46233 to York: 10/12/16

And on time out of Connington!!

 

The one good thing about a crap schedule is that it gives you a chance to make up time!

 

Fred Kerr at #71 are you reading this??? Or do you have more drivel to spout???

 

Open Train times map shows 46233 let out in front of 1A96.
The turn-in to the slow at Huntingdon is still apprach-controlled, I think, so that might not be helpful.
Let's hope it hasn't delayed it by much if at all.
UPDATE
Unfortunately it might be delaying the 20:16 to KX [calling at most shacks]. This left Peterborough around 16 late but arrived at Huntingdon around 19 late after 46233 cleared the platform. I suspect the 321 (?) might end up chasing Yellows until the Duchess gets into it's stride - with or without 'shovage'.

 

Smart run down Stoke bank and quick water stop- now only a couple of mins down into Huntingdon!

 

RTT states on time.

Edit - Now states 2L

 

Was the 10mph restriction at Ali Pally onto the slow line did for her - no chance to get a run at the flyover -IMO rail condition was very poor- greasy with lots of lovely drizzle

 

Now ahead of an all stations stopper that should have been ahead of her. The stopper left Peterborough 16 late.

 

The delay was nothing to do with the loco or the TOC, it was down to some bonehead in NR who thought it was a good idea to send it over the flyover to the Hertford line with poor rail conditions from a standing start at Alexandra Palace.

 

Don't know about the current speed restriction status.
According to Realtime Trains 46233 was on the Down Fast at Finsbury Park and appears to have been block-to-block with everything else having to go via Hertford.
I think the turn-in to the Down Slow, and then to Down Hertford, at Ally Pally was only 25mph [FCC route knowledge now over 10 years out-of-date]. If so, she would not have the chance of a 'run' at gradient.
If, as you say, rail conditions were not at their best then I can quite understand why she couldn't make the climb.
P.S. Now apparently 'storming' along the Up Slow passing Sandy 1L.

 

Passed Digswell Junction 7L but recovery time means it is now just 1L at WGC.
Catching up with the 21:33 WGC to Moorgate stopper (as scheduled).
So a slow trundle - unless KX can find a path onto the Up Fast for 46233 after the 20:46 P'boro to KX has gone through Potters Bar perhaps.

 

I think today indicates an element of "sod's law" on the diesel issue TBH, and I can see both sides of this from Fred and the others. Diesels on the back are a regular feature and more tours have them these days than don't. Now, how many of those actually require them I doubt we'll ever really know, but it is unfortunate that on a fairly rare opportunity for a fast main line operation without one, circumstances have dictated that one would have been a good idea to bring along. Meanwhile, Braunton had one tacked on the back doing very little the times I saw it. Had the issues at Stevenage not happened, the discussion would likely never have come up, it's just unfortunate. I doubt the weather conditions helped either if they were anything like they were in south London.

One thing I will say is I doubt it will make much difference in the immediate future to the current status quo, other than maybe a weather condition related element. NR can hardly turn around and say it's the fault of the diesel not being there when it was a bit of their own infrastructure falling out of the sky which caused the bulk of the problems, and as the Duchess has been proving she's more than capable of doing the business on her booked route.

 

5L arrival at Finsbury Park.
Well done to all on the footplate as well as signalling staff who 'juggled' things as necessary.
Hope passengers have trouble free journeys home.
EDIT
In case anyone is interested - ECS to Southall: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U50748/2016/12/10/advanced

 

34046 had a mostly MK2 set so presumably the box wasn't needed to provide ETH

 

At the end of the day all parties did a good job of keeping the punters happy- (which was pays the bills) in very difficult circumstances -reasonable amount of time at York and a right time arrival back despite the late start. Well done- a satisfied customer

 

I understand that this is a complex area of concern both for the passengers - some of whom will not travel if a diesel forms part of the consist - and the operating authorities who seek to minimise delays whilst satisfying the demands of train operators. Agreed that in this case it was the unfortunate incident that caused the need to divert after the assumption that a straight run up the ECML would not need a rear end assistant. My point however is that - had the rear end assistance been implemented it would have been immediately available in case of problem (which the diversion certainly created) although it would have been hoped at the time of departure that its presence would be unnecessary. Agreed that the problem was Network Rail's in the first instance but had the decision been taken to provide rear-end assistance, the charter's contribution to the ensuing problems would have been much less. I accept I am in the minority but I am increasingly of the opinion that steam traction on the main line has to accept limitations for future running whether that be the WCRC practice of providing a rear-end diesel for steam travel or adopt the Vintage Trains option of reducing loads to meet the conditions of route and motive power - a policy which I understand Network Rail has finally understood in its proposals to introduce Load Tables for steam traction over Network Routes. The decision on which path to take will obviously need to be negotiated with the parties concerned.

In the meantime the question of rear end assistance is analogous to the question of domestic insurances. It comes at an expense that you wonder if it is worth the cost; you hope you never need it and when not used for a while consider whether to dispel with it and then when the hazardous event occurs you hope your decisions have been the right ones. For today's passengers behind the Duchess the costs have been a reduced time in York and - as I write - the uncertainty of how late the train will be on its arrival in London but will today's experience influence their future decisions regarding joining steam tours; I would be interested to hear their view on the subject.

EDIT : I am pleased to read that 46233 attained a right time arrival back in London (at the Cross ?) but that still leaves the policies surrounding steam traction operations on the main line subject to concern and a more rational policy to be formulated rather than the "try and see if it works" principle that I feel is the basis of the current policy.

 

My God.

 

As one who has supported steam charters since travelling behind 4498 through the Tyne Valley in 1972 when the steam ban was first relaxed and continues to enjoy the charter tours I feel that my concerns are shared by others; they may be drivel to you but I ask how much experience you have of travelling by steam-hauled charters to consider yourself an expert ? I do not consider myself an expert but I do consider myself sufficiently qualified to raise legitimate points which others have also raised in respect of steam traction on the main line.

A point of interest from today for example - was the regained time due to slack timetabling (Network Rail's responsibility) or superb enginemanship (credit to the crews) or Network Rail staff on the ground taking decisions in the light of the current state of operations (credit to them) ? I cannot say but then - can you ?