Railway Touring Company's 2017 Programme

Having been initially advertised as a double header it seems a fair assumption the load will need more than a single 5X. If RTC opt to go for one steam plus diesel to cater for the load, when a second steam loco has been offered, it represents a very poor statement of intent.
Of course it may be that the load is within a single loco limit.

 

The original advert was Northbound over Shap and Southbound round the coast.It is now Northbound round the coast and Southbound over Shap, so it might be within the limit for a single loco.

 

Very possibly but there are a few stiff climbs between MCV and Carnforth whichever route it takes.

 

The Jube has recently been allowed out twice on it's own with load 11 over Miles Platting & Wilpshire. The loco in my books is more than capable on this route. Lindal Bank is the only section of concern for this route.

 

Galatea seemed to take a good hold on Lindal Bank back in April on the Great Britain with load ten and an idle 47. Although this was with Gordon Hodgson at the helm! Can't see Leander facing many difficulties if the conditions are right. The two times I've been on Lindal in the westbound direction the bank has been taken on at speed, 46100 and 45699 both reaching 50 just before Ulverston.

 

Plus its not such a busy part of the network.
It is not so much what the loco is capable of but what the imposed rules allow. We can only speculate on the basis it was allocated a double header and historically has always been so on this train (2015 excepted when, ironically, 45690 was a no show and 45407 took it solo with a diesel on the rear). Time will tell but it seems odd and premature of RTC to rule out the second steam loco.

 

Depends where it's looped on the way back but it doesn't want to be hanging around between Carlisle and Plumpton.

Mick 45305 says 'if the conditions are right'. Agreed but I wonder what the chances are of that. Even money maybe?

 

The way to mitigate both those situations is two locos. Arguably more tickets would be sold if they were both steam locos too. As @BigAl has said elsewhere use of two locos is often unavoidable and if double headed steam is possible it solves a lot of problems. I remain perplexed that RTC would not at least keep its options open. Perhaps it will prove the opposite of some tours by providing more than it promises.

 

NR instructions for loads hauled by steam locos says a Class 6 can take 11. In the period 15th September to 31st December this is reduced to 9. So with a Support and Kitchen frees up 9 or 7 for passengers. If RTC exceed these loads knowingly then they should make clear their intentions in the promotional material. These instructions are in the public domain.

 

It follows, then, it must have been decided to keep this train within the limit for one 5X rather than two 5MTs?
Isn't that where the finger pointing begins because the promoter books a train and the TOC then applies the appropriate operational controls? The additional loco requirement is therefore an orphan. TOC merely responding to customer requirements while promoter in the hands of its TOC. Meanwhile the offer of a second steam loco is the elephant in the room, ignored to keep the cost down?

 

NR consider the jubilees to be Class 6's. The issue is what has RTC asked the TOC to provide in terms of passenger numbers. If they have asked for more than can be accommodated in 7 coaches at this time of year then they know when selling the tour that it will need to be double headed or assisted. Openess?

 

Does RTC negotiate direct with loco owners then approaches TOC once provisionally agreed?
RTC informs the steam loco to the TOC which then presents the range of operational options to RTC having considered the proposal, applying its operational expertise to match to the identified loco?
RTC then chooses from said options which will presumably include route and max permitted load with a confirmation to TOC followed by advertisement. TOC gets on with application for path etc and notifies intended traction as agreed with RTC?
Perhaps the variable is how well ticket sales go that may demand extra vehicle(s)? If this is a late surge maybe too late to book second steam so a DL joins the consist if not already planned to do so?
Circularity, why not provisionally book double header and adjust downwards as necessary?

 

Not at all, its all in the terms and conditions,
They are clear to read,
No need for prior notice if pax read them...

 

Yes. In the SMALL PRINT. Not open and not honest. If RTC have nothing to fear they would state the full method of traction rather than the misleading "Steam Hauled."

 

Have been over Lindal Bank behind 5690 and she took it in her stride.

 

All ifs and maybes. Why not wait to see what the line up actually is before remounting your high horse?

 

Ah, there be dragons!

In a simplistic world, RTC would secure the services of a locomotive. Given the class, the maximum unassisted load would be known. RTC would then liaise with their TOC who would then agree the tour and negotiate the path. If its a say Class 7 loco then the load is 12 in total. I would expect RTC then to cost on the basis of 10 passenger coaches and if stated as steam hauled to deliver on it. If the load is greater, and agreed as greater with the owner and the TOC then Steam Hauled would be misleading. If challenged at law, full disclosure would reveal the intention prior to the event. Of course if the Class 7 failed and a lower class was used then the use of diesel assistance would be justified.

 

Err... it's a discussion forum!

 

More like a cracked record forum with the RTC bashing that goes on from some people.

 

Who is bashing. Just a civilised speculation about how the RTC 2017 tours may look allied to the NR notice on loadings.