GBRF Class 73s with a ballast train broken down at Dormans....for 4 hours

[physics34]

......still there. The rescue locos were also having trouble but are now on there way. Train in question:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R01206/2016/09/28/advanced

 

[trainmania100]

Blimey they were the rebuilt EDs too its suprising to see so many of them struggle...
A bad day I guess, we all have them

 

[Kite159]

Seems to be on the move (going by RTT reporting it at East Grinstead 351 late)

Could have been worst, could have broken down on the main-line

 

[tsr]

6Y05 has just started moving again, very very slowly. 1Z99 assisting train had to be dispatched from Tonbridge. 377s can theoretically couple to 73s in a variety of scenarios but unfortunately I don't believe any were at East Grinstead, so it would have involved a long wrong-direction run-round from Lingfield to East Grinstead and back to Dormans.

This working seemed to be generally OK the last couple of days and apparently has attracted some enthusiast interest too.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Would a 377 be able to tow a 73 with a ballast train? Surely they wouldn't have the power?

Was wondering what a freight train was doing there in the first place. It delivering ballast to the Bluebell Line?

It made a change to see the East Grinstead branch stuffed rather than the Uckfield one. Plenty of very irate passengers complaining on Twitter!

 

[LBSCR Times]

Had earlier failed at Mitre Bridge, then again at Sanderstead, where it went forward on diesel power!
Reminds me of when the loco-hauled passenger trains used to fail on the Oxted line, although back then assistance normally came from Norwood.

 

[Crawley Ben]

Would a 377 be able to tow a 73 with a ballast train? Surely they wouldn't have the power?

Was wondering what a freight train was doing there in the first place. It delivering ballast to the Bluebell Line?

It made a change to see the East Grinstead branch stuffed rather than the Uckfield one. Plenty of very irate passengers complaining on Twitter!

You are spot on there - Bluebell Railway tweeted yesterday that ballast was being delivered to the railway (with a pic of a GBRF 73).

Cheers

Ben

 

[Deepgreen]

Would a 377 be able to tow a 73 with a ballast train? Surely they wouldn't have the power?

Was wondering what a freight train was doing there in the first place. It delivering ballast to the Bluebell Line?

It made a change to see the East Grinstead branch stuffed rather than the Uckfield one. Plenty of very irate passengers complaining on Twitter!

Assuming the ballast train weighed about 800-1000 tons (probably not the generic 1800 tons stated on RTT), probably not, and, if so, only at very low speed on level/falling grades. I imagine it would be adhesion rather than hp that would be the problem.

 

[LBSCR Times]

Assuming the ballast train weighed about 800-1000 tons (probably not the generic 1800 tons stated on RTT), probably not, and, if so, only at very low speed on level/falling grades. I imagine it would be adhesion rather than hp that would be the problem.

1300 tons and on a rising gradient!

 

[Deepgreen]

1300 tons and on a rising gradient!

Well, that's not a job for a 377, then - get a couple of Bluebell steam locos out to show 'em!

 

[randyrippley]

Well, that's not a job for a 377, then - get a couple of Bluebell steam locos out to show 'em!

It wasn't a job for 50 year old clapped out electro-diesels either, even if they have been refurbished. Using geriatric motive power like this is a nonsense in todays environment

 

[tsr]

Would a 377 be able to tow a 73 with a ballast train? Surely they wouldn't have the power?

Certainly not one on its own. But remember a large number of the trains down there are 10-12 coaches in the peak. However (as below) adhesion would be an issue, plus third rail capability issues.

It made a change to see the East Grinstead branch stuffed rather than the Uckfield one. Plenty of very irate passengers complaining on Twitter!

Unfortunately the Uckfields did end up quite late, especially the 1708 ex London Bridge, as much dithering took place at Hurst Green (and if it was anything like it normally is, I can well imagine that things might not have been helped by the usual scenario of passengers not wanting to alight trains terminated there in an emergency, which is all very well if it's a freezing cold day, but it wasn't...).

Had earlier failed at Mitre Bridge, then again at Sanderstead, where it went forward on diesel power!
Reminds me of when the loco-hauled passenger trains used to fail on the Oxted line, although back then assistance normally came from Norwood.

It was losing a bit of time here and there as well, even in between failures. All very easy to look at in hindsight, but I really do wonder if there was any other sensible option than to try to keep it moving.

Assuming the ballast train weighed about 800-1000 tons (probably not the generic 1800 tons stated on RTT), probably not, and, if so, only at very low speed on level/falling grades. I imagine it would be adhesion rather than hp that would be the problem.

1300 tons and on a rising gradient!

Well, that's not a job for a 377, then - get a couple of Bluebell steam locos out to show 'em!

I'm not sure of the extent of the failure of the locomotives yesterday - I'd be interested to find out. If it was like the two days previously, it would have been a double-headed train with two 73/9s. I guess it would be really very unfortunate if both were to die completely rather than just failing to make the gradient. If the latter, I wonder if a long 377 formation could theoretically have done anything?

377s are authorised to assist failed 73s (up to 35mph too ), though you do need an emergency coupler and a couple of additional staff. Can't imagine that was authorised just for any solo 73s trundling around the network. You're right that it would have been a lot of hard work and Control would probably view that with quite a lot of scepticism. But as I've stated above, the resources weren't in place anyway and actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure if you could actually use the 3rd rail round there for something like that, without everything going pop (to put it colloquially).

 

[Carlisle]

It wasn't a job for 50 year old clapped out electro-diesels either, even if they have been refurbished. Using geriatric motive power like this is a nonsense in todays environment

Yes Its hard to believe there was an overwhelming case to use them on the Caledonian sleeper hundreds of miles from the nearest juice rail anyway

 

[captainbigun]

Yes Its hard to believe there was an overwhelming case to use them on the Caledonian sleeper hundreds of miles from the nearest juice rail anyway

Where do you folk make this stuff up?

Have you looked at a rebuilt 73? Clearly not. Some folk here are utterly ****less.

 

[physics34]

Where do you folk make this stuff up?

Have you looked at a rebuilt 73? Clearly not. Some folk here are utterly ****less.

Chill

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Yes Its hard to believe there was an overwhelming case to use them on the Caledonian sleeper hundreds of miles from the nearest juice rail anyway

define 'refurbished' ...

 

[Carlisle]

Why?

Far too much unsubstantiated bollocks on this forum lately.

For various reasons some are of the opinion there might well have been better options than rebuilt 50 year old class 73s that's all I was.saying

 

[aar0]

A mate lives nearby and wondered why something with enough heft from the heritage railway couldn't have tugged it into a siding or similar, to avoid the delays it caused - is there a reason this couldn't/can't happen?

 

[alex17595]

A mate lives nearby and wondered why something with enough heft from the heritage railway couldn't have tugged it into a siding or similar, to avoid the delays it caused - is there a reason this couldn't/can't happen?

Do they have anything mainline registered or anyone to drive it?

 

[Chris125]

Do they have anything mainline registered

None come to mind.

 

[physics34]

A mate lives nearby and wondered why something with enough heft from the heritage railway couldn't have tugged it into a siding or similar, to avoid the delays it caused - is there a reason this couldn't/can't happen?

if 377s can assist 73s then i guess 171s can aswell. A 10 car 171 couldve dragged it into east grinstead.

in the end, it being stuck at Dormans isnt the end of the world, being tucked away on a branch line. at least it wasnt a East Croydon or something.

 

[Phil.]

if 377s can assist 73s then i guess 171s can aswell. A 10 car 171 couldve dragged it into east grinstead.

in the end, it being stuck at Dormans isnt the end of the world, being tucked away on a branch line. at least it wasnt a East Croydon or something.

Perhaps you'd like to tell that to the punters who use that branch line.