Spirit of the Lakes 45699 16th April

Thought I had seen some idiots in my time but these two trespassing at Eskmeals with one up a tree on the embankment take some beating .

 

What was the mileage of the steam leg yesterday? I note that 45699 was originally due to run from Carlisle. According to mainline steam, the steam section was reduced to Selafield to Carnforth which was just one hour 47 minutes in duration!

 

Avoids having to get the 5 metre pole out.

 

Very true Ian but still not good to see !

 

The steam mileage for Sellafield-Carnforth UDGL works out at 63.9 miles, assuming (based on RTT) that this tour was routed via Barrow rather than Park South-Dalton Junction. In overall figures, the round trip mileage from Bridlington for this tour totalled 475 miles, so Galatea's contribution equated to a not-very-impressive 13.4% steam haulage component of the overall trip.

Had Galatea been able to work through from Carlisle as originally planned, this would have increased steam mileage to 114.7 miles/ 24% of the overall tour. Better, (and that's what the tour participants would have signed up to) but still pretty lean fare considering that some who had joined the train in East Yorkshire would have been travelling from seven in the morning until their arrival back home at some time around 10 o'clock in the evening.

All of which perhaps puts some flesh on the bones of Big Al's description of this tour as "the sad looking Bridlington trip" across on the Scot Commemorative thread (post 124)

 

Scot Commemorative, 332 miles (by gps), steam contribution 100%. Welcome to the world of the steam railtour!

 

And which of these tours was almost fully booked?

Strange though it may seem to many of us an awful lot of passengers book on tours for a day out regardless of what is on the front (or the back!) For most on the Bridlington train the big disappointment about the steam loco coming on at Sellafield and not Carlisle, as intended, was not the reduced steam mileage but the fact that they were denied the opertunity of seeing the loco close up. But as passengers left the train at the end of the day they seem to have had what they came for, namely a good day out.

Peter James

 

Especially not when one of them represents one of our top mag's

 

Don't make much of that at all, but since it seems an attempt to knock WCRC who cares.....

 

The report must have been incorrect but if it were out of a desire to criticise WC there is far stronger material to use ......

 

I am sure its entirely coincidental that whenever these hearsay rumours get written on here they tend to be anti WCRC, its a funny old world.

 

Taking your indirect pop at the original post, it was not a WC bash nor am I anti WC. As mentioned in the topic specific thread its easier not to comment at all on anything WC does or does not do lest the cheerleaders get shirty. Knowing several WC ground troops and having the utmost regard for their work, does not mean a view on the companies management should not be ventured, based on recent publicly announced findings.
The info given about the supposed path problem was from a non basher of WC who regularly posts on here. At the time it was believed to be a matter of fact which others have later refuted. Thats where it is so leave it be please.