Flying Scotsman

I’ll get dogs abuse for even suggesting this, but why do I get the feeling that some members on here wouldn’t be happy with this?

 

Thanks. From the other reports looks like a troubled time for Route Control on Saturday getting any traffic operated.
With the memories of Carmont still raw, I guess even more caution than normal was taken.

Cheers, Neil

 

I think that you are over egging this somewhat. We had after all been all the way to Aberdeen and back and had encountered no problems. There was no reason to suppose that Perth to Dunblane was any wetter than where we had already been. In the circumstances it is quite normal for the first train over a route for several hours to examine the line as it goes. Controllers sat in an office in Glasgow do not necessarily distinguish between different types of train - a train is a train to them. Surely it is to their credit that they were willing to listen to the reluctance of the people on the ground and agree to an alternative route.

Peter

 

I understand that, but that late at night, when the line has been shut all day, waiting until daylight hours would've been the sensible option anyway. There was only a small handful of services booked that way that night, so waiting another 12 hours wouldn't have been a problem. Just seems an odd decision by NR to try and get a passenger service to inspect the line at that time of night, rather than waiting until the morning. Fair play to them and WCRC for working round it though.

 

Sorry Alan, but I was there and you were not. Thanks for giving the company all this credit but it really is not warrented. The request to examine the line was perfectly reasonable - after all the line was not shut as such, it just had not been used for some hours. As it was there was an alternative route available, this was mutually agreed. Easy as.......Now what would have happened had there not been an alternative route? Cancel the train at Perth with no means of getting passengers home or proceed as requested at caution. Fortunately this situation did not arise.

It is easy to knock Network Rail from the comfort of a warm home but Glasgow control had to try to manage a very complex situation across their patch that evening and they accomodated our train very reasonably.

Peter

 

I just cannot understand your reasoning here. That fact that you were there does not give you greater knowledge of what was happening behind the scenes, or imply that your opinion is of more value than that of others. To propose sending a loaded passenger train out at night over a route unproven for many hours was sheer stupidity. This was more or less what happened at Carmont last year, although over a much shorted time period, also in Scotland, and for which NR was heavily fined. It would seem that some people had not learned the lesson.

I don't often find myself in a position to applaud West Coast but I wholeheartedly do so now, the driver's decision was absolutely correct, as was later proved in daylight. He was right and Control; was wrong; it's as simple as that. Had the train gone as Control wanted, another tragedy might well have occurred.

 

I stand by my comment about Glanrhyd. The decision to use a passenger carrying train to inspect the line following known extreme weather led directly to the train being in a place of danger. I was shocked that this was proposed at all, let alone so soon after the Carmont hearings - doubly so when Scottish control have done such a good job managing risks and comms elsewhere on their patch.

 

Look, there was a three way discussion between the train crew, of which I was part, West Coast Railway Control and Network Rail Control. Examining the line is now a normal request made to the next train that comes along. Easy to do with a two car 156 unit, not so easy with a steam hauled train. There is absolutely nothing unusual in the driver of any train discussing the difficulties that he might experience if he is reluctant to proceed. There was a perfectly reasonable grown up discussion about the situation and an alternative was agreed. There was nothing wrong with any Network Rail's original request - it is now standard procedure - and they were willing to listen to the people at the sharp end. The railway in this instance operated as it should in such a situation.

Peter

 

To be fair a Modern multiple unit travelling slowly with all lights blazing and windcreen wipers would be in a better position to see the track in front than a guy leaning out of a Steam loco cab 25 feet feet away from the front of the train with much more limited visibility and relatively poor lighting. Thats before we get to consider braking ability and light versus heavy vehicles. Right call driver.

 

Memo to self - just dont bother relating interesting events on here as they seem to get blown out of all proportion. Passenger trains get cautioned and asked to examine the line virtually every hour of the day. It is no big deal. In this instance I doubt if anyone would have proceeded with out further discussion. References to Glanrhyd and Carmont are over dramatic and irrelevant here. We came nowhere near to entering those realms. Please calm down everyone.

Peter

 

Not sure I am following the drama here. As I see it:

1. Network Rail control, following their standard procedure, ask the driver of a train to proceed at caution to carry out a line inspection
2. Driver of train replies that a steam locomotive is not the ideal vehicle from which to carry out such an inspection
3. Control and train crew then mutually plan an alternative path so as to return passengers to their intended destination with the minimum inconvenience given the circumstances.

Doesn’t seem like a big drama to me, just two sets of professionals working collaboratively to figure out the best solution to a complex problem.

Tom

 

I seem to remember stewarding a CME where we were the first train on the S & C for about 24 hours and the crew had to slowly inspect for NR every tunnel for icicles. I guess from memory this was probably the CME with BIL and Mayflower. Of course that was in daylight (except inside the tunnels of course)

 

First, please don't stop posting points of detail - it's useful and of interest to understand what happened and how.

Second, on the question of normal practice, this layman is struggling with what "normal practice". My reflex linkage to Glanrhyd was to the fact that the resulting inquiry specifically called out the use of passenger carrying trains for route inspection - something that 35 years later is apparently normal practice. That, regardless of whether it's a steam hauled railtour or a class 153, is what I comment on. This was after extreme rainfall and when there were known to have been washouts caused by the same storm.

The train crew did the right thing; I am very uncomfortable about the way that control even asked for this.

I have recent experience of having been significantly delayed by the railway using my train for a secondary purpose (in my case, as the rescue unit to evacuate passengers from a failed train). As a paying passenger, one of my key emotions - and, judging by those around, that of others too - was of feeling we had been misrepresented to when joining the train. In our case, there was no personal risk involved, just moderate inconvenience (150 minutes late arrival on a 75 minute journey). For line inspection following extreme weather, there would also be the personal risk if something serious had been found.

 

Anyway Peter looking back on the last week and a whole series of decisions by various parties around FS, the weather, the destination and the train running, you can all look back and say job well done.

Peter

 

Could NR not sent one of their own inspectors, in a 4x4 hirail to inspect???

 

I may be wrong but I think what has been missed is that all signalmen and controllers see is a train number on their panel and some will not have the experience or interest to know or enquire about what they are dealing with. The train number for the Scotsman trip would just show up as 1Zxx not that it was steam hauled so, not unreasonably, the crew were asked to do a line inspection and not unreasonably they refused to do it. I was once on the footplate waiting at a red signal during a shunt move with support coach when the signalling centre contacted the driver and asked for confirmation that he’d walked through the unit before giving him the road!