LE Movements, ECS and Test Runs 2017

The facts are all there for us to clearly see. There was no conjecture in my post.

 

I struggle to believe the lineside is tinder dry country wide. Cumbria has had rain pretty much every day in some form for the last fortnight until yesterday.

 

The only place it was tinder dry between Westbury and Kingswear today was a section on Goodrington Bank.

 

Met Office Fire Severity Index suggests you're right: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/...&fcTime=1497783600&zoom=5&lon=-4.00&lat=55.74

But then again, if we're into knee-jerk territory, what does objective analysis matter?

 

That's a rather useful link I wasn't aware of. Thanks for posting!

 

I wonder if NR look at this? Doesn't seem like it

 

A silly question but how do we know that this was a Network Rail decision and not one made by the TOC? No effort was made to stop other steam jobs out and about on Saturday afternoon as has happened in the past. I just wonder if Network Rail are being unfairly blamed here.

Peter

 

As someone who had the misfortune to spend alot of money on a diesel hauled trip to Kingswear yesterday Pathfinder made it perfectly clear who's decision it was and it wasn't DBs.

Andrew

 

no 9 west of Barton Hill, late friday 16/7

 

This is a good point, and maybe, a knock on from the last episode.

Maybe WCRC, are being ultra cautious, which in light of the previous situation, is laudable.

It still does not cover the apparent cross operator ban, when it seems DB, were more than happy to operate the A1, with its uprated fire suppression systems.

More will appear in the next few days, as way of a justification, I am sure.

Weekend, Knee jerk, by NR is an obvious conclusion though.......

 

Interesting Ralph, makes the weekend knee jerk, all the more likely.

 

Now it might come as a bit of a shock to you but reading froth on a railway forum is not fact. You say 'for us clearly to see', I couldn't/haven't seen the incident, I wasn't here, were you ?
I'm guessing............but I suggest all you have done is read about it and you're just having a rant.

We have what we have, we have NR doing a very difficult job ect. we have diesel locos on the back of charters ( my own view taking into account a modern fast railway is a diesel on the back should be a condition of a licence to run a charter but that's for another topic) and we have 75mph steam locos trying to knit in with all the rest and when 'an incident' occurs,the froth is spectacular. Quite a bit of froth on Leeds station when the Leeds - KX was cancelled throughout because of the incident, somevery unhappy passengers

 

2 wrongs don't make a right, but how about the passengers on TBEL, who were deprived of their motive power, due to the knee jerk.

As for the comment about running a charter with a rear gunner, IF, the loco, and stock is air braked, then enough thunderbird loco's are available to negate the expense.

And nobody has made a particular mention of the HST that spontaneously combusted, and the knock on's for that.

No, steam on NR is an easy target.....

 

P way team never had to do controlled burnings, the locos did that for them on a daily basis.

 

If there is a way to stop lineside fires at source with a suppression system, and its proven in use, then it should be allowed to run. Otherwise why bother to fit it in the first place. What incentive is there for any other loco owner to go to the trouble and expense of preventing it, when those who dont get you banned anyway. Each loco* should be individually risk assessed annually and be exempt from or included in a prohibition when its required.

*I guess crew/operator becomes part of that risk assessment based on past performance.

 

The only delays to our steam hauled trains on Saturday were caused by the modern fast trains!

 

I was referring to the facts about Network Rails poor performance in general not a specific incident or instance, if you take the trouble to read my post through thoroughly and fully comprehend.