34067. 'Capital Christmas Express'. 17-11-2012

Some time ago 60532 was running late on the GN due to the 47 arriving late with the ECS yet WAGN lost no time in blaming the steam loco for the delays. They are an easy target for some unfortunately.

 

Catch some time up surely !!! If I was on it, I would welcome any help. Also has paths to deal with now

 

So what about when those Class 70 specimens ignite themselves all over the network? Do they announce "One of our latest diesels has broken down etc etc". Like as hell as like!
They only want to blame things they don't like.
I always remember many years ago (the early 60's) when dieselisation was taking a hold & they failed every 5 minutes, the station announcer at Reading used to say "due to diesel failure blah blah". Seems the authority's at the time took exception to this, we all know how anti-steam & pro diesel they were at the time, and banned the use of that announcement. The had to say "due to engine failure" instead.

 

The way of the world eh !

 

Re diesel after Eastleigh. Long pull uphill towards wallers ash and worting flyover so makes sense to get up to line speed fast and stay on it

 

Any timing updates?

 

Doubt very much there was any intention by SWT to create bad publicity, and frankly, the seeds for that happening had already been planted by the decision at Wareham to remove the insurance against.

SWT are just reporting what happened, though it is curious that their initial tweets, when the incident first occured, didn't mention the fact it was a steam train involved.

We have to face the fact that steam trains will always be seen as "guests" on what is a public service. At times like this we should show humility in my opinion. Doing otherwise risks attracting more unwelcome attention than will already have arisen.

 

Uphill unbroken for about 18 miles mostly at 1 in 252.

 

Sorry but to be blunt, where stalling has been concerned over the last decade or so, it's pretty much been one engine at the centre of the large majority of problems, im not having a knock because it's a Southern loco, but it's really time Tangmere came under tighter restrictions regarding route and load for the good of everyone else operating out there, I mean - Goodrington, Exeter, Ore, Filton, Martin Mill, Parkestone......it's been 34067 (or how it's operated) too many times now for it to be always 100% the problem laying elsewhere.

 

They are not making bad publicity for steam...steam is doing it quite well for itself.

SWT are just quoting the facts ...if it was a freight train they would say "due to a broken down freight train".

 

I doubt that it's the only loco to have caused problems on the network in recent times but you are right to say it has had more than it's fair share of trouble. My point is however that some in Network Rail management will not take the trouble to distinguish between one steam loco and another - they will all get tarred with the same brush.

The approach to operating Tangmere is somewhat inconsistent. Last week it went round the Kent coast with a 47 on the back, today the 47 got removed. Why the difference?

I don't like diesels on the back of steam trains any more than anyone else on here but it's the lesser of two evils isn't it?

 

Freight train is the same as any other train, hauled by a form of modern traction in the public's eyes. Saying steam train draws the public's attention to the fact & gives it bad publicity. Why not just say "broken down train"? There again, as I said before I would not call this instance a breakdown.

 

Delay was caused. End of argument.

 

I'm inclined to agree. I've seen a lot of explanations offered over many years but it really doesn't matter if it's a fault with the loco or bad coal or greasy rails or trespass etc. etc. etc. all the TOC can see is their scheduled service is being disrupted and their job made harder.

 

Other Loco's have had trouble yes, but certainly not with the same frequency as 34067, certainly not where stalling is concerned anyway, a mechanical failure for example even with the strictest maintenence can just be bad luck occasionally, repeated incidents of slipping to a stand however is something that can and should be addressed.

I'm not a fail of diesel tailgunners if they can be avoided (though obviously sometimes they can't), hence why I suggest with regard to 34067, it might be a bright idea to reduce it's trailing weight or keep it to flatter routes during autumn, or seek another loco type for the job.

I don't believe NR tar anything steam with the same brush however, certainly I'd believe the charter dept, are aware some are performing better than others, and might well take these "track records" into account when future bids for tours are put in.

 

I have to agree with you David. Other loco's have had problems in the past but 34067 seems to have a lot more than the rest in regards to getting stuck and causing severe delays. In the general public's view steam trains will be branded a pain in the arse to those travelling on the trains that are delayed. The repeated problems with 34067 will give the public the impression that they all get stuck. The situation with 34067 should certainly be reviewed.

 

Before we start pointing the finger at Tangmere, it may be a good idea to wait until we know the exact circumstances of the stall. Friends on board have reported it caused by leaves on the line but other factors about which we no nothing at the moment could be involved too.

 

Yeah, lets point the finger at Tangmere. Or rather, the planner, who should know Tangmeres record, and left the braces back at Wareham. Blaming the leaves on the line doesn't cut it, the clue here is that its Autumn

 

Seen some timings for the return trip, seems to of been re-timed for diesel haulage....

 

Possibly even a nutter putting oil on the line. Has been done before