Fire Risk

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.

 

I think having a fire risk rating for locos is just adding another layer of unwanted complexity to the problems of matching loco to duty. “Our planned loco 12 weeks ago when we put the request in was gauged as restriction 1, fire risk group 3. But now we’ve had two weeks of sun and NR want a fire risk 1 loco, but the only one available is gauge restriction 4 and doesn’t fit”. It would just be a nightmare.

It also ignores other factors in fire risk, such as how the loco is handled, or the quality of coal.

And in any case, how do you judge? A Castle is louder than a Bulleid pacific - does that mean it’s a worse fire risk? I suspect loco owners, who have money on the line if their loco is graded poorly, might want rather more of an objective view than, for example, conflating chimney noise with probability of spark throwing. And those same owners might find their insurance premiums affected because NR rates them as a high fire risk using some arbitrary metric.

So I think grading locos by fire risk would introduce more problems than it solves. Keep it simple!

Tom

 

Totally agree, the responsibility for whether and how a steam loco is used on the mainline rests with the operator. They have the duty to assure "fitness to run" afterall. If its reasonably forseeable the loco poses a significant ignition risk that should be an element of its fitness and a documented decision the operator makes.

 

Probably fair, but I'd expect NR to assume worst case at this time of year. I'm not quite sure how you'd measure it, but I'd have thought fire risk could be assessed in terms of ashpan and chimney "leakage" levels at a given level of working and speed - a measure that might inform choices of loco and duty.

 

Yes, I think the caveat should be dragged out of the T&Cs and given prominence.

 

Of course NR carries overall responsibility for the integrity of the network and will assume worst case scenario. What needs to be averted is a situation where episodes like the one under discussion make the 'worst case senario' a fixture of the calendar.
This surely involves the operators proactively taking greater ownership of fire risk assessment for steam traction against commonly established criteria forming part of relevant RSSB standards.
One example given up thread is ashpan dousers.
Another might be specifications for effectively assessing spark containment. If I look back 25 years or so I seem to remember part of the mainline certification process involved a loaded test run in hours of darkness for a visual assessment of spark arresting effectiveness. Is that still the case?
Advances in technology must make it fairly straightforward to get a visual record of ashpan security too.
The overall point being if more isn't done by those with the agency, there must be a strong chance something blanket will be permanently imposed by NR.

 

Without a doubt.