Saphos Trains - The Golden Arrow - Sat 26/10/19

[Metal_gee_man]

Do who'll pick up the cost for the huge delay repays SE will be paying out to multiple customers using the Maidstone line, HS1 services to Ramsgate via Canterbury West and I'd guess even Tonbridge Mainline customers held up with a diesel loco overhanging various points and intersections at Ashford.
I'd guess the British Pullman company behind the tours will make an unhealthy loss on this trip

 

[markindurham]

Do who'll pick up the cost for the huge delay repays SE will be paying out to multiple customers using the Maidstone line, HS1 services to Ramsgate via Canterbury West and I'd guess even Tonbridge Mainline customers held up with a diesel loco overhanging various points and intersections at Ashford.
I'd guess the British Pullman company behind the tours will make an unhealthy loss on this trip

Charter responsible DRs are very limited - to £5k, I think?

However, rather than wash dirty laundry in public, giving ammunition to those who would happily see steam banned from the main line, surely it's more productive to hope that, to coin a phrase, 'lessons will be learnt'. After all, modern diesel and electric trains never ever fail, do they? Or have poor operational decisions made? Or get caught by worse conditions than expected? Oh, hang on...

 

[Peter C]

Looks like the 47 gave it a shove out of victoria but then detached.
It's pretty unusual to see a steam tour without a diesel on the back. I'd assumed that it was compulsory, to help avoid the sort of thing that happened today. I'd be interested to know why they decided not to. Was there a problem with the 47 perhaps?

A year or two ago 60009 Union of South Africa visited the Cotswold Line area and that railtour didn't have a diesel on the back. I thought that was a bit weird - it was very warm that day and I assumed having a steam engine throwing out so much, well, steam and the like (she was putting in a lot of effort).
How would they have detached the 47 somewhere? I don't know the area too well.

-Peter

 

[Rockhopper]

I’m no expert but I’m sure I read somewhere that the reason for the diesel loco on the back was to provide electrical power and heating to the train rather than as a safety measure in case the steam loco had problems. Whenever I’ve seen them go past the diesel has always been running.

 

[TimboM]

Looks like the 47 gave it a shove out of victoria but then detached.
It's pretty unusual to see a steam tour without a diesel on the back. I'd assumed that it was compulsory, to help avoid the sort of thing that happened today. I'd be interested to know why they decided not to. Was there a problem with the 47 perhaps?

It was planned to be detached after banking the train out of Victoria. With hindsight this wasn't the best plan.
I don't know if this was a factor, but to have the 47 on the back and under power would require another driver/"competent person" in it. DB were already crewing Britannia so perhaps it was a challenge to find additional suitable resources who could crew the 47 on the rear round Kent all day? With Saphos Trains / Locomotive Services I doubt cost would've been a factor - as mentioned previously, they've shadowed their steam tours over the northern fells with a light engine 47 in the past.

Do who'll pick up the cost for the huge delay repays SE will be paying out to multiple customers using the Maidstone line, HS1 services to Ramsgate via Canterbury West and I'd guess even Tonbridge Mainline customers held up with a diesel loco overhanging various points and intersections at Ashford.
I'd guess the British Pullman company behind the tours will make an unhealthy loss on this trip

It was a Saphos Trains tour, not British Pullman - part of Jeremy Hosking's stable. They're not short of a bob or two.

I’m no expert but I’m sure I read somewhere that the reason for the diesel loco on the back was to provide electrical power and heating to the train rather than as a safety measure in case the steam loco had problems. Whenever I’ve seen them go past the diesel has always been running.

Yes - typically the two main reasons for the diesel on the rear of steam tours are to provide ETH and to facilitate the ECS shunts e.g. at termini stations. On this tour the stock had its own generator coach and was originally planned as a circular tour, so other than the ECS moves in/out Victoria a diesel was (in theory) not required.

 

[BRX]

A year or two ago 60009 Union of South Africa visited the Cotswold Line area and that railtour didn't have a diesel on the back. I thought that was a bit weird - it was very warm that day and I assumed having a steam engine throwing out so much, well, steam and the like (she was putting in a lot of effort).
How would they have detached the 47 somewhere? I don't know the area too well.

-Peter

I'd expect it to be detached around the Stewarts lane area where there's a large tangle of loops, sidings and depots. Engines related to special workings out of victoria are often stabled there.

I don't know if the detachment would have been done on the fly - ie. the 47 not actually coupled to the train, just giving it a push up the incline and then letting the main train continue while it came to a halt... Not sure if such a move would be allowed these days or whether the whole train would need to stop.

 

[markindurham]

I'd expect it to be detached around the Stewarts lane area where there's a large tangle of loops, sidings and depots. Engines related to special workings out of victoria are often stabled there.

I don't know if the detachment would have been done on the fly - ie. the 47 not actually coupled to the train, just giving it a push up the incline and then letting the main train continue while it came to a halt... Not sure if such a move would be allowed these days or whether the whole train would need to stop.

It's a regular feature of many steam departures from Victoria - and the banking diesel isn't coupled on, but simply drops back once its task is complete, in the time-honoured manner. Still legal, otherwise it wouldn't be allowed.

 

[Peter C]

I'd expect it to be detached around the Stewarts lane area where there's a large tangle of loops, sidings and depots. Engines related to special workings out of victoria are often stabled there.

I don't know if the detachment would have been done on the fly - ie. the 47 not actually coupled to the train, just giving it a push up the incline and then letting the main train continue while it came to a halt... Not sure if such a move would be allowed these days or whether the whole train would need to stop.

OK - thanks for that. Interesting that it is still being done today (see @markindurham's post).

-Peter

 

[SECR263]

OK - thanks for that. Interesting that it is still being done today (see @markindurham's post).

-Peter

Some years ago I was on an A4 hauled trip which did not receive the expected assistance and ground to a halt up Grosvenor bank and was stuck there for 50 minutes until all agreed and safety protocols were observed to allow the banker to buffer up and give it a shove.

The most impressive engine feat was 30777 leaving Vic without the expected shove with 10 on and it marched away in fine style, it then went on to demolish Tulse Hill bank and then up to Crystal Palace from Tulse Hill which had a speed control signal (15mph?) up to CP at Tulse Hill Station which did not allow a charge up to the summit. Impressive engine handling from Dave Davis.

 

[Deepgreen]

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...

 

[Peter C]

Some years ago I was on an A4 hauled trip which did not receive the expected assistance and ground to a halt up Grosvenor bank and was stuck there for 50 minutes until all agreed and safety protocols were observed to allow the banker to buffer up and give it a shove.

The most impressive engine feat was 30777 leaving Vic without the expected shove with 10 on and it marched away in fine style, it then went on to demolish Tulse Hill bank and then up to Crystal Palace from Tulse Hill which had a speed control signal (15mph?) up to CP at Tulse Hill Station which did not allow a charge up to the summit. Impressive engine handling from Dave Davis.

Cool! I bet there'll be people saying "In the good old days we did things and didn't wait for procedures..." though!

-Peter

 

[packermac]

It's a regular feature of many steam departures from Victoria - and the banking diesel isn't coupled on, but simply drops back once its task is complete, in the time-honoured manner. Still legal, otherwise it wouldn't be allowed.

I believe the banking loco can work up to the signal near Grosvenor Bridge, as long as it passes the one at the end of the platform still "attached" to the train. There was a tour about 18 months ago where the banking loco "lost" the train and had to stop at the signal at the platform end, that by then had turned red.
I believe this is one of very few authorised "loose banking" locations on the network.

 

[otaioengineer]

I believe the banking loco can work up to the signal near Grosvenor Bridge, as long as it passes the one at the end of the platform still "attached" to the train. There was a tour about 18 months ago where the banking loco "lost" the train and had to stop at the signal at the platform end, that by then had turned red.
I believe this is one of very few authorised "loose banking" locations on the network.

AFAIK ‘Loose banking‘ is still allowed on Lickey incline for both freight and passenger workings.

 

[Malcmal]

AFAIK ‘Loose banking‘ is still allowed on Lickey incline for both freight and passenger workings.

If you view post #39 on a recent thread called Lickey Incline Anecdotes it is said this is no longer the case and a special technical solution was created to allow the banker to uncouple without stopping the train.

 

[BRX]

I believe the banking loco can work up to the signal near Grosvenor Bridge, as long as it passes the one at the end of the platform still "attached" to the train. There was a tour about 18 months ago where the banking loco "lost" the train and had to stop at the signal at the platform end, that by then had turned red.
I believe this is one of very few authorised "loose banking" locations on the network.

Presumably the main risk of doing this is in the period just after the loco detaches, because if there were to be say an emergency brake application on the train, the loco could then collide with the back of it. I assume the driver of the banking loco therefore brings the loco quickly to a halt as soon as it is no longer 'attached'?

 

[70014IronDuke]

I believe the banking loco can work up to the signal near Grosvenor Bridge, as long as it passes the one at the end of the platform still "attached" to the train. There was a tour about 18 months ago where the banking loco "lost" the train and had to stop at the signal at the platform end, that by then had turned red.
I believe this is one of very few authorised "loose banking" locations on the network.

Not much chance of that on the run with "70014" - if you notice, the pacific was given virtually no regulator when leaving the station - I'd say 95% of the traction power was provided by the Cl 47.

 

[Deepgreen]

If you view post #39 on a recent thread called Lickey Incline Anecdotes it is said this is no longer the case and a special technical solution was created to allow the banker to uncouple without stopping the train.

Does it involve a large plastic strip/loop sticking up between the running rails?!