-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Failed Steamer at Rhyl
- Thread starter TDK
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
High Dyke
Established Member
I would've thought that the respective operator has to pay up.
cksteam
Member
I can't remember what the limit is off the top of my head but charter trains are protected and have a very low limit set on the fine that can be imposed on them. Network Rail will pick up the rest of it.
The reason behind this is quite simple. Without this limit (which the government I currently trying to get rid of I believe) it would only take one problem to put most of the charter companies like Steam Dreams out of business. This would in turn kill steam on the mainline for the most part.
cksteam
Member
I have since found the thread that provides more information. The cap is currently £5k per incident. See http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=76079&highlight=charter+trains+under+threat for more info.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Tornado failed at Rhyl with an Air pump/brake problem whilst heading the Cathedrals Express. This meant a rescue diesel had to be dispatched but needless to say with the line blocked delays were caused.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Tornado failed at Rhyl with an Air pump/brake problem whilst heading the Cathedrals Express. This meant a rescue diesel had to be dispatched but needless to say with the line blocked delays were caused.
87015
Established Member
Sounds like a fair few of he tminutes are down to the total faff of "organising" 1Z99 to rescue Tornado once it had run out of teabags, as quoted by 31410 on wnxx:
theblackwatch
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2006
- Messages
- 10,781
Remember that Steam Dreams are not an operator - they are a promoter. The operator of the tour was DB Schenker.
It would be interesting to discover how many delay minutes were caused, the train behind was stuck at Abergele for 150 minutes
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Really? Do you not think it would have been a proactive idea to have something in place? you cannot blame the rescue when there shouldn't have had to have been a recue at all? In all fainess the incident was the cause of the failed train and nothing to do with the so called "faff" rescue. These trains should be limited to preserved railways unless the operators have a contingency plan in place.
I cant imagine that DBS would be put out of business by paying for the delay, BUT it would probably put them, and their competitors, off running a steam (or heritage diesel) train again, and therefore still result in the eventual elimination of heritage traction on the national network which many would miss.
And yes I know that Tornado is new, but it is not exactly a typical modern engine like a 66.
And yes I know that Tornado is new, but it is not exactly a typical modern engine like a 66.
Not wanting to **** on anyone's parade here, but this farce is fairly small with respect to what's happened previously, and no doubt what will happen in the future too! Not worth getting het up over.
I don't necessarily think kettles should be banned, but the cap on fines should be lifted. If they muck up, they should pay up.
I don't necessarily think kettles should be banned, but the cap on fines should be lifted. If they muck up, they should pay up.
theblackwatch
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2006
- Messages
- 10,781
Such delays aren't limited to steam trains. A Class 67 failed on a tour to the North Wales Coast a few months ago, and was delayed by several hours as a result while the operator, DBS, arranged for another of its engines to be despatched to Anglesey. I'm sure similar has occurred with the operator's freight trains too.
37372
Member
I'm surprised that they didn't have a loco on the back of the train as a contingency measure. It's extra weight and costs more but surely it must be cheaper than paying the cost for all the delays incurred. Then again it'd lead to extra faffing around when running loco's round.
I drove from Mexborough to Crewe in the hope of doing a leap behind 92015 (to be attached at Crewe) down to Lichfield. My connection back to Crewe from there was at 22:00, 70 mins after the tour was booked to arrive there. Needless to say by the time it got to 20:45 the tour was still sat at Rhyl and someone stuck on the train behind said kettle had not seen the rescue 67 go past. I grabbed something to eat and went home having basically gone all the way to Crewe for my tea. Such is this hobby.
I feel sorry for those stuck on the train, no idea what time they'd have eventually got home.
I drove from Mexborough to Crewe in the hope of doing a leap behind 92015 (to be attached at Crewe) down to Lichfield. My connection back to Crewe from there was at 22:00, 70 mins after the tour was booked to arrive there. Needless to say by the time it got to 20:45 the tour was still sat at Rhyl and someone stuck on the train behind said kettle had not seen the rescue 67 go past. I grabbed something to eat and went home having basically gone all the way to Crewe for my tea. Such is this hobby.
I feel sorry for those stuck on the train, no idea what time they'd have eventually got home.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Was there not a Class 47 (I think it was 47500) that was on fire some time ago on the viaduct between Castlefield Junction and Ordsall Lane junction in Manchester and empty coaching stock used on a railtour, which caused a very great deal of disruption to scheduled services for a period of some time, where the question of compensation was raised in a posting on the thread on this matter ?
Last edited:
STEVIEBOY1
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 4,001
OH dear, what a shame for everyone involved.
As someone says here though, it's not just steamers which can fail, diesel and electrics can go wrong too on scheduled passenger, freight services as well as charter trains.
As someone says here though, it's not just steamers which can fail, diesel and electrics can go wrong too on scheduled passenger, freight services as well as charter trains.
Last edited:
That is true but if you take the ratio of Charters to scheduled be it freight or passenger then I am afraid the Charters do come out on top percentage wise, all I am saying is that a contingency should be in place to minimise disruption if one should fail be it steam or diesel!
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
What source have you got for that?
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
By means of an aside, when I first saw the title of this thread...."Failed steamer at Rhyl", it brought to mind a book that I had read many years ago about steamers using the piers on the North Wales resorts but it was before the start of the First World War when official services calling at Rhyl were ceased owing to the poor condition of the pier that was opened in 1867. Steamers from Rhyl called at other North Wales resorts and also at Liverpool.
I remember in my young days in the 1950's going with my family on a steamer return day trip from Liverpool to Llandudno.
I remember in my young days in the 1950's going with my family on a steamer return day trip from Liverpool to Llandudno.
Last edited:
Do I need a source, it's like you asking me what direction the tain is going to go and I am at the buffers.! How many charters are there in comparison to scheduled services? If you work it out then work out the failures causing disruption to other services it is not rocket Science Ralph. I will give you an idea on the scope we are looking at, lets say there are 10 charters and 100,000 scedules, 1 charter fails and that is 10% of the services, you will need 10000 sceduled services to fail to match the 10% figure.
I was involved in the failure yesterday and it caused complete mayhem with many cancelations and delays, I was also involved when a steamer decided to take water at Bicester North or it could go no further this in turn caused many delays. The 2 class 47's in the opposite direction yesterday also was 47 late at Chester causing even more delays to the services.
I expected this response as I am directly critisising charter enthusiasts services, they are run very poorly and need to be assessed or stopped. The railway is to commute passengers from one place to another, if you want vintage trains go to a heritage railway. You don't see a Lancaster Bomber lining up to take off at Heathrow do you!
I'm sure preserved aircraft sometimes have to venture into controlled airspace !
Also, I believe that you have committed a gross generalisation about charter operators, many of whom are extremely diligent about maintenance of their rolling stock for the mainline.
crewmeal
Member
But you do see them flying over Buckingham Palace on special occasions.
It certainly seems that heritage traction fails more frequently than modern, but to an extent this is to be expected. Old things break, sometimes unexpectedly, thorough maintenance reduces the risks of unexpected faults but can not eliminate them.
Modern locomotives of rare or unfamiliar types such as Tornado, are also a slight risk, probably partly because they are uncommon. The recent failure of Tornado caused much worse delay than I would expect from a failed diesel because as reported the staff on assisting locos were not trained for attaching to a steamer.
And of course some "failures" are running short of coal or water, which in the old days with frequent opportunities for replenishment, would not been regarded as a failure.
I would hate to see heritage traction eliminated from the mainline.
Modern locomotives of rare or unfamiliar types such as Tornado, are also a slight risk, probably partly because they are uncommon. The recent failure of Tornado caused much worse delay than I would expect from a failed diesel because as reported the staff on assisting locos were not trained for attaching to a steamer.
And of course some "failures" are running short of coal or water, which in the old days with frequent opportunities for replenishment, would not been regarded as a failure.
I would hate to see heritage traction eliminated from the mainline.
armadillomaste
Member
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 79
How viable would it be to drag along a spare diesel behind all charters?
I know WCRC usually have one top and tail, maybe steam could do this too?
I know WCRC usually have one top and tail, maybe steam could do this too?
Chris125
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 3,151
That's your impression and you are entitled to it, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily as bad as it may seem. That doesn't mean i'm saying it's all hunky dory, but any kind of unusual or one-off operation is more likely to cause issues while any problems are going to attract far more attention which is especially true with steam.
Chris
Last edited:
Yes maybe but the organisers did not have a contingency plan in place - the previous week the same steam train had a diesel loco on the rear - why did it not have one on Saturday?
Ploughman
Established Member
I think that one was taken by Network Rail as it stemmed from a track fault I believe.
Post that on Nat Pres and see what response you get!
Lets not forget the railway is there for the sandal wearing ones to get pictures of their favourite tea making device polluting the countryside and not to get people from where they are to where they want to be reliably!
theblackwatch
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2006
- Messages
- 10,781
Post that on Nat Pres and see what response you get!
Lets not forget the railway is there for the sandal wearing ones to get pictures of their favourite tea making device polluting the countryside and not to get people from where they are to where they want to be reliably!
And they seem perfectly content to refer to a diesel as a 'box' but then get extremely upset if the word 'kettle' gets mentioned!
What seems to add to debate here is that the Engine was already running with an issue, so lacking a contingency for this sort of failure - as on the bulletin from the Tornado website:
"After departing on time, and collecting further passengers at Bangor Tornado ran well as far as Abergele. It was noticed here that the brake pressure was not being maintained and the air pump had stopped running. Attempts were made to restart the pump but were unsuccessful so the train was stopped at Rhyl to enable an examination. Various attempts to resolve the problem were not successful and the train had to be rescued by a diesel locomotive and ran around three hours late. Passengers went forward from Crewe via road transport as the railway was closed for engineering work further south. Although Tornado normally runs with two air pumps, on this occasion the second pump was defective and awaiting a programmed repair at Crewe."
"After departing on time, and collecting further passengers at Bangor Tornado ran well as far as Abergele. It was noticed here that the brake pressure was not being maintained and the air pump had stopped running. Attempts were made to restart the pump but were unsuccessful so the train was stopped at Rhyl to enable an examination. Various attempts to resolve the problem were not successful and the train had to be rescued by a diesel locomotive and ran around three hours late. Passengers went forward from Crewe via road transport as the railway was closed for engineering work further south. Although Tornado normally runs with two air pumps, on this occasion the second pump was defective and awaiting a programmed repair at Crewe."
So, if I understand correctly
1) a DBS (DB subsidiary) operated steam charter failed and delayed following traffic and probably incurred a penalty up to the maximum limit of 5k.
2) most if not all of following traffic was ATW (DB subsidiary) and many passengers could claim delay repay off NR (UK govt).
3) ATW provided a loco to rescue the train (presumably DBS paid ATW for this service) (DB neutral)
4) train arrived at Crewe after NR had closed the route to London. Who paid for the taxis due to route closure? NR (UK govt)?
I'd love to see the detail cost transfers for this little escapade and what it actually cost to each party.
Something suggests to me that NR may be well inclined to ask for factual failure plans next time (discovering during the event that the Tornado fireman could drive the rescue Cl67 was about as fortuitous as you can get).
1) a DBS (DB subsidiary) operated steam charter failed and delayed following traffic and probably incurred a penalty up to the maximum limit of 5k.
2) most if not all of following traffic was ATW (DB subsidiary) and many passengers could claim delay repay off NR (UK govt).
3) ATW provided a loco to rescue the train (presumably DBS paid ATW for this service) (DB neutral)
4) train arrived at Crewe after NR had closed the route to London. Who paid for the taxis due to route closure? NR (UK govt)?
I'd love to see the detail cost transfers for this little escapade and what it actually cost to each party.
Something suggests to me that NR may be well inclined to ask for factual failure plans next time (discovering during the event that the Tornado fireman could drive the rescue Cl67 was about as fortuitous as you can get).
- Status