The Cathedrals Express Sun 27th September

I have thought for quite some time now, and have expressed it on Nat Pres, that running 19th century technology, (steam locos), on a 21st century railway, should see it be consigned to secondary routes.

The Settle and Carlisle routes being one of those.

Trouble is, I can't think of any other routes!

 

The unions will force steam off. Corbyn in, steam is out.

 

But this situation with halls being out of gauge for these Paignton trips is nothing new, halls have been out of gauge on the route for years, SD should have really known this when they advertised them. when Kinlet Hall came down to the Paignton & Dartmouth railway a few years ago she came down on a low loader because of the gauging issue. Halls are wider across the cylinders than the Castles or Kings.

 

I think this is where WE can help the TOC's surely. There is a massive amount experience and knowledge on Nat Pres, and when the tour was first advertised, any one of us could have picked up the phone and call, shall we say Steam Dreams for example, and say to Charlie or Marcus "Great tour chaps, but I think the advertised locomotive will not fit!!!" Being several months before the tour, SD could have used their contacts at NR to confirm at that early stage whether this was indeed the case. Just imagine all of the frustration and anger that could have been avoided if we had "helped" with the process.

So let's start today and view the tours in the next 3 months, and if we can see an obvious anomoly such as a Hall from Paddington to Bristol (eek!!) get on the blower.

We really CAN make a difference.

 

Maybe... but isn't that one of the TOC's functions?

 

Exactly. Remind me who the TOC is again!

 

Indeed it is and should be the duty of the TOC but sometimes it goes wrong and a helping hand might be well received. For example, no one seems to have pre-empted the issues with 4936 to Kingswear to Westbury until it was too late to do anything about it. Had someone "in the know" amongst us flagged the potential guaging issue at the very beginning, an alternative locomotive could have been found with plenty of time in hand to do so.

 

Er, not quite! Whilst I'm sure there are plenty who feel they can offer expert advice, the only thing that matters is the certificate issued by NR's gauging engineers and they are only as good as the information before them, either terms of the data provided for the vehicle in question or the size of the hole through which it is to travel.

This job was originally requested for the B1 and the submission to NR included a number of other locos (including the 'Hall'), listed as reserve, for gauging purposes - something we do (and have been doing for some time) for almost every tour, as it is not just gauging. of course, that can require a change of motive power. The change from B1 to 'Hall' was at the request of the promoter.

Whether a loco, other than the booked one, is engaged to be stand-by, however, is a matter between the promoter and that loco owner, as there are, of course, costs and arrangements in prepping and steam a loco, even just as stand-by. The fall-back is diesel haulage or cancellation.

JS

 

Apparently the last Network Rail PR bod was sacked with less than 24 hours notice. It seems he didn't fit in.

 

So much easier to organise these trips from the comfort of a study armchair Ralph! And without having to invest even a single £ in doing so.

 

Again, not quite. The authority for a steam loco to operate over a given route can only be one issued by the NR gauging engineers, as the railway is NR's asset. That permission is only granted that after assessment, against the data they hold. It is not a question of whether they are able make that assessment - they most certainly are and they are well aware of the impact that their decisions have on steam charters.

Whether the data is correct is another matter entirely.

 

For the second time in recent weeks we have a WC spokesman, assuming JS is speaking in an official capacity, declaring the impotence of the TOC as regards motive power choice.
As Big Al suggests, a blind man on a galloping horse could see a likely problem in this case To paraphrase Josey Whales, someone is peeing down the back of customers and telling them its raining.

 

This is one of those arguments which re-appear regularly on NP. On earlier iterations, it has been pointed out that trackwork is dynamic - the very reason railway track is laid on ballast is that it provides a flexible base, able to absorb the shock of trains passing, but as it does so, it can move.

I understand that for this reason, Network Rail have set a standard as to how long a route's "gauging" is considered to be known for - an expiry date for the gauging, if you like. Network Rail put considerable effort (as they have to) into ensuring routes are gauged regularly, but gauging needs checking if a particular type of vehicle hasn't used a route for a period of time. I seem to recall that the standard for how long since a vehicle has used a given route before re-gauging is necessary has been changed in comparatively recent times.

As referred to already, it is the kinematic envelope that matters - vehicles with the same measurements will have a different kinematic envelope - i.e. how the vehicle body moves when rounding curves etc. Steam locomotives behave differently to bogie or 4 wheel rail vehicles which make up the rest of the fleet on the national network.

Even inputting the data for a locomotive is a complex and specialist job, and that is just to allow gauging to be run through "the system".

Last minute issues may suggest a resource problem, especially if they occur more than once. Once could be new gauging data has been received late in the day and time is insufficient to re-run the vehicle data through it. Can you imagine the outcry if a train hit something, somebody was injured and it was revealed that the data proving this would happen had been received but not yet processed?

Finally, and again not for the first time, the principle of "Open Access" refers to the Operator of train service,s not the equipment they use. There is no presumption that every railway Line in Europe must be able to operate every piece of railway equipment.

An operator obtains a Safety Certificate, negotiates a Track Access agreement and this specifies what vehicles will be used. For regular operators of routes, gauging will be undertaken at this stage but it is always possible that stock may not fit.

Steven

 

And now, a slap about gauging from the RAIB.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nt_data/file/465814/R172015_151007_Moston.pdf


Report 17/2015: Trains struck platform at Moston, Manchester

It is unlikely that the accident would have occurred if the spacing between Moston Down platform and the adjacent track had met current criteria for new platforms. A high proportion of Network Rail platforms do not meet these criteria and, since 2009, continued use has been permitted where there has been no indication of significant risk. It is possible that historical movements of the platform are at least part of the reason for the tight clearances at Moston, but there has been no significant movement since January 2009. Although not related to the accident, RAIB observed shortcomings in the Network Rail process for identifying such movements.

recommendation is addressed to Network Rail and requires that it provides effective processes for identifying platforms at which the distance to the adjacent track is reducing gradually.