Royal Duchy 2015

Agreed. The clip of Tangmere clanking away at Nailsea would have been when the train was approaching Yatton station. <BJ>

 

We have no idea do we, could have happened within 10 seconds of leaving the depot and the crew who would likely have more idea what it was than speculation from a you tube video could have decided that whilst it was making a noise it was perfectly safe - the subsequent failure with middle engine cross head problems may point to the source?

 

Haven't got my source material to hand, but what type of anti-vacuum valves do Bulleids have? They tend to clank quite a bit (although most prominently on LMS locomotives), and it would explain the noise if it was coasting. However, never noticed it before on 34067.

 

Tangmere's baffling noise wise. Can't say it's ever sounded the same twice and we've travelled behind it 21 times over the years. It sounds like a box of stones being shaken about some days yet performs spectacularly. On other days it sounds like an even beat three cylinder engine should and performs worse. An enigma of an engine but we love it for just that.

 

4936 may not have all the exams/paperwork up to date as it hasn't been on NR for some time, plus I recall a guaging restriction at Devonport prevents Halls reaching Cornwall.

 

The gradients west of Plymouth aren't anywhere near as severe as Dainton, Rattery or Hemerdon, so 4936 could be detached at Plymouth, turn/be serviced at Laira and return in time for the return.

James

 

On paper but the Cornish main line is still tricky and twisty, Largin bank has claimed a few victims, including class 37's and HST's before.

 

I confess, I slightly forgot about Largin... and come to think about it, Doublebois isn't exactly level!

That's the long day at work talking!

James

 

I know that Kinlet Hall is perfectly registered to work on the mainline it had a annual test start of June. But yes it probably wouldn't be easy to pull off.

 

Well, I don't think there's any disputing that Tangmere failed to make it up Hemerdon and caused some fairly substantial delays in the process. Whether it was the load or not can be debated, but I was responding to your point that posters were being pessimistic about Tangmere's ability to climb tough inclines.

 

When 34092 was on the mainline it was a most dependable and much admired machine. Tangmere is not, no matter how you might choose to view it, a locomotive of similar status and stature. Some may like the uncertainty that goes with the allocation of this engine as motive power. Those who deal with the outcomes of the various delays attributed to it would be excused for being less than enthusiastic. The time may well come when the mainline future of this machine becomes untenable.

 

Many of the tours that 34067 may have been scheduled to power have been removed when a substitute could not be found.

 

The fate of 1A98 and 1L36 - the two services most affected by events on Hemerdon last Sunday evening - didn't even get a mention on the Royal Duchy thread, except in respect of Big Al's post (#86) that rightly acknowledged FGW's role in adopting a flexible approach that helped to minimise delays and inconvenience to RTC's customers.

I wonder how FGW's own customer's felt about what transpired with these services. 1A98 arr PAD 00.41/ 79L, with its intermediate calls at Berks and Hants wayside points variously 85L-88L. And 1L36 via Bristol, arr PAD 01.18am/ 40L, with its intermediate calls along the GWML at variously 57L-67L.

Doesn't seem as if the enthusiast community gives a toss, though, based on the observation that the inconvenience and disturbance to the travel arrangements of regular FGW passengers on this scale didn't even merit a mention.

 

Apparently the comments on FGW's twitter feed that night didn't make for pleasant reading. A lot of taxis involved as well to get people home.

 

I thought FGW passengers were used to inconvenience and disturbance by now. Some time last week they will have been screwed by signal failures or overrunning engineering works. The week before that they will have been screwed by permanent way issues, next week and the week after they will screwed by PW issues.

I get you point tho, I have made the point before, Tangmere is too risky to be let out on its own.

 

Well I was on a FGW service on Saturday evening from Taunton to Plymouth the train arrived Taunton 15 minutes late it only had one power car working, it wasn't going very fast, then the guard announced that due to the problem the train would not be stopping at Totnes because if it did it would stall on the banks, Totnes passengers had to get off at Newton Abbot and wait the next train which was running an hour late and none of this was down to a steam train!!

 

Difference is when a hst goes down to one power car working they can get over the banks as long as they take a run up. That's the beauty of having a tail gunner with you, when the loco on the front can't make it.

Said it a few times before. Tangmere needs to be ripped from the mainline have its certification withdrawn and needs a full overhaul, to cure it finally of its issues or get used to it being shoved everywhere because it cannot be trusted alone.

 

I think the same as above on Tangmere. Let's rally and raise funds to get 34092 on the mainline. I think that is what its owner said it would take to get Wells on the mainline this time around.

 

Just had my Email Tickets and letter for Sunday and the engine is Number 9. Guess that's subject to all going well this afternoon and on Wednesday.

 

Whist i don’t disagree with the statement, you have to ask, is the maintenance/ repair around Tangmere as good now as what it was when IR had a stake , and no doubt a large say in how the engine was maintained, now, one partner is it would seem a sleeping partner, so with no experienced head ensuring things are done right are standards being allowed to drop? who is operations manager now? and do they decide on the maintenance work, and who signs off that work to say its been done to a reasonable standard?