Permitted Speeds for Steam Locomotives

and i thought that a requirement for full forward vision was accomplished by the driver and a.n.other (ie the TI) on lookout from opposite sides of the loco>>>?

 

The inspector is there due to the extraneous bodies that seem to fill the footplate of mainline steam excursions. If WCR can cut that down, by making the inspector/ driver and fireman/ rep one person respectively, then that is eminently sensible. People in cabs = risk of distraction.

 

This discussion seems to have moved an awful long way from permitted speeds via the usual personal rifts to the subject of communication on the Bristolian, so I will shed a little light on the matter. The crew on the Bristolian consisted of West Coast ops manager Andy Taylor, driver Ray Poole and 2 WCR qualified firemen, both named Meanley. You will note that officially there was no owner's rep, although in reality there were two there. Communication was by back to back radio handsets with mobile phone back up. On the down journey, the communication was mainly handled by Andy Taylor acting as TI using radio, with occasional resort to Mobile phone. As Ralph W has said communication is extremely difficult at the sort of speeds being worked on that job and it is very much a case of clamp the speaker hard to one ear and put a finger in the other ear, and then ask for the message to be repeated however many times it takes to confirm the whole message. As those who are drivers and signallers will know there is a protocol for the conduct of telephone and RT messages and NR have run training courses on clear speaking and message formats for operational instructions. The up journey required far more contact with mobile control and about 6 meassges were exchanged on the situation as the journey progressed. Published articles have detailed the set up for watching the control information on internet linked lap tops, but to suffice to say it is truly impressive to watch all the trains running in real time on a lap top. The situation on mobiles does appear to vary from TOC to TOC but it is an absolute imperative that just like the roads you do not use them whilst driving.

With regard to speeds, there has been an awful lot of semi informed comment on the subject over a while now. Sure, all of the top class express loco's which we are running have at some point in their previous careers wandered into the 90's if not the hundreds, but they were not doing this all the time. The Bristolian is a case in point. Back in 1959 it was ,I believe, the fastest scheduled steam hauled train on BR, Bristol to Paddington in 105mins for 118 miles. Last year we ran it again in 109 minutes and if we hadn't have had an Avonmouth local get in the way, and the crossing keeper at Causeway crossing had got the gates down a little quicker we would have knocked quite a large part of those 4 minutes difference off our time and been even closer to the original schedule. The point is that we almost kept that 1959 timing with a ceiling of 75mph give or take a couple of mph, according to the logs. What I believe that is telling us is that express trains weren't tearing around at the sort of speeds that memory seems to dictate, sure there were high spots, and the runs where drivers would turn on the fireworks for OS Nock to write up in his reports, but the plain fact of the matter is that wear and tear increases drastically beyond 60 mph and certainly beyond 75mph and that is why ex works Castles only did 3 months on the Bristolian before they went to more mundane jobs and the sam applied to the Caledonian or the Elizabethan, they were all run by engines that were maintained regardless of expense. Most of the ordinary expresses were timed at speeds that permitted their operation by any engine of a suitable class , irrespective of whther it was fresh off shops or going to shops next week, and as such the schedules in many instance were hardly demanding. There are people with large engines out on the main line who are just beginning to realise the effects of lots of high speed mileage with heavy trains, and what it does to their repair bills.

With regard to speed limits there is a fair amount of history on how the current limits came to be, but what is certain is that no matter how much you debate this, it is extremely unlikely that they will change. In my view 75 mph is an entirely sensible upper limit, and there are many factors which come into play, such as wear and tear, braking, track dynamics and a whole host of issues. Collectively as a movement we know that what we have at the moment works and we can demonstrate the results, for instance the Wheelchex facilities dotted around the system do a splendid job of demonstrating that the infamous hammer blow is not exceeding the dynamic load limits set down by NR and that Liner wagons with flats on possibly do more damage. What we cannot do is prove in detail all the effects of operating at 90 mph. It could be done but would involve a huge effort by a VAB and the cost would be very high. Basically you would have to change Railway Group standards, line standards and all sorts of other documentation which would have a massive cost and it is entirely likely that the resource to do so does not exist. And when you have spent all of this money and time, you still have to determine if the Licenced Operator actually wants to run trains at 90 mph. there are only 2 of them and you may well find that they do not want to do so. As they have the final say, it is as they say game set and match. As I see it there is not much liklihood of an increase in speeds, and you really need to make the best of 75 mph running whilst it is there, because it does get a little harder every year to keep the plates spinning.

Regards
Bob

 

Bob,

Thanks for putting things into perspective.

Dave

 

Thanks Bob for taking the time to post that, fabulous.
Just reading another post regarding a recomendation that Mk1 Coaching stock doesnt run any quicker than 75mph.
So that leaves me with one hypothetical question. Do you think that a 'Hall' should be permitted to run faster than 60mph ?

 

Fascinating insight - that last sentance is rather sobering when you consider the words have literally come from the horse's mouth... and does put things into perspective somewhat.

 

Brilliant post Mr Meanley, thank you for taking the time to post it.

 

Afraid not, no one has said whether it would make it more difficult to tell what colour a loco is if it runs faster than 75...(runs to bunker...)

 

Interesting to hear a different perspective on this, and you've answered a question that was starting to form in my mind. ie just what speed were these locos expected to sustain on a daily basis.

 

Just a quick note re mobile phones in the cab, everyone who is arguing for them is missing the obvious. Even if the driver only uses it to contact control, who will use it to contact him? I can name several SPADs where a text message or phone call from someone outside the railway has distracted the driver at a critical moment (one that sticks in the brain involved a driver who had just been told by text message that his wife was leaving him).

The use of a fixed cab radio handset or similar has been risk assessed repeatedly, digging around in your bag for a ringing phone has not. Also, communications from a signalman will be job related and not likely to distract one's attention from the task in hand. A mobile call could be about anything. This is, as I understand it, the real reason behind why mobiles are fast disappearing from the driver's cab except in emergency use.

Just a few observations:
-speed limits are absolute (and monitored). Just because an allowance is made for poor speedo equipment this is not leave to go above the limit itself.
-thanks to Bob Meanley for that excellent input.
-on page three or four there is a question about the driver having to exceed the owner's requested speed "for railway safety"....could someone explain the circumstances when it is safer to go faster (apart from Hollywood trains outrunning earthquakes)?

 

I agree, Ralph, 60-65 was the norm, which was far faster than road traffic could manage then. There weren't the roads andvery few cars that would beat that. Even when the first section of the M1 opened, I can remember several occasions on a steam-hauled train when we passed everything on the motorway. That was behind a Duchess, a Princess Royal, one or two Scots and rebuilt Patriots, several Jubilees and a few Black Fives.

Another reason for the lower speeds, which I think a lot of people either forget, or don't know, is the length of trains. It was quite common to see a Duchess with 15 or 16 on, a Scot with 13 and Black Fives with 10 or 11, particularly in the summer.

 

I agree about the West Coast but on the ECML Gresleys and Peppercorns were often running in the 70s and 80s and occasionally the 90s (leaving aside the well known rather faster runs - not all special events!).

 

Sorry, but the two of us that were arguing in favour of mobiles, are actually having to deal with safety critical communication on a daily basis. Your comments do not indicate familiarity with that task, or the equipment we are left having to use.

NRN may be fixed, but that's about its only advantage. Even then, that's not really true, as you often have to take your eyes off the road to use it. It regularly bursts into noisy, indecipherable life without warning, regardless of location. As every train in the area can hear any communication, the message usually isn't for you anyway, even if you can make it out. This is usually in the form of emergency test calls. Last week I received an incomprehensible one as I was about to start braking for a station with a very high speed approach. It was actually aimed at me, and the NR muppet tried again, just as I was coming into the platform. Idiot. I've also had the thing go off approaching buffers & reds. At least a mobile has got an "ignore" button on it!

Granted, a personal mobile should be turned off when driving, but the work one is part of your kit. In reality, you aren't digging for it in your bag, it's on the desk. All signalbox numbers programmed into it, so it's only a couple of key presses to get through to the relevant panel. NRN - you have to get the number list out of your pocket, find the relevant pannel, type the number into a unit that is out of your eyeline, and then hope it connects. Passing safety critical communication over the NRN is also problematic. We regularly have to examine the line. Even passing a simple message such as "the line is clear" over it has been difficult in the past, and I have had to stop again and use the SPT. In the process exposing myself to the actual risks of climbing on/ off a loco, walking on ballast, and passing trains. Trying to report a defective speedo, and agree a course of action was even more challenging recently, and definitely a highly distracting situation. Digital mobile - straight through, clear communication. If you are familiar with causes of incidents, you will be aware that traction faults are a major reason for drivers getting distracted. With a mobile, it's easy to get advice from maintenance control, or make arrangement with signallers to get platformed out of course, etc. Weight off your mind. That much more difficult with the NRN.

I too can point to incidents involving SPADS and mobiles, since the ban has been introduced. On both the occasions I am thinking of, the driver was using it when running under caution signals. That was a NO even before they were outlawed, and the consequences are hardly surprising. One was txting his girlfriend - he's now where he belongs - out of the industry. I'm not sure about the other, but he was trying to get help with a fault; he just failed to pick the correct time to do it, and would have been just as likely to have made the mistake whatever communication system he was using. Running on yellows is not the time to be having a conversation; if you can see greens for 5 miles in front, then there's no problem. Some will still miss use phones, even if they are banned. That's not a reason for removing a very useful tool from those of us who can use it professionally. The ban just seems to have been a knee jerk reaction to the California accident, from the people who brought you the expression "crossing the platform/ train interface".

 

Edward as an operational manager with London Underground I can assure you I have plenty of experience of safety critical communications. I will admit though that the equipment in use on our railway appears to be substantially different to yours - for the last few years we have had the benefit of a digital radio with far better reception. The old train radio was exactly as you describe above and was rumoured to be interrupted occasionally by the local minicab firm.

I am not arguing against mobiles per se, I was trying to point out that those on this thread who are arguing for mobile phone use between train and control or signalbox whilst moving have not considered the distraction factor from incoming calls or messages, which can have unexpected consequences. Just trying to give some background from my perspective.

It is in our rulebook that you can use a mobile in the cab as an emergency way of contacting the controller or signaller, for example turning off traction current. However we would expect the driver to have as a minimum stopped the train and crossed to the other side of the cab away from the Traction Brake Controller. This sounds the same sort of sensible use that you are advocating?

PS I did not come up with Platform / Train Interface, nor did I come up with Wheel / Rail Interface, Kinematic Envelope or any other such silly terms!

Edited once for spelling

 

LUL - that explains the different perspective. I'd agree that any driver who had digital radio does not need to be using a mobile. The whole issue should be sorted once GSMR is rolled out. Similarly, any mainline driver on a unit fitted with Cab Secure Radio (DOO trains) doesn't need one either. On the underground, you're only a few minutes from the next stopping point, so communication on the move is not so crucial. My point relates to services like I operate, where you are routinely an hour between stops, sometimes nearly two. The analogue NRN is hardly reliable, and you'll not find a driver who thinks it is safer to use than a mobile. Even if the handset is kept switched off, it would be expedient to be allowed to switch it on an use on the move, if you judged it to be necessary and safe to do so. Far easier than trying to communicate using an antique radio.

As for some of the "unique" terminology that's emerged recently, perhaps the next one needs to be b******t - bonfire interface?