70013 & 30777 ECML lineside fires 02/09/11.

I personally feel that NR have every right to price steam off the main line on certain prestige routes like the ECML at "peak" times. Maybe elsewhere too. But IF, and only IF, main line steam starts to show it cannot run without the sort of problems discussed here. I would hope such a move would be preceeded by some sort of warning and final warning to stop a knee jerk reaction to a single or a small number of occasional major incidents on specified routes.

 

As with many things in life some sensible compromise may be required to reduce unnecessary risks. I would rather see restrictions on steam operation on key routes at peak times than a total steam ban - I'm sure we all would. It is not of course always possible to run steam "after hours" as tours have to run at relatively civilised hours to attract customers. It may however be sensible not to allow light engine moves such as the one which caused all this fuss in the first place to run at peak times on peak routes.

However is steam on the mainline such a major risk? My feeling is that the greater majority of steam tours run without incident - and here I am talking about problems on the day which cause delays to other services, not whether the train turns up with the right loco/stock or runs over the advertised route which is another matter altogether. The problem is that when things do go wrong they can go very wrong and the whole issue gets blown out of proportion.

 

Perhaps some hard facts to back up your belief would be useful.

 

There has been regular steam up the East Coast for several years now, in fact between Steam Dreams and RTC I would say it is at least monthly. While there has been a couple of incidents the vast majority have been faultless and indeed steam has given some of it's best performances on this route, 60007 and Tornado spring immediately to mind. While knee jerk reactions are almost inevitable when you start to talk about £1 million compensation bills, banning steam from certain routes at certain times won't stop it happening elsewhere at another time. What it will do is make lives harder for Steam Dreams and RTC who have run many successful trips out of The Cross in recent years.
I still maintain an industry wide investigation and overall sharpening up of standards is required to prevent mistakes like 30777 and 70000's water incident happening again, afterall we don't want to be setting alight any railway at any time or delaying any passengers. East Coast passengers aren't more important than anyone else even if the compensation bill is bigger!
A survey appeared in one of the mags a few years ago that revealed that steam failure rates were pretty good when compared against other forms of traction. Of course the mainline has upped it's game in recent years and the benchmark is much higher, but when you consider how many repeat journeys take place over the summer such as the Jacobite, Shakespeare etc most run without issue. When a steam loco does sit down it is always going to cause more fuss and debate and perhaps this makes it seem a more regular occurence.

 

I would like to think that such an action will lead to better information sharing by groups as to why some locos fare better than others, but I fear pride would perhaps get in the way? Certainly Mr Riley's locos have a very low failure rate and he has always been quite open as to his rigorous maintenance regimes that are in place, I think he calls it mainline plus! However, if some of his measures were adopted by others and failure rates decline then that must be considered as a way forward for the industry. It is this sort of co operation that will help raise standards for everyone. I know Frank keeps on going on about 'SLOA mark 2', but it needs to be more than that, going beyond tour planning to looking at maintenance schedules, training and provide advice in lots of different areas. SLOA was right for then but we live in a different and more intensive world now. Heritage Railways have the HRA which represents the many railways with one voice. Mainline operators need a similar but far more proactive and involved organistion that can provide advice and guidelines in the many different areas of mainline operation with the overall goal of raising our game and making us more professional - so we can successfully provide an intensive steam service in the 21st Century. Industry leaders such as West Coast, Crewe, Tyesley and RTC and Steam Dreams would have to be at the forefront, would meet regularly and share and collate advice and information.

 

Don't know about 4492 but from personal observation I can confirm a different main line tour engine this year appeared to be out of coal. On the way back to the overnight stabling point it was being fed with old sleepers scrounged from the lineside junk pile as mentioned previously on this forum.

 

I agree, nobody wants to criticise volunteers and we shouldn't. However, if standards have to be met it doesn't matter who is carrying out the work, those standards still have to be met if we want to mix with the modern railway. And any worker should be open to help, training and advice to improve those standards.

 

Sadly the problems grab all the attention and the runs that go as planned don't make the headlines and there are many that go as they should DH

 

Having been following this thread I felt I had to contribute from a different angle.
If we look at one week in August, the Rail Touring Company’s/WCRC were operating 20 steam trains, ranging from the far West Highlands of Scotland, to the East coast of Yorkshire, the South coast of Dorset, into North Wales, East Anglia, and into Shakespeare country. Statistically, that is 20 engine crews, 40 staff, doubled up to 40 crews and 80 staff, as most trains require two crews for the outward and return journeys. Plus the volunteer support crews, catering staff, and others involved, in the running of the train, amounts to a guestimate of 20 per train, giving you manpower resource requirement of 400 people. With an average of ten carriages per train, that’s also 200 carriages to be cleaned and serviced, as well, during the week, involving more staff at servicing points.
The WCRC - as the major provider of the train and crew; plus all the volunteer crews, and other people involved, needs to be congratulated on this major logistical exercise, and providing from my experience, a high level of customers service, to an estimated 6,000 plus passengers carried during the one week example. These passengers will have generated £600K in income for the train operators, plus what they spend at their destinations.
Over the last 3 years steam charters number in the region of up to 300 per year. Crunch that into the above statistics, and you get a resources requirement to meet a demand for 90,000 customers. At an average spend of £100 per passenger, the market is worth £9 million per annum. Factor in the people who are employed in the industry, train crews, depot staff, engineering, office, catering crews, etc, and you soon see the bigger picture. Lots of passengers travel to enjoy a day out, to visit a destination with a historical, seaside, or good retail shopping centres, for example, and keep coming back for more. I do, but I also enjoy steam locomotive haulage. From a marketing aspect this is good business, long may it last…

 

Acorb and JohnMc - These are the seeds that I have been trying to sow for a long time now - Railtouring is a big business and the modern railway has many facets. SLOA was an owners club - any 21st Century version would need to be a whole lot broader - but the necessity for one to set standards and agree strategies becomes more obvious by the week.

The market is diverse, and to pretend that it is not discriminating because trains still fill is simply uncommercial and not in any way forward looking - the core railtouring market is probably less than one per cent of the population, Joe Public being largely found on the repeat itinerary routes at around 50% of the basic fares on tours, so if done properly there is a rather larger market there for the taking.

If the promoters want to widen their horizons then there are quite a few sacred cows in the firing line. If they are happy to see their clients taken for a ride on ever longer days, at ever slower speeds, along green tunnels that shake locos to bits; if they don't actually knock bits off them - then lets carry on as we are. Then we can get onto loco, rolling stock etc issues.

 

Having just read Steam Railway's account of events on that dreadful day, I am amazed that this convoy was allowed to travel as far as it did before a signalman decided that it had better be halted before half the country was set on fire.

Surely the burning sleepers at Doncaster would have given someone a clue that something was wrong and 70013 and 30777 should not have been allowed to proceed beyond this point.

On the old railway where I was a signalman (Western Region) 6 bells would have been sent to the box in advance immediately so as to bring the convoy to a stop. A typical example in my day was an unfitted train of coal empties where one of the wagons may be spotted with flames eminating from one of the axles. If it was not possible to stop the train having thrown back my signals, 6 bells would be sent and the box in advance would put his back to danger. Not only did I have to look for tail lamps to ensure a complete train but I also had to listen (for hot boxes) and look for any other abnormalities which could cause an incident.

Now that manual signal boxes have, in the main, disappeared I thought hot box detectors were installed to do the work that used to be my job and detect any excess heat. Many steam tours in the past have been brought to a sudden holt because the hot box detector went off (usually for no reaons) so why on earth did this not happen on 2 September?

Or have I missed something here?

Nick

 

I was once told by an NR signaller that the instruction now is that if a hot-box detector is set off by a steam loco it should be ignored as it is not uncommon for them to be set off by the heat from the firebox. I don't know the truth of this but it does make sense and could explain why 30777 wasn't stopped earlier.

 

I'd like to know what kind of report the Signalman. All he'll have are track circuit indications to tell him the state of the line. If that was all he was relying on then it may not have been obvious that a significant fire was taking hold of the lineside without anyone actually telling him what was happening on the ground. Having worked a panel I know that you are 'blind' to an extent.