Fire Risk

It comes across a bit sloppy to me.

For example (and ignoring the points raised by others):

An insider suggested that the cost of the delays would be almost £300,000, with the taxpayer picking up the vast majority of that.
​

OK, fair enough. But then the next paragraph says:

Charter train companies including WCR typically pay £60.68 per minute of delays caused by their trains, suggesting that the 4,805 delay minutes incurred over the weekend could lead to a bill of £291,567.40.
​

So on the one hand we are told there is a £300k bill that will largely fall on the taxpayer, but in the very next paragraph it suggests that it will be WCR who pay.

Which is it? In the old days, newspapers had sub-editors that would have picked up on inconsistencies like that, and got the journalist to either clarify, or rewrite if it was still unclear. But here you just get both versions presented in the same article.

With such obvious mistakes, it's hard to hold much credence with the rest of the article.

Tom

 

IIRC charter operators have the bill capped at a certain level - so both comments are correct, as the train operator will be liable up to that cap, with the taxpayer picking up the rest.

 

That's not how it reads - the second paragraph says "charter operators pay ..." with no further qualification.

Tom

 

The precise quote is “charter operators typically pay…” - which is true but over-simplistic. I suspect that either the original report is poor, and/or the editing has ripped out words without paying attention to context. As it’s the Telegraph in what are now not glory days, I suspect the latter

 

I was just providing an answer to your query where the article doesn't!
When the 'journalist' can't even get the day of the incident correct then I wouldn't give much time to the rest. As someone delayed by several hours on the VT Liverpool trip and not getting home until 4am Sunday morning I definitely know when the fire took place!
Not that I would pay much attention to anything in The Telegraph tbh, which gave up on serious journalism for propaganda many years ago.

 

Quite a good topic for Green Signals during the silly season if Nigel ever reads this. How does delay attribution work and who pays it? I suspect it's not just charters but also focs and possibly even open access operators who are capped. So the money goround is almost entirely public money sloshing around between pots. I may be wrong.....

 

Simple, first bit gets the perpetually outraged angry and then they don't bother reading the rest, Telegraphs job done!

 

Pretty clueless you mean surely?! The article has no clue at all.

 

Indeed - I was talking only about current and likely near-ish future steam capabilities. Given the costs I imagine a main line oil-fired class 7 or 8 must be several years away.

 

The ten day forecasts for southern England show nothing more than one or two hours of drizzle at a few coastal locations (and even those will probably disappear as the time gets closer), so I can't see how, for example, the 22 July 'Dorset Coast Express' can have even a token steam presence. My garden would love me (and the forecasts) to be wrong!

 

Well the WSE is 2 x 33's I expect the DCE, if it runs, may be the same. I assume 2 x33's still need a 47 on the back for hotel power?

 

In some ways that rather highlights a lack of foresight, the direction of travel in terms of temperature has been very well documented for a while now. Admittedly the weather over the last few years has perhaps made the resulting impacts more obvious and also it may not mesh with some individuals push against climate science with some of their other interests to take actions based on it.

There are arguably several other side benefits/impacts for a loco that ends up being oil fired that I can think of beyond removing spark based fire risk.

• Refilling oil can probably be done in many locations where water can be taken where coaling cannot. Depending on the liquid the loco is designed to burn it may even be possible to refuel at diesel fueling points in depots.
• Safer for crews (no issues with overhead wires).
• Possibly cleaner and healthier for crews.
• Possibly cooler cab in the summer (fire exposed less often to the cab, not sure if burners are actually ever checked or not, as no adding coal).
• Potentially better for other equipment like electronics (getting more important as time goes on) and anything else that may be damaged by the coal dust. I would guess electronics are probably also easier to fit since fluids can flow around unusual shapes.
• Much like the vintage GUV and the water tender that LSL have for Bittern in theory it would be possible (but expensive) to have a second fuel carrying tender or vehicle to extend the range, not so easy to do with coal.
• A big but much debatable one - future proofing fuel supplies. If in the future coal and drilled oil is no longer an option, which many be a long way off or may be a sudden unexpected change and could be for economic or regulator reasons, then Mainline locos are almost certainly not going to be able to run on a form of coal substitute due to the quantity of fuel required. For preserved lines where less is needed for each run and refuelling is easier to arrange then less energy dense coal replacements might work but not for long distance runs with limited options. Mainline locos could however probably run on bio oils, assuming its possible to get hold of them, which are much more of a like for like replacement.

It may cost more to run an oil fired loco and obviously geopolitics means oil is not cheap these days but there have been various reports on here and in the press that coal has dramatically increased in price over recent years partially for similar reasons.

 

I agree about infrastructure problems. Much of the Southern West of England line was suffering from dried out clay embankments late last year with a limited service and speed restrictions. These reoccurring dry conditions were also the probable cause of embankment failures around Winchfield and Hook over the last few years. Not so much the dry spells but the rain water running through cracked dry soil and causing pools of slurry in the embankment foot.

Cheers, Neil

 

Well booking is already at bookers risk for diesel substitution for fire risk, loco failure etc. Yes maybe it is hidden in the T &C's and could be made clearer, but in 2026 the experience of events on both the national network or the airlines show that whatever you have already told people they either choose to ignore it or do not listen. But they will expect it to be all your (the promoters) fault not theirs. You only have to look at bad weather related incidents to see that, or people who expect a rail company to pick up their costs for missing a flight.

 

go on...
Someone who fully reveals the extent of their qualifications and their views is hardly the same as someone blindly stating demonstrably wrong facts.

That poster's observations chime with the met office's view things
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...eaker-uks-warmest-and-sunniest-year-on-record
I mean it could be a statistical anomaly, but it's one heck of an anomaly...

 

Said cracked soils of course being caused by the dry spells

 

If I remember correctly, way back , when steam was allowed back on to the network the summer months were deemed to be a 'no go' period.

NR are not the only ones remiss in managing vegetation however - up and down the country road signs etc are increasingly being swallowed up by vegetation especially in rural areas.

 

Is it reasonable to ask too, in the interests of 'improvement, what responsibilities does the operator have beyond simply waiting until a ban is imposed by NR? Being cognisant of the potential risks posed by "their" traction, is there no thought to deciding preemptively, especially if there is potential for substantial penalty? It's not as if the conditions are hidden, even if, or especially because, NR can't be entirely relied upon to make good and timely calls.