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

How ironic! My last sentence in post #40.

 

sorry, I wasn't being that serious, honest. It wouldn't be near a railway of any kind without weighing and springing adjusts etc.

ps: Do you know if the wider cab now fitted was a necessity for mainline acceptance (forward visability etc)? I only realised last year that 34067 went to Barry with a narrower cab than now fitted.

 

The cab is a 9" wide one as opposed to the 8' 6" ones as fitted to the first 70 WC/BB Pacifics. As to why it was decided to fit '67 with a wider cab I have no idea but given the extra gubbins associated with the air braking, I would imagine that the extra width may come in quite useful.

 

Hopefully this won't be seen as a daft observation.

I watched some You Tube video this morning of the Hangman's Lane slipping incident with Tangmere and there was so much steam blasting about the source was obviously steam sanding gear in use. IIRC Parkestone Bank has a flange oiler on it so is it possible that on Saturday the steam sanders were a contributing factor, actually making it worse in that the jet of steam as well as adding sand to the rail head also blasted deposited grease from the flange-oiler up and onto the rail head therefore adding emulsified grease to the predictable leaf mulch problem?

Even if that wasn't the cause there is some other footage on YouTube of Tangmere leaving the Poole stop (Link in post #80) showing a brief slip as it was getting the train away around the extremely sharp curve in Poole so even on the flat adhesion was a potential problem.

Hopefully Steam Railway will in due course have some definitive observations on whether it was an error of judgement in the pre-planning or something unexpected on the day like an adverse signal slowing the train, a dragging coach brake, track conditions being worse than predicted etc.

 

I think you are being optimistic there, they will be deparately seeking someone to blame to generate headlines.....

 

Two different reasons for delays my friend.......

The one you are referring to is one where there are general delays due to poor rail conditions whilst the other was down to a kettle slipping to a stand.

Now whilst poor rail conditions are probably the cause for both unfortunatly 34067 ground to a halt and therefore caused the delays in the Poole area.
Hence why SWT staff stated a "steam train" failure. If it had been a freight train they would have said "freight train failure".....

Lets just put this to bed now....

 

Tonight via Twitter... https://twitter.com/SW_Trains/status/270981153350111233 A broken down freight train is causing disruption between Branksome and Parkstone. Because of this, there are delays of up to 45 minutes between Bournemouth and Poole. These delays will continue until further notice.

https://twitter.com/SW_Trains/status/270989989834268672 - The freight train is moving and trains are able to run between Poole and Bournemouth again. Apologies if you are affected.

Ironic or what?

 

and that is exactly what happened to the Wool sand train tonight!

 

As a matter of fact, my post was intended to chime with yours, not detract from it.

The only point on which I would disagree with you is the need to report the fact it was a "steam train" that had failed.

Maybe you could explain in what way identifying the type of train that has failed in these circumstances, adds value to the main point of interest to the general travelling public, i.e. a train has failed, and is causing delays to your journey !

 

Sounds like the sand stalled near Parkstone Station as well - If I had been ten minutes later walking the dogs tonight would have seen it and been able to give more detail!! Ah well some you win!! Dick

Further info (From GN on FMI - Ta GN) 6M42 Wool Sand stalled tonight in near enough same place as Tangmere on Saturday - was able to restart after handsanding and inevitable delays to following trains - Sand train was running late anyway and now later still - this is at least the third time I am aware of that the sand has stalled at or near this location Dick

 

This is what I was trying to say all along! But got shot down in flames for my efforts.

 

As said by someone else previously - to try and stop/minimise the relevant TOC staff getting verbally slagged off, or even worse assaulted, by that section of the general traveling public who can't just accept that delays sometimes happen. If you've ever worked 'front of house' or 'complaints desk' for any organisation in any field of business or administration you would know why that is the answer without having to ask. Get your retaliation in first by putting the blame squarely where it belongs - in both these cases not with SWT who's staff would otherwise have been in the blame zone.

 

Mmm, well I have worked in a role like that as it happens, and we were always trained not to implicate anyone or "pass the buck", but instead, "own" the problem and sort it out. In fact, I can't think of any job Ive done where "buck passing" is tolerated, let alone encouraged. In the scenario we had on Saturday, the public would have most wanted, a) an apology, followed by, b) a solution. Being told it's a steam, or freight train responsible contributes nothing to either of these, and is likely to be interpreted by most as the the buck passing it clearly is !

 

Agreed and how you handle an announcement or deal with the customer's problem is very important but equally it is valid to explain the reason to diffuse tempers. "Nothing to do with me chief, can't help" I fully concur is buck passing. "Not our fault because of X but we're working on a solution/have a work around" is a reasonable response and as delays were reportedly only 30mins on Saturday despite the excursion being stuck for over an hour SWT quite clearly did literally work around the problem.

I wasn't on a station on Saturday or tonight but I wouldn't have seen anything wrong tonight with an announcement something like "South West Trains apologise for delays to eastbound services. A freight train has failed and alternative working arrangements will be implemented as soon as possible to overcome the disruption." When possible I find being told what a cause is to be far preferable to the usual sanitised "due to an incident at Woking" or similar although I do appreciate when that is a one under they obviously can't announce it is due to a fatality.

 

I agree, the use of generic terms like "incident" and "issue" when explaining why things have broken down isn't helpful. All I can say is a colleague of mine once commented, the railways must be the only business I know that publicises its own failiures. I don't agree with this as I don't believe the railways should be regarded as a business for a start, but a service, but I guess his point was that to give too much negative information could be counter productive. As enthusiasts, and rail supporters, we can appreciate detail such as the type of train involved in a failiure. Not sure that's true of the uninitiated. The more you tell them, the more questions you encourage.

 

Moderators - please would you consider closing this thread unless / until there are contributions that bring new and relevant facts to our attention.