Saphos Trains 'Golden Arrow' - 26/10/19

You obviously never travelled on the late-lamented Folkestone Harbour branch!

 

Indeed, there is no reason why we should ever find out the complexities of the contractual arrangement between DB/LSL for the provision of drivers and/or whether any Traction inspector was DB/LSL?

Likewise I note from the Guidelines for steam train lengths and loads shared previously, TOC's can propose loads in excess of the guidelines when supported by a risk assessment, one can only assume that this is what LSL did to get the train agreed and without being aware of that content it is again rather difficult to shunt blame over to NR?

 

A limited number of DB drivers are still allowed to drive 47s for LSL and VT (if ever hired out) although there is an increasingly smaller pre 2004 pool of them with adequate knowledge to be signed off for such duties with retirements and staff changing employers gradually. Some of the last regular duties involved shunting and moving them for Riviera around Crewe Diesel depot up until about 4-5 years ago before stock eventually transferred to Burton. Any who signs them now will almost certainly have driven them up until about 15-16 years for EWS as was so at most will just have to request a short refresher if it's been a while since last duties.

 

I was wondering about that but where could that have been ? Possibly at St Mary Cray or Swanley I suppose. But even that would have been very disruptive.

 

Maybe time for a refresher course on 47s then.

 

For driver hires the issue is not simply refreshers but available numbers who have past experience of the loco type. With EWS withdrawing all of their own back in 2004, unless a particular driver has past knowledge from working at another operator (and that is not likely to apply to very many) it is only those ex EWS/BR chaps that are currently on DB books still (so not retired or changed employers) who were trained on them up until circa 2003/4 that are any use to hire to smaller operators save for route conducting perhaps. The pool will therefore get smaller each year. Training drivers from scratch for infrequent hires just isn't feasible so refreshing the pre 2004 group/using the few who have them on their card again right now is your only option there. Of course that may be seldom of use unless something is planned in advance.

I will leave it at that though 47708 as its straying away from the topic a little even if if there is a loose link.

 

Somewhat guns blazing interview with LSL regarding this in SR?

 

I cannot understand how a company that is allowed to run steam hauled trains on the national rail network hasn't got someone on their books with experience of running charter trains. From the comments made by the general manager,LSL obviously haven't.

 

NR need to take responsibility too. Saphos May have acted like rank amateurs but NR had to approve it and someone should have realised that asking a Class 7 to take 12 up a 1 in 60 gradient on a wet rail was not going to end well

 

Agreed, it does seem a bit bizarre that no-one at LSL, including this team of "professional railwaymen" (term used on their website) http://www.lsltoc.co.uk/#ourteam worked out how wrong this was going to go.

Kudos to LSL/Saphos for doling out 50% refunds however, that is impressive. I guess the very deep pockets of the owner are an asset here.

 

The "largely" former DRS management organised all Northern Belle operations for several years plus a few year's worth of Scotland to Southampton cruise charters and probably another hundred or so ad hoc day trips for other promoters that were using DRS. So certainly not new to charters a couple of years ago. Ultimately Network Rail has ample experience to have known what may/may not have worked on the routes in question but the state of the railhead has caused decisions to be made that are based on future damage limitation to both the business and the small fleet of steam locomotives in question. The cost of repairs to running gear and wheelsets would likely outstrip any margin that could be made off one trip that went wrong and indeed the future commercial damage which is somewhat harder to measure is then reduced.

And the 50% offer is generous weighing up the rough amount of inconvenience and hardship (plus loss of some of the big selling points). I imagine those making decisions will have learnt from their old clients pre-Saphos days whenever DRS may have endured any issues with operations.

 

What struck me whilst reading the article, which has since been understandably withdrawn, is that the LSL spokesman said something akin to the fact that they were new to the job and were learning from experience. That doesn't correlate with DRS running x number of charter trains over several years, but there again, I wasn't aware that DRS planned and managed steam-hauled charter traffic. Running steam locomotives with nearly 500 tons on the drawbar on a steep incline during Autumn can be quite a risk, I know that from my own experience. Back in BR days, this application to run the GA charter most certainly wouldn't have got off the ground with David Ward, regarding time of year/weight of train. After a number of steam locomotives had slipped to a stand on the S&C during leaf fall season, he didn't actually ban steam-hauled charter trains from the line during the month of October, but he had to be satisfied that by running such trains they wouldn't come to grief. In other words, steam was effectively banned from the route. The running of the sandite train was also effectively managed when it was available, with such a train usually running ahead of the steam charter, not behind it as in the case of the GA. I realise that Ward has attracted criticism from various quarters over the years, but I can vouch that his management of main line steam operations was certainly strict, but it was in the best interests of the steam charter business. Without fail, he would telephone the traction inspector the day before the run and go through all of the details concerning that particular charter from a footplate point of view, does that happen today? He would also speak to the traction inspector the following Monday to see how things went. The locomotive owner would most probably get a call, especially if one or two matters warranted discussion about locomotive performance. There were many occasions when the traction inspector would get onto the footplate at Carlisle and quote David's telephone call requesting particular attention to whatever, especially in line side fire risk periods. That is management.

From reading various posts on NP, it is apparent that LSL is a most welcome addition to the main line scene, all I was pointing out was why they hadn't secured the services of a seasoned steam charter planner to help them identify the pitfalls that were known by us over 30 years ago. I agree with the above posts questioning NR's part in the events involving the LSL charter train; why didn't someone there not flag the issues up.

 

For those who would like to read what happened 'from the jockey's mouth' its in my column in the latest Heritage Railway out now. Many thanks to Jim Clarke. There is no doubt that rail conditions were the immediate cause of the Bearsted delay but the seeds of this unfortunate day were sown a long while back. My column compares 26th October with a run over Bearsted bank with 850 on a similar load and also Martin Mill with Tangmere on 13, both in good conditions. Suggest read the article and decide for yourselves where the blame lay. It wont put me off traveling with Saphos though as they are a high class operator who are striving to do what they promised at the outset.

 

Thanks. What should happen, in my humble opinion, is that operators who seek to run on the main line should have to prove adequate knowledge and experience/skills in their management such that such blatantly risky workings as this are given proper thought. For example, an exam paper-style interrogation about basic railway operations and motive power capabilities (including seasonal factors) would seem to be a minimum requirement for such a hugely costly enterprise. This, of course, does not only apply to steam workings - one wouldn't, for example, roster a single class 20 on a 12 coach train up 'Lickey' - the same principles apply. I don't know if any of the above actually does happen, but if so, it failed here. It's far too risky to let new operators gain their running experience by having something like this happen, when 'right first time' would not be hard to achieve with the right checks in place.

On top of that, there needs to be a similar protocol in Network Rail such that they only allow the running of trains which have a reasonable chance of avoiding trouble (assuming no mechanical failure). The 50% refund is all very well, but countless other passengers, not out on a leisure trip, were seriously inconvenienced and the reputation of charter operations has been dented again.

 

Incidentally, I've seen a couple of photos of Folkestone Harbour station recently and it looks to have been very well restored.

 

Yes - saw a good video of it. Very nice job. There are however a couple of things missing..... like track and trains

 

Lots of good little bars tho....

 

Just coming back to this, I've found an online TE programme which will calculate quite accurately the TE of a loco and the required TE of the job in question. For the Brit with 12 on, assuming 30T per coach, I make the load inc loco to be 505T. On a 1 in 60, required TE is 28000 lbf and the Brit has 30500 lbf available at 85% BP. Not a big margin, and if the coaches are > 30T loaded then the margin is even tighter. And that's without the problems of adhesion etc.