is that a diesel shadowing a once a year prestige trip isn't doing that just because the train may be overloaded with a good chance of stalling on steep grades. It is doing it for a number of reasons including running a very long way from home and a long way from any reasonable chance of rescue needed for any reason. With the additional costs built into a very substantial ticket price. I can see the 21st Century railway handling that once off situation because of it's unique circumstances.

I see a significant difference with regularly run trains with low profit margins on perhaps busier and sometimes on more "important routes" needing a shadowing diesel. Especially when there is an established record of stalls and/or very near misses from stalls. I cannot see the 21st Century railway handling such a very regular situation where problems have happened in the past and have every chance of happening again. When it is so easy to just attach the diesel to the back of the train before the train starts it's journey.

Some pure steam people seem to accept reality.

Others seem not to do so.

 

You can count me as a like minded soul!

 

So to summarise then (based on the facts supplied kindly by Ian Riley) - Its more than likely that Tangmere just had a bad day. Perhaps she had a bit too much load...

Lets see how the Brit does on the 6th September. I'm considering making this my first ever main line steam tour - what do you all think ?

 

So when Steam Dreams ran 60007 to Edinburgh about a month ago, a diesel shadowed that tour, north and south, and on the ECML.

Does it now come down to the Tour Operator, not wanting to pay for it???

 

I am not sure, but I suspect that Tangmere may be the chosen engine for some of the West Somerset Steam Expresses from 15 August, unless of course 70013 emerges, or 60009 heads south (as rumoured). This may be an opportunity to run without a diesel assuming 34067 is repaired in time.

 

Sadly when it comes to Bulleid Pacifics too many look to the Interchange Trials and not enough look to the experiences of those who used, or rather tried to use, these machines on the much lamented Somerset & Dorset. These engines were found to be erratic and undependable. It was no accident that the Standard Fives were much preferred. Clayton's 7F had its own set of issues but was well suited to the work on the line it was designed for and was most unlikely to slip to a stand still or struggle to start a load. The 9F proved to be the master of heavy passenger working on this route - though wanting to make use of one on an unfitted freight was a very bad idea, but that does not concern us today.
People can, to an extent, forgive the outcomes of poor coal, unfortunate mechanical incidents and human misfortune but rostering a locomotive to work a train in the face of evidence that it may not have the capacity to successfully deal with the combination of route, load and conditions to be faced is simply unacceptable. You can play that game on a preserved line if you have the wish to. The National network is another matter. In the space of three days we have had two cases of poor choices being made. The combination of traction, load and route requires far more attention than it has received to date. If the outcome of such attention is that some routes see a more limited use, or loads go down and prices up, or some engines are restricted to the water level options, then so be it.