West Highlander Steam Express (3/9 - Day 1)

I cannot agree - the BSK which was the only coach that could have been removed without disturbing passengers had to stay with the train, as the food for the premier dining was in it, and the dining facility would have had to be caped - that was not commercially acceptable to the charterer. Hence my original suggestion of roading the luggage and food from the outset.

Removal of any other coach would have meant people having to stand - again - not commercially acceptable to the charterer either. The consist was supplied to charter order - not for fun, and would never have set out without NR approval. Everyone is in the mix.

The tour was exceptional in its combination of attractions - which is why I was tempted to book with RTC again, six years after I last travelled with them, but it bore out all my fears. The result was utterly unacceptable to passengers who had paid out between £450 and £800 for the four days of excursions, not late night /early morning expeditions, and many of whom were not died in the wool railway enthusiasts - which seems to be typical of the wine and dine clientele. The result was equally unacceptable to the staff and volunteers of all companies and owners who had to fight the circumstances visited upon them.

To suggest that we only praise the achievements, but not admit the failings; the resolution of which would inform a strategy for the future to avoid such an occurrence ever happening again would be simply wrong for those who want to see this market succeed.

We are an informed clientele who saw and understand what went wrong, and how easily it could have been avoided. A full and open discussion and communication of decisions arising is the creative and honest way forward, and the way in which future "farces" (a good old traditional enthusiast term) will be avoided.

 

Why didn't they just stick a diesel on the back right from the start?

 

Looking back, I suspect that there were some involved at the sharp end of this excursion who had a fair idea that the start out of Oban would prove to be too much for a Black Five before the tour took place. So it was a great pity that dispensation was not requested to allow the K4 to assist in advance. The weight and make-up of the consist would not then have mattered (providing the dispensation was granted) and an earlier return from Oban would have saved the K4 from having to battle with the elements on this occasion. From what Alberta writes this battle was the highlight of the tour - so perhaps no one would have wanted to miss it.

According to TBirdFranks calculations the K4 was overloaded with ref to the old limits for the class, so with that in mind Peter Walker must be some driver and the engine truly unique.

I have noticed that the Marquess appears to be allowed to run at 60mph these days. Wonder what it would make of Devon and Cornwall.

 

Now there is a suggestion

 

Or the Cambrian to Aberystwyth...... (Please?)

 

Oh Yes - the Marquess isn't hindered by all that brass and copper.

Seriously - she is a mega-capable little engine, but if she has problems with the Loch Awe viaduct how would she get to Barmouth?

There again she would be welcome in the play pen at COSSES 50!

 

Dont think it would be allowed to Barmouth considering she is RA6. I believe RA6 locos are allowed on the other section though. Then she can show the others how Tallerdiig is overcome

 

I think some clarification is required about load limits for locos in days gone by. These limits were related to the actual tare weight of the train and and not its estimated gross weight. In other words allowance was made for bodies and baggage in the tare weight limits.

On the West Highland line, the limit for a K4 was 300tons. At the weekend 61994 took 8 coaches for 280tons (or 277tons in TBirdFrank's calculations) so was clearly within its limit.

The corresponding load limit for a Class 5 on the C&O (Callander & Oban) was 255tons out of Oban to Glencruitten, and 265 tons for the rest of the line. 45407 took 7 coaches for 245tons (or 244tons By TBF's calculations) so was also within its load limit.

Of course keeping to these limits is no guarantee of reaching ones destination, especially over the difficult terrain of the West Highlands. However by adhearing to them one can reasonably expect to get there with more than a fighting chance. We all enjoy seing a good engine put through its paces over a challenging road and this was what was on offer. In this instance it did not work out, but I see no need for a scapegoat to blame for what happened. All reasonable precautions were taken and there were no misconceptions about the challange involved. If you want to be totally risk averse then you do not run tours like this at all, and we would all be the poorer for that.

Hopefully we will see a Black 5 (or two) in Oban again before too long. Something to do with unfinished business.....?!

Peter James

 

Are you sure about that? When we joined the train at Liverpool on Friday, the RMB was labelled coach F and the Mark 2 as coach G. The labels were swapped as, I think, there was a full complement of 64 passengers booked in coach F, with just a few in coach G. This makes me wonder whether coach G should have been a second brake. The other brake could then have been removed/re-attached at Glasgow reducing the load on the West Highland to that shown in the tour brochure.

 

Frank and Mark, have to say thank you for your descriptions of what was a eventfull day to say the least. Sounds as though the guys up front showed what they could do in very trying circumstances and a great achievement in getting everyone back to Glasgow even if it was some 6/7 hours late.

Lets hope lessons are learned in every department but, I'm sure the "unfinished business" tag for a certain loco owner involved will be too much to take and hopefully a re-run can be organised sometime.

 

rtc are now contemplating canceling the Tin Bath Extra in November .DUE TO FEARS ABOUT LEAVES ON THE LINE.
It is a very steep climb out of Barnsley at the Best of times.

So this unusual train booked to run from Manchester Piccadilly via Romily, Marple and Chinley may not now happen

 

Is this speculation, rumour or from RTC themseselves?

DaveB

 

Doesnt the RHTT go down that route,and assuming DRS have re won that contract they can use a 37 with horns in its nose,as opposed to on the roof? I know it doesnt completely clear the problem but i am sure a solution can be found??

 

Although last year's "extra" ran at about the same time of year without problems, I could understand if RTC postponed it until perhaps February. I hope they don't cancel altogether.

 

18th October 2009 to be exact.

 

Back on topic, I have to agree with Peter James that we would all be the poorer if trips like this were not attempted.
Presumably the load limits were arrived at empirically and allowed margins for variations in adhesion on a very difficult route, and for the loco to be able to restart the train if stopped on the gradient.
In that circumstance worst case crank position would also be allowed for I guess.
TBF's comment about the loco being stopped without slipping and at full BP against a standing load suggests that the load and drag overcame the loco and that it was not defeated by poor adhesion.
This leaves me a little puzzled by the validity of the stated load limits.
Can anyone illuminate further?

 

Not sure about the "worst case crank postion" factor. Wouldn't the driver just set back slightly to achieve a more favourable position?"

 

Having read all the posts I am surprised that no one has commented on a major operation blunder in that the back up/rescue diesel was not fitted with RETB so could not be used.

 

They haven't. DRS only have the Stowmarket and Kingmoor circuits again this autumn, everything else is DB.