'The Capital Christmas Express'. 23rd November

I'd be more concerned about the state of the crosshead, slide bars etc.

 

Very good post. IMHO.

 

"Good" in that it encapsulates a bit of negative thinking methinks. There has been much comment BUT little thought asto the actual situation in that (1) an incident has occurred (2) recovery action was taken to minimise delays - the tour was propelled to Basingstoke where SWT held back the last down Weymouth at Basingstoke to allow passengers to get home (3) the proper authorities will investigate all facts and factors (4) a report will be issued and (5) operating procedures will be changed as appropriate.

What concerns me is the negative thinking that steam traction is at risk ! The various Transport Acts give steam traction the right to be on the mainline and it is (rightly) for Network Rail and the locomotive owners to agree the appropriate rules and procedures for that to happen. As noted above, in diesel terms one cannot define D9000 / 55022 to be the same as D1015 or GBRf-operated Class 20s yet all 3 are currently in regular use on the mainline - and in a commercial role; steam must be considered in the same category and the problems with one locomotive type cannot be held to be potential problems with another. Whilst steam operation must be considered in a collective way the operation of a particular locomotive must be confined to that locomotive and not be used to affect all locomotives.

A case in point was the early attempt to restrict the speed of 48151 despite it proving over the years to be a competent machine or the attempt to restrict the haulage capability of 76079 on the mainline despite its proven ability to do so. In that context it is known that the 3rd rail network creates specific operating risks which - it appears - the failure of the connecting rod has highlighted; previous attempts to restrict steam operation on 3rd rail networks have simply created specific instructions for steam operation and I see no reason that this incident should change that in any way. In simple terms the "specific instructions" should include procedures for failures and if those procedures have worked there should be no no need for change; if they haven't worked then it is surely necessary to review the procedures but not ban the steam locomotive.

I wonder if now is the time to suspend further discussion until any investigations are completed and reports published because it appears to me that conjecture has little to add to this scenario; I have read more about the problem and possible ramifications with much fewer postings about the recovery actions and praises for the efforts of those involved to minimise the consequent potential delays.

Time to pause and reflect methinks.

 

A good level headed post for which the most part I agree. The speed with which this incident was handled by all parties was remarkable.

However to suggest discussion about this incident be curbed is pitching it back into the realms of hysteria again. This is is for the most part a public forum and I don't see how a incident with a steam train is sufficient to impinge upon our right of "free-ish" speech, especially when this thread has been pretty civilised and informative. Banning discussion about it on here means it will break out elsewhere and everywhere across the board, so best to be kept in one place where it can be modded if ever required.

 

I think it's safe to say that more than the crosshead and slider bars will get a very critical "looking at". They'll go a lot further in to the loco with their tests and checking.

 

Fred, Transport Acts can be changed.

There used to be some sort of annual (ish), enabling bill system where relatively minor changes could be made. I know, I've made them. Or rather I told the Board's Chief Solicitor and Legal Advisor what I needed. We got Board approval and he did the legal bits in conjunction with the relevant Civil Servants.

Far too long ago to remember the exact system, but I think it meant some sort of documentation being laid before the House for a certain time, rather than a full debate. Again, I can't remember, but I suspect it may have either been in conjunction with me implementing the 1985 Companies Act, or with parts of the privatisation of subsidiary companies. Or both. Time dulls the memory: too many Owls, too few Serving Wenches since then! LOL!

Someone here will know the full system I am sure.

PS. See below. Me trying to be clever this time! Only all I've done is to show I've got a pi.. poor mammary memory!

 

Helped, of course, although it will upset a few on here to have it pointed out, by the Class 47 being on the back.

The delay if a diesel had had to be sent from Southall would have been rather longer and it is doubtful if the passengers would have got home by SWT.

 

Not at all. I am warming to the idea of diesels being on all main line steam trains. Especially as it's happening more and more, or so it seems.

My blueprint for future mainline steam will be for the steam loco to have all reciprocating bits removed. For it to be kept in just light steam all day. Just enough steam to hiss a bit when the paying customers get near it. And for it to whistle every few minutes when on the move. The box, which will have to be on the front of the train, will of course do all the work. But I reckon 95% of the paying customers will still think they are having a steam train ride. If any suggest the diesel is pulling the train you just tell them, "no, it is only the engine attached to the coaches that actually pulls. A basic law of railway physics. Something you and your young kids have learned today. The diesel is only there so the driver can see the buffers more easily and not bump into them".

And the 5% of experts will still travel as it will give them something to come here and moan and argue about.

With a full tender of coal, (sheeted over as a further safety precaution), and a full load of water that will last all day there will be no need for water stops. No need for many support crew staff, so the front coach can be mainly turned over to fare payers. Maybe have a loudspeaker with the usual dubbed sound you hear on old videos. You know the sort of thing. A recording of a 9F on a heavy freight playing loudly on a train hauled by a fast moving pacific etc.

Oh. And for linside photographers, no more problems about rods up etc in the photos.

Everyone wins!

 

Good post,I agree with most of what you say,however can you say what reports will be "published". Clearly if RAIB are involved(and I have not seen any indication anywhere yet that they are) then we will get a report,but any other investigations will surely be conducted privately between NR and WCRC and as we all know the latter is not noted for commenting on or reporting anything!

 

I wondered how long it would take for somebody to bring that up! 2/3 days, so it took a while. There's always one.
As the train was stood for three hours anyway I don't think it would of taken that long to get something from Southall, or even Eastleigh. Bound to be something stood there.
By your own admission you knew it would stir things up, so why did you bother?

 

And 19 and 27 minutes for me to get two bites on one bit of bait.

 

Was in the good old days, call that progress?

 

It's called efficiency.

 

Just wondering how to introduce paint into the debate ......

 

Paint 34067 blue with a Union Jack on the side!

 

No need, Ralph has started hitting out at bean counters, oops, sorry, accountants! LOL!

Nothing like a bit of humour to get some of us through the day.

 

Easy. Any true Bulleid enthusiast will know that Tangmere's problems are due solely to the fact she's painted the wrong shade of green.