The Steam Ban around York

The list is no different from the last few years....

 

I still think that this is just as much to do with delay payments resulting from NR, which Big Al is picking up on. That punctuality targets and operation are what is driving NRs desire to keep steam from causing distruption.

It also doesnt explain how this has been the second year with a blanket ban imposed by NR(NE) against steam when last year other regions had the ban caused by weather and later dropped them whereas the York one remained for the that season as well. This is twice that this has happened from NR with a ban across the season.

WCRC do have engines more prone to fires, the 8F being one, but that is just as likely to the engines being worked hard to get up to speed and clear the section, so perhaps the times need slacking and speed dropping?

York is a bottleneck, and the lines aproaching can be congested. This is a part of a bigger issue, and for now the easy way to get things running is to suspend this part. I believe however, that there can be compromise.

 

There was no blanket ban last year. The SSE, Flyer and Waverley all ran with steam, occasionally unassisted (e.g. the SSE on 6th and 26th August) but usually with diesel assistance, either at the rear or directly behind the loco.

 

Having had a 50 mph dawdle on the SSE two years ago behind 45231, any more "slacking and slowing" would make it quicker to walk.

 

seems to have gone pretty quite at the moment, even though Yorkshire still a steam blackspot

 

Yes maybe but LT are going in the other direction, having discovered that it works with no problems and does nothing but good for their image

Don

 

It was better when it went through Leeds, had some very fast running behind USA and Leander But Leeds, like York is a bit of a bottle neck
Stand offs between WCR and other parties seem to becoming ar egular feature....
The GCR at least has the potential for a double track for its section S of loughborough doesnt it ?

 

The year I'm talking about had 48151 in the pool so the complete series of runs were seemingly timed for a 50mph loco. I've had very lively runs behind 70013 and one of the Black 5s in an "8F free" season.

 

Write up on this in the latest SR. I think it's similar to the RM one.
Seems both parties are being stubborn & will not budge.
Looks to be heading towards something called "Access Disputes Committee" which could last 5 weeks or more.

 

Please see thread 193 for a bit more information on the organisation that seems to arbitrate in these cases.

 

ELR better have a contingency for moving 60007 to its gala from the moors in that case. Maybe DBS or drc could do it?

 

I think there have been further developments related to this case which may not be in the public domain yet. If what I've heard is true it's unlikely to help any early resolution. Regarding locos moving to/from the NYMR, 5029 is due to come up from Bristol early next week and that move won't be affected by the current dispute as it's being done by the other lot .

 

That just illustrates the awful truth that the critical factor is who the men on the footplate are employed by. Nothing to do with the competence, locos or their ownership.

 

Just to confirm, I take it WCRC are not even allowed to tow with a diesel in light steam in the area concerned ?.

 

As far as I'm aware, it would need to be rods-off for a WCRC steam drag.

 

Funny how 46115 was at NRM this week. Either it's landlocked, or awaiting dropping of rods for a trip to Carnforth.

 

The deductions that can be made seem to be that the root cause is wcr procedures applicable to steam drivers. Specifically absence thereof, failure to adequately communicate instructions or a matter of indiscipline towards instructions.
If it is the latter, individual failure to follow a properly communicated local rule, perhaps nr lne expected to see wcr suspend and retain. If wcr is not inclined to do so because it believes that action inappropriate it will require the arbitration route suggested.
I make those observations purely on the information in the public domain. Given other TOCs are not affected nor wcr diesel operations this must relate to a very narrow issue. Hypothetically it seems DBS could move a wcr owned steam loco in the lne region hence why I deduce this relates solely to wcr steam crew operation.

 

I venture to suggest that the problem emanates from the new warning system that is at the centre of this current dispute. Some have suggested that (a) the system is currently a "voluntary advice" system which is being trialled (b) the NR "advice" was given to WCRC after the locomotive movements had begun (c) had WCRC added a diesel locomotive to the consist it would have delayed the train - and lost a path already agreed with NR.

It is sad to see that this matter will now need to go to arbitration and whilst NR may be legally correct in its interpretation of the rules it might be wise to note the old (but valid) saying that "Rules are meant for the guidance of Wise Men and the blind obedience by Fools"; sadly it seems that only arbitration will identify which party is which as we have now reached the impasse of the Irresistable Force meeting the Immovable Object.