The Aberdonian - 2019

Dundee has just had significant work, and the tay bridge just recently finished being restored, wonder if either of those have changed things.

 

Hopefully not Dundee otherwise...............

 

Times are up on RTT
Out: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U54954/2019/03/14/advanced
Back: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U55285/2019/03/14/advanced

Inward stock move: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U55286/2019/03/14/advanced
Reversal at Niddrie West Jn suggests diesel on the back ?

 

Ticket arrived today. Mention is made of the 'current condition' of the Tay Bridge preventing further operations. I also infer that the indirect route has made it slightly more difficult to path the train over the Dundee-Aberdeen section, hence the later departure and arrival at Edinburgh.

 

Made a good job restoring the bridge so it cannot accept steam, well done NR!!!!

Cannot make this up at times....

 

Do you know yourself the scale of the operation that has been undertaken on the bridge? Perhaps alongside restoration, modifications have had to be made to allow regular traffic to continue to pass over?

Steam isn't the priority. Jumping the gun with the sarcasm, without possession of the reasons, comes across as trying an oppurtunity to make Network Rail sound inept. Perhaps we should instead hope that both parties will come forward and clarify the exact issue and cause, so that those booked/booking can deem for themselves if it's inept.

 

It's lasted 130+ years longer than the original!

 

Thank you Jonny for that response! Far to many knowledgeable? people on here

 

Could it be the simple case that, following major engineering works, the bridge has to be gauged for steam traction of any sort and other work in hand has precluded this being done ? IIRC once a line has been gauged for steam it needs to be re-certified after a certain period (6 Months ?) if no steam traction has passed over it and the works on the Tay Bridge have seen that period well extended.

 

I've checked a recent Sectional Appendix on line.
This is a summary of the item for the Tay Bridge on route SC171.
Only the following classes of loco are allowed to work over the Tay Bridge: 37, 47, 60, 66, 67 & 73.
Double heading is banned except for class 73's.
Assisting failed loco hauled trains should be done from the opposite end of the train from the train loco or a 60 foot barrier vehicle must be used to separate the rescue loco and the failure.
Nothing which says class 98 - steam in the local instruction.

I would suspect that the long term refurbishment of the bridge gave the structural engineers a better opportunity than normal to closely inspect the bridge structure. If there was anything broken, showing sign of mechanical stress or severe corrosion they would impose extra restrictions. Safety first, then it's up to Ops management to sort out the traffic.

Cheers, Neil

 

Restoration - that's the word you need to look up in the dictionary. And I aint jumping the gun, its in black and white, they restore it, steam cannot use it, take it you work for NR.....

 

You stick to taking pictures!!!!!

 

So they did not restore it for use by heavy steam locos - that does not mean they have not restored it for use by everyday traffic. Much as I am steam mad I can see that the national railway network may have more pressing priorities to cater for than allowing steam to go anywhere that our fancy takes us. I agree with @jonathonag .

Peter

 

To be fair, their are many instances of restoration not being done to the original specification, NR have a written duty to do this, but continue to ignore it, on the basis of cost.

 

LOL At least you gotta good taste in music

 

Amongst many other things....

 

For the case of transparency, I do not work for Network Rail but however do work for a mainline TOC. However, I also am involved heavily with two heritage railways in Scotland and have previously been mainline support crew, although take part very little in the latter these days. So I would like to think I'm not being overly biassed to any one viewpoint, but realistic in terms of the bigger picture.

Restoration is not black and white, and it's very closed mind to approach it in that direction. Restoration can mean an attempt to return to a previous state, but there will always be obstacles that can truly allow a 100% original state.
Afterall, we regard No. 60103 "Flying Scotsman" as a restored locomotive. But it is not 100% as built, nor 100% as an A3 class due to the fitment of AWS/TPWS/OTMR etc..
Similarly, I think we approach No. 6229 "Duchess of Hamilton" as a restored locomotive. However, the speedometer attachments to the rear driving axle may not be authentic to the build state nor does the locomotive enjoy an active steaming life, thus does it fail the black and white parameters you set out? Indeed, the streamlined cladding has been altered to bring it within Network Rail's gauging requirements and so is not 100% authentic, so where does that fact lie in the spectrum you're creating?

Steam is a luxury on the mainline, anybody who says otherwise is kidding themselves really. But that said, Network Rail also do not seem to be an authority which is looking to exclude steam from the mainline, but instead help integrate it more efficiently so that in future the areas that are known to have issues are not attempted nor do we have last minute gauging cancellations. However, that is a big undertaking and not one that should be expected overnight. The railtour market is a multi million pound industry, but Network Rail's first purpose is to provide a safe and productive railway to the masses before the extra mile of facilitating the tourist industry. Without knowing the parameters and constraints that have been involved in the Tay Bridge work that has been performed in the last few years, I cannot fathom that Network Rail would actively go out of there way to create this barrier to No. 60163 on the Tay Bridge without good reason behind it.

I understand the annoyance from the otherside of the fence. We want to be able to enjoy steam, with the freedom of movement on routes they enjoyed during their working careers or during preservation. But the world moves on, and we cannot guarantee that what has fit yesterday will fit today (In terms of both pathing and gauging). That's not to say there are not ways of resolving the issues once highlighted, again we should hope this Tay Bridge issue is not permanent, but to expect Network Rail to prioritise our hobby first is a bit out of the question. Our corner of the railway operation already experiences a lot of handicaps that other operations to not experience (Compulsory yellow fronted locomotives does not apply to steam due to grandfather rights etc....), so it's fair to say we are looked quite fondly on by Network Rail and the ORR with the extents they already try to accommodate us on.

 

The latest ScotRail Track Status Document online has the Tay Bridge as RA8, ruling out Tornado, No.9, and 60103, all RA9. As Al said, smaller locomotives should be allowed across on that basis.