Winter Cumbrian Mountain Expresses 2014

And to boot 6233 seems to be one that doesn't slip going up Shap and Beattock.

 

Glad you made it. Thought you may have driven to Watford on this occasion. A4 would be good but what's all this old nonsense about six wheel tender locos being banned at Carlisle? ( see another thread )

 

Sorry that should read EIGHT of course.

 

If I book for the Cumbrian Coast Express in June, I might drive to Watford.

 

Just not a good period for locomotive availability at the moment. It is probably not a good idea to chance 45699 unassisted for a while so what can be done other than run with a Black V or a diesel? Neither of John Cameron's engines are available in the short term and Winter maintenance and other organised events account for much of the rest. Maybe WCR need another class 7 of their own.

 

Intimated elsewhere that Bodmin's departure from the Mid Hant's (loco & tender are to/have been shunted and split) to somewhere Oop North is imminent................................................... not that will help the current situation!

 

They already have 2 which seem unavailable plus a class 8P under restoration. The issue for them is probably less about asset acquisition as recruitment of competent staff in sufficient numbers to maintain an expanding fleet both steam and diesel. Then there is the question of workshop space for currently 6 operational steam locos plus another being overhauled as well as any contract maintenance like the K1 for example. It's a big job.

 

Sorry to have read of another instance of a West Coast loco having some serious problems, especially after the positive comments that were posted following Galatea's test run last week. The LMS quartet owned/part owned by West Coast (44932, 45699, 46115 and 48151) all appear to be well-liked locos on this forum, and all are capable on their day of turning in a superb performance, but there isn't the consistency that you take for granted with the Tyseley fleet, Clan Line or Ian Riley's two Black Fives. I can therefore fully sympathise with anyone hesitant to book on a tour currently rostered for 45699 or 46115.

However, I don't think criticism of Carnforth on this forum is helpful, especially when we don't know what goes on behind those closed doors. I'm sure that David Smith and his team must be gutted whenever one of their locos doesn't deliver. I'm sure too that they want to see Tyseley/Riley levels of reliability, but there's obviously a problem somewhere. Extra staff required? Who knows. They now have an extra income stream from Steam Dreams, so I hope for their sake, and for those many of us who would very much like to enjoy a run behind 45699, 46115 (or 35018 for that matter at some point) that they are able to work out what needs to be done and to address the issue(s) of reliability that has dogged them, seemingly , for several years.

 

I saw in one of the magazines that NR had called them to a meeting, I think in December, after the Tangmere incident.

Dave

 

45699 needs some fine tunning, and to be given a sensible load, it was unfortunate that it had to stand in for 46115 on a load which I consider was 1 coach too many, but why was the test run of the later left to a few days before the tour?
I have more confidence in booking a tour with 45699 with a sensible load, rather than either 46115 or 44932 at present.

 

From watching the excellent videos posted on here my own view is that there is not a lot wrong with 45699, she did seem to be short of steam which coupled with injector problems makes any engine a handful.
Might be as simple as making sure that the coal in the tender is suitable.

Cheers Dave

 

Poor coal on railtours seems to have been a problem for as long as I've been travelling on them, (late 80s/early 90s). Why hasn't this issue been solved, and why isn't there a process, including a QA check to ensure tours with steam only go ahead with a supply of coal that's fit for purpose ?

 

And 46115's test run was only SIX coaches

 

Fires and financial problems within the remains of the British coal industry have all added to the recent trouble and having to import it too.

 

The timing of test runs often does not leave much time to rectify any defects found either. Tyseley locos always seem to be right without any running in other than formal certification tests. Credit to them and the aspirational standard for others. Obviously the ideal is a spell of incremental running in off network.

 

Interesting, as is Ralph's post at #299. All the more reason I would suggest that coal quality checks should be formalised in a similar way to other pre tour checks.