This was a sad day for steam on the main line, as it may have adversely coloured new passengers' view of steam and a wider industry view may have been strengthened against steam, completely unfairly. The huge delay (190+ minutes) was eminently avoidable by having a loco on the back, which is a very common 'insurance' measure on steam tours, especially in autumn. The maximum load for an unassisted class 7 steam loco on the route used is ten coaches - 12 were in the formation. No-one has yet been able to explain this significant discrepancy, but, even had the load been ten, the leaf fall combined with the speed restriction through Maidstone East followed immediately by the steepest bank on the route (1 in 60 to Bearsted) would have tested the loco severely. To fail to provide a rear diesel for assistance as required was reckless.
Talk of 'lessons learned' is pertinent, as a number of steam workings have come to grief in Kent in autumn over recent years, BUT, the lessons have clearly not been learnt! It's an absolutely basic measure these days to provide a rear loco for heavy hilly autumn trips, and it's NR's role to ensure that they approve a suitably-powered train, with special rules for autumn. All this seems to have been abandoned for this trip.
It must be remembered that today's railway differs hugely from the days of steam - the line-side was far less tree-lined (making leaves on the line far less of an issue), all trains could pretty much assist each other out of trouble, and spare/available locos were scattered around for quick deployment in an emergency. Yesterday, the following electric trains could not assist as they have no buffers. This meant a couple of hours' wait for a class 66 to be despatched (from Tonbridge, I think) to reach Bearsted! The return leg was diesel-hauled, making the passengers' experience of their 'steam train' day out even worse!
The 'post-mortem' will be interesting, but it's hard to see how NR can avoid major blame here. It has even been suggested that there is a 'blind spot' in NR's gradient profile at Bearsted meaning that they didn't recognise the 1 in 60 climb for what it was, BUT, this has yet to be examined. In any case, other banks en route (notably the tree-lined Martin Mill at 1 in 74) should have ensured prudence with motive power.
To be continued...