Fire Risk

Class 33's provide eth at nominally 750v DC to be compatible with now historic Southern Region emu stock. The loco hauled mark 2 stock which West Coast and other operators use works at 1000v ac.
It caused grief 40+ years with class 33's on cross country services.
Cheers, Neil

 

Nobody is saying steam locos are the only cause of lineside fires but the conditions that are being mentioned as commonplace don't do anything to help steam's case.
Yes NR should better manage their estate but until they do the steam TOCs are going to have to be prepared to either suffer long periods of imposed restriction or devise better ways to demonstrably minimise the risks of ignition.

 

Don't ever underestimate the costs of removal vegetation from such structures, whilst removing it saves money long term spending short term is often cited as a prohibitive for doing such works.

 

Indeed, albeit a similar charge could be labelled at LSL for moving Braunton on the same line on the same day, and why the decision was made at both organisations as to in one case the loco was towed in steam and the other headed the train?

One assumes there is some manner of RA process to be followed and possibly different companies use difference matrices to make decisions (hence possibly the variation in operating practices noted above), way beyond my area of expertise but how much can be gleaned about the quality and effectivity of spark and ashpan equipment during a FTR exam?

 

I don't underestimate it, but the contrast between the road and rail structures was stark. And as the High Level is a) a key local transport artery and b) Grade 1 listed, the short sightedness of doing nothing stuck out

 

What would be the cost of a structural failure of a bridge or viaduct as a result of root damage? Weight restrictions, route closure, complete replacement. God forbid if a train was crossing at the point of failure..
Trouble is the longer its left, the bigger the bill and the increased level of risk. I think the battle has already been lost here.

 

Don't for a second think I am advocating such a reactive vs preventative approach, just giving an insight into several years advising a body who owned hundreds of such structures.... Plus also been involved in provisionally costing out such processes and being frankly amazed at just how much access for such works costs, and that's setting aside that in the case of the High Level it would probably need the railway being shut whilst the work was done.

Worth noting that in the Newcastle case the Tyne Bridge has just had (or is still having, not been up there for a while) a shed load of cash spent on it which might explain its pristine condition which is vastly different from my days living up there in the 90's....

 

There was extensive work on the High Level in 2024, preventing water ingress was a key objective, as well as ensuring the longevity of the iron work.
The Tyne Bridge has a very expensive programme linked to its upcoming centenary.

 

The work on the Tyne Bridge is ongoing. The scaffolding did not touch the stone pillars, which were as far as I could see on a random July evening entirely comparable to the elements of Network Rail infrastructure

 

I totally agree and LSL got lucky, perhaps. When I saw Braunton heading the Chairman's train near home the previous day there was a thick black exhaust not untypical of Bulleids, probably because the loco wasn't being worked very much and maybe the damper opening was being limited
As I said upthread, the operators want to run steam locos far more than NR want to accomodate them so the onus really has to be on maximum safety by the former.
It might not be entirely the operators' fault but is most definitely their [collective] problem to solve.