ORR to Reduce Mainline Train Lengths - the end of 12/13/14 coach trains

Yes, but I am sure those who will be spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on Clan Line during its temporary retirement for overhaul, will be gutted and worrying that they could lose the Belmond Pullman business. The would be catastrophic for the MNPLS because it provides regular income year in, year out.

I really do look forward to the responses to this fast developing story. It may not make pleasant reading.

 

I would imagine the A1 trust will be less than impressed, given that the ability of the P2 to easily haul longer trains will probably be a key part of the business case for the build.

On the other hand, any sensible proposals which help safeguard steam on the main line are to be welcomed. It's just that a "one size fits all" proposal doesn't seem to be completely sensible.

Dave

 

So, Belmond "ALWAYS" has a diesel on the back. WRONG. Most trains now run without a diesel. Even when a is provided it is generally used for reasons other than shoving Clan Line around. In fact DBS steam crews on the BP pride themselves in providing all of the power while the diesel must idles away at the back. You only have to listen to You Tube clips of Clan Line climbing away from Shalford up to Dorking to see what I mean.

There is no reference in the article to double heading solving the 11 coach limit and nothing about a diesel on the back doing the same. We will have to wait and see the outcome of the ORR summit.

As for a sensationalised post, allow me to refer you to the article in Steam Railway where the impact on, for example, Peter Watkinson of Statesman Rail, is clear and concise. He has clearly stated the adverse impact of such a restriction to eleven coaches.

National Preservation, as far as forums are concerned, is breaking this story first and we should be please that it is now in the open but please DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPACT OF WHAT THE ORR ARE ABOUT TO IMPOSE!

 

Didn't NatPres break this story, erm, yesterday, when there was a load of twaddle posted about shorter trains having better braking performance

Tom

 

Yes, I'm still trying to get my head around that. In my experience, with passenger stock, the more vehicles, the better the braking characteristics.

 

Are there not easier ways to promote SR on here - the original post has the air of messages one gets on Facebook an Twitter that start 'Oh my god you must read this page'!?

It seems hardly worth debating until the mentioned 'steam summit' is held, as for fast developing story - a date hasn't even been set for the discussion so it sure ain't moving that quickly...

As for tour operators, it is true that it may affect the existing Fellsmen (but in response to that that now seems to have a diesel as standard) - but further into SR's piece its noted that VT trains tend to be shorter anyway and SD say that can manage it this year and then review if it comes in.

Yes it could be an issue but shouting and panicing about it whilst the level of known information is minimal seems a little OTT.

 

Yes Al a long time overdue. VTR already try to match the train length with the engine and maybe actually this would be a more refined approach generally rather than a blunt edged sword of one fits all. For example Class 5/6 max 10 coaches, Class 7 max 11 coaches and class 8 max 12 coaches.Maybe something more will come out of the summit

 

Perhaps one day we will have the pleasure of seeing the P2 + 11 pushing a failed coal train up to Ais Gill. Seriously, a scaled limit as suggested by Gricerdon musts surely be the outcome and, I would suggest, some flexibility for the ease of route. There is another more inventive way out; find some lighter stock.

 

Oh dam! Are you saying I was beaten to it? Never mind. Great story though, although the impact should it be imposed, will be significant for reasons already being posted here.

 

That's a good point about the stock. An 11 coach train now weighs about 400 tons whereas in the days of steam it was about 365 tons. But it aint going to change as most Mk1s now have Commonwealth bogies

Don

 

It seems a bit odd to just consider train length: what is important is the relationship between train weight (Pullmans for example are much heavier than Mark 1s, and as you say, bogie type makes a big difference even on Mark 1s), available tractive effort and gradient. What would be an easy spin for a Black 5 down the GWML is clearly impossible up Parkstone Bank, as has been shown in recent years.

So what you really need is a table that gives acceptable loads for a given engine type on a given route. What I would hope would be that the acceptable maximum limits become a bit more conservative, which probably needs nothing more than a general reduction of one carriage. Excitable stories about the tremendous effort made by some loco as it struggled over the northern fells at speeds down below 20mph are all very well for selling magazines, but it is no way to run a railway.

Tom

 

Gricerdon is right that one-size-fits-all would make no sense. The operating companies already usually provide assistance if the load would otherwise be excessive, but that depends on the particular loco and the particular route.

Edit: Tom makes the same point.

A much discussed recent instance of slight delay to other trains caused by a steam locomotive that was arguably slightly overloaded was on 30th May on Shap. How many coaches on that occasion? Eleven.

 

That's what they said about the Wootton Bassett SPAD if you recall. You can check that out on this forum. To dismiss this in the way you have is inappropriate in my view. But hey, it is only my view. If in 12 months time we look back and the "Summit" never happened ande 12/13 coach steam hauled trains are going about their business, no one will be happier than me. But I am not one to bury my head in the sand. It is quite clear from what I read that the ORR are very likely to impose this restriction. We all know they have teeth.

 

Sorry, what's the problem with imposing a limit? Steam on the main line is a luxury and if they are imposing restrictions its clearly to KEEP steam running on the main line in a sensible way rather than trying to cause more problems. Obviously there are going to be issues for tour operators but i'm sure they can be resolved.

It would be great to hear a loco slogging away up hill with a 14 coach train..but all those commuters and regular rail users don't care about trains they just hate hold ups, and they are the ones paying for us to have a railway in the first place to run our steam locomotives on...

Why does every bit of news that gets reported turn into doom and gloom and seriousness? Its the part of the enthusiast community that really drives me round the bend. We are lucky to have what we have, and if people are trying to allow it to continue in a managed way lets just be thankful for it and stop moaning!

 

Are you suggesting people refrain from posting sensationalism until facts are known? That's a bit radical.

 

If what ORR is really saying is "Right you lot, we've had too many cases of stupid loadings, causing stalls and leading to delays, you clearly can't regulate yourselves to set sensible loads to suit the loco on the front, so we're going to set some limits" then I think its hard to argue. Even without the stalls, heavily loaded steam trains crawling up various banks is a big risk of delay to following trains. The modern mainline is supposed to be an effective fast mode of transport and there has to come a point where our hobby is intruding too far into that. If we want mainline steam then it needs to be mainline steam at line speed and however much we might want to watch a driver squeezing the last ounce of power out of a loco that is crawling at 10mph up a bank, its not a realistic option in 2015. The alternative to more sensible loadings is going to be certain routes with inclines being placed off limits.
However I suspect that the 11 coach blanket limit is at worst an opening gambit in negotiations.

 

Better get those slow old freight trains off the network as well then.