Tornado

If you were a trust member and followed the full story you would no that is not true. The 100mph was for publicity and it worked by getting the loco back in the public eye and drawing in more members. The last two posts are correct

 

Thank you for your clear and polite answer, (compared with the rude reply in the previous post 4838.)

 

Correct. I believe that Peter Hendy said "we're not going to leave you standing at the wicket with 99mph"

(i.e. 90 + 10% overspeed as required)

 

When is the four tracking from Woodwalton to Fletton happening? As previously discussed several times there was a good case for 90 max in the current timetable. Whether it will work in future with at least one additional train per hour and a different mix of fast and stopping trains remains to be seen. I think the new timetable is May 21 but I don't know what infrastructure is required to make it happen.

 

NR have a proposal to tunnel under Peterborough North to keep freight from passing through the station but that only frees up space within the immediate area. What happens when the freights regain the ECML is another matter entirely.

 

It isn't. The upgrades (re-)announced for the ECML didn't include that, but did include a flyunder at Werrington Junction

 

I think that's actually at Werrington to join the Joint Line.

 

Take that Beeching.

 

Oh for March to Spalding!!!

 

My sarcasm was too subtle I see. I am well aware, I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of the position some have taken in regards to this.

Humor is always less fun when explained, but no rudeness was intended.

 

I thought so too but the report on local tv said the tunnel would go under Peterborough North. Wouldn't surprise me if they were wrong though.

 

I accept your intentions, may I suggest a smilie - wink or other after the text which helps convey intention. Doesn't always work but it can help.

 

The only reason for NR (or any of the other parties involved) to be less keen on allowing 90 mph would be if the speed had been a contributory cause of the failure in April. The Trust said early on that they believed the failure would have happened anyway, just a bit later if the speed had been lower. I see no reason to doubt that, and we should know for certain when the results of the investigations are published. On the other hand, the argument for allowing 90 mph is the same as it always was; making paths easier to find. That may indeed become harder with timetable changes, but if 90 mph paths become hard to find, 75 mph paths could become impossible.

 

I`m so agree with you! The expression says often more than thousand words!

Knut

 

Indeed. Thankfully NR will make decisions informed by facts, not speculation.

As previously stated, this engineer does not attribute speed as the cause of failure. He is however eager to see the report to once and for all end the incessant fluffing.

 

Claiming only a little knowledge from my day job - Network Rail are only going to be interested from a signalling/pathing point of view.

It’s the investigatory bodies such as ORR that are watching us all carefully.

A number of different factors led to the incident, I’m told. I think the full report will add value to our industry: let’s face it, we can all learn from it.

The thing that has bothered me about all of this is the speculation. It’s not as if the A1 Trust hasn’t previously given us all info on - example given - the boiler stays, or similar, when issues occurred.

Tornado is a locomotive that is always developing. Our experiences with her shape her future and those of other new locos and indeed loco owning groups.

I hate to be that guy - an apologist - but there’s a severe lack of respect being shown to one of the hardest working and most open groups I know.

Let them get on with it.

Just a side note though. David Wards comments in SR on this are possibly some of the most ill informed, speculative and unhelpful commentary published.

That he’s been given a platform to speak is fine: that’s our society and the relative freedom of the press to publish his thoughts.

We do also have a right to robustly challenge his comments. As I have said elsewhere, the railway industry has to stick up for itself and present the facts better. In this case it is galling that one of our own can try to do so much damage to a groups reputation through what are effectively lies.

Actually - they are lies. And this does not help anyone. Those trying to understand the issues, those trying to solve problems, those trying to keep things together. Perception is an incredibly important thing. We are all here because we love railways or a part of them, and we should stand together in good and bad times.

 

Well said that man. Ever since the loco began running there have been subtle digs (and some not so subtle) when anything goes wrong in her day to day operations. It's as if certain individuals actually enjoy seeing 60163 in trouble! I think it's all down to petty jealousy at how much the trust has achieved in such a short time and their ability to court publicity and raise huge sums of money. Sadly, among these 240+ pages you can see those who appear to have a negative agenda towards 'Tornado.'

 

My comment was made entirely in jest.

What are David Ward qualifications? Is he to be taken seriously?

 

I think you will find his main qualification is self importance on railway matters that over the last nearly forty years his articles and predictions in the railway press has been a load of codswallop.why they give him a platform I will never understand