6023 dream over?

[phil-b259]

Daft question- the air doesn't have to come from on the engine, right?  What's needed is a coach with a diesel engine in, or under it, driving an air compressor.  Surely this isn't beyond the ability of the (preservation side of) railways to create?  I realize that means an additional air line (from the compressor to the 26L(*) valve on the loco), but this isn't rocket science...

A decently muffled IC engine isn't going to make the same noise as a Westinghouse Cross Compound air compressor running away on the engine.  For that matter, it is possible that if a "new" rake of coaches (Mk 3's have been mentioned) were going to be used, that the compressor, along with a HEP generator, could be mounted at the rear of the train rather than the front...or an electric driven compressor mounted in the front coach, with the HEP supplying power ?

 

(*) YMMV, that's the North American brake valve of choice)

 

James

 

 

To the best of my knowledge, it does. Even the tender doesn't count. Unless someone knows otherwise?

 

Technically the air supply doesn't have to come from the powering loco - and some of the first mainline certified steam locos to have air braking retro fitted did indeed have a Westinghouse pump hidden away on the tender. Similarly the class 73s had the ability to be translator vehicles between air and vacuum braked stock due to the installation of various proportional valves etc.

 

Thus it would theoretically be possible to install a small diesel engine and air compressor underneath some coaches to generate the air necessary (in the manor of EMU compressors) and fit the necessary proportional control valves to convert the vacuum brake generated by the loco into air braking for the train - but thats a lot of faffing around for not a lot of gain. Far simpler to have dual braked coaching stock or air fitted steam locos.

[royaloak]

I was at Didcot on the 25th October and speaking to a volunteer, 6023 is in bits undergoing maintenance. Both she and 4079 will not be fitted with air brakes as West Coast Railways runs mainline passenger stock with vacuum brakes and they've decided to go with them. I find it ridiculous that British mainline steam locos need to have air brakes with air pumps fitted as vacuum stock was the order of the day for years and perfectly safe. It sounds awful to hear a British steam engine coast into a platform with the air pump pounding away. Saying that air brakes are better than vacuum brakes is utter rubbish. Trains didn't crash everyday in Britain because of the vacuum brake system. So much in preservation is made from scratch and parts for the vacuum system can be made these days. The coaches if they're air brake only should be converted to vacuum only. That of course is the coaching stock that runs with mainline steam.   

Are you aware of how they have tightened up signal spacing over the last couple of decades?

 

The simple fact is that vacuum brakes cannot stop the train in time from line speed so they have to run at reduced speed over the sections,that then impacts on the ability to path them, this isnt the 1960s anymore!

[royaloak]

So long as vac brakes are acceptable on NR, then it's a legitimate choice to not fit air. If the loco owner is happy to restrict the trains they can pull in that manner (because of the limited amount of vac fitted coaches and operators prepared to use them) then that's their choice and it's fine.

 

Though, I can foresee a situation at some point where vac brakes are not permitted on NR, because they might make a train near impossible to rescue, or because drivers don't have enough exposure to the system to be able to use it safely.

You will also have to accept the limited number of places you will be allowed to run as well.

 

Vacuum braked stock simply cannot run (actually stop from) a speed which is conversant with pathing along all of the mainlines and most of the secondary routes so vacuum brake operators had better get used to the idea!

[royaloak]

But does that conflict when it comes to braking even exist outside this thread? Some are running with vacuum brakes, so they must be acceptable and not too big a risk, even if from a practical point of view many mainline steam operators have gone for air brakes. So if they fit an air pump for use with whatever air braked stock they've got, fine, if they stick with vacuum brakes and NR is happy to let them run on its network, and all the other authorities are OK with it, fine.

The signals are spaced much closer together today than they were in the 1960s/1970s and a vacuum braked train running at or close to line speed wont be able to stop in the distance allowed so have to run at reduced speeds,that is also the reason we have differential speed limits for freight and other train types which are air braked fitted but have a longer application time.

 

Put quite simply if the trains cannot run at a speed similar to the normal traffic then they wont get a path, and I think its about time the charter operators were liable for the full costs of delays their 'playing trains' causes other operators, NR should not be subsidising them!

Edited November 3, 2017 by royaloak

[royaloak]

Surely it's all about compromise, a word which many on RMweb hate, regardless of whether it is applied to models or the real thing. Personally I can't see the point in compromising both the looks and sound of a locomotive in order to run it on a main line railway where it is increasingly out of place. Everything on the main line network has changed, from flat-bottom rail to lack of telegraph poles, to modernised or modern stations, and now ugly overhead line masts everywhere. In the end, the only reason for wanting steam on the main line is so that it can run at speed, and that requires the most efficient form of braking which is known and understood by modern drivers. A Bulleid 'Pacific' with an air pump banging away sounds all wrong, but if you want steam on the main line, that's what you have to put up with. I'd rather see steam preserved and running on preserved railways. Even that doesn't fully reflect how it used to be, but it's closer than dimensionally compromises engines on the main line. (CJL)

Why should NR and the TOCs compromise simply because charter operators are not willing to accept that there arent any paths for slow lumbering poorly braked trains on the current network, you want to play on the modern railway then you have to play by their rules!

[Bon Accord]

 

Put quite simply if the trains cannot run at a speed similar to the normal traffic then they wont get a path, and I think its about time the charter operators were liable for the full costs of delays their 'playing trains' causes other operators, NR should not be subsidising them!

 

You do realise that would probably mean the end of the charter industry as we currently know it?

[royaloak]

You do realise that would probably mean the end of the charter industry as we currently know it?

Why shouldnt they have to pay their way, everyone else who wants to run trains has too?

[Bon Accord]

Why shouldnt they have to pay their way, everyone else who wants to run trains has too?

 

Because if they had to then such trains would not run, as neither the promoter nor the TOC operating the train on their behalf would expose themselves to the financial risk. Only the larger promoters (e.g. WCR) or those with deep pockets (e.g. the new Hosking TOC) could perhaps be able to carry on and even then likely only for the trains they themselves are promoting - the days of an organisation, club or suchlike chartering a train would be well gone as it's very likely the operator would wish them to be wholly liable for any delay payments.

Considering how many charters operate per year versus scheduled services the sums involved must surely be something of a drop in the ocean, especially considering that a lot of these delay fines/compensation are merely electronic figures that bounce back and forth constantly.

[royaloak]

Because if they had to then such trains would not run, as neither the promoter nor the TOC operating the train on their behalf would expose themselves to the financial risk. Only the larger promoters (e.g. WCR) or those with deep pockets (e.g. the new Hosking TOC) could perhaps be able to carry on and even then likely only for the trains they themselves are promoting - the days of an organisation, club or suchlike chartering a train would be well gone as it's very likely the operator would wish them to be wholly liable for any delay payments.

Considering how many charters operate per year versus scheduled services the sums involved must surely be something of a drop in the ocean, especially considering that a lot of these delay fines/compensation are merely electronic figures that bounce back and forth constantly.

Why should Network Rail pick up the tab for a charter operators problems?

It might be a drop in the ocean but NR are not a charity!

[Bon Accord]

Why should Network Rail pick up the tab for a charter operators problems?

It might be a drop in the ocean but NR are not a charity!

 

Why not? Surely by that not being the case that may well infringe one of the principles of open access, something which was supposed to be fundamental to privatisation in the first instance.

Does it actually cost NR anything in physical cash terms, or does it just mean that the total income of themselves/Dft received via fines levied on other TOC's is reduced slightly? I do wonder if it's one of those hypothetical numbers which bounces around between various bodies and government departments but doesn't really exist in the physical form.

I work for a wholly government owned company and we have a performance regime where we can be fined if we don't meet targets. Of course we pay that fine to the government department which also wholly owns our "company", which in due course we then receive back again in the form of the operating subsidy which covers operating costs, something which does of course includes paying fines for not meeting targets...

None of this money actually exists in the real sense as it's entirely cyclical, but the fact we have a performance regime in the first place does sound good to the press and public (even if it is total nonsense) and the only real beneficiaries of it are the lawyers and accountants who administer the whole thing.

[Titan]

Why not? Surely by that not being the case that may well infringe one of the principles of open access, something which was supposed to be fundamental to privatisation in the first instance.

Does it actually cost NR anything in physical cash terms, or does it just mean that the total income of themselves/Dft received via fines levied on other TOC's is reduced slightly? I do wonder if it's one of those hypothetical numbers which bounces around between various bodies and government departments but doesn't really exist in the physical form.

I work for a wholly government owned company and we have a performance regime where we can be fined if we don't meet targets. Of course we pay that fine to the government department which also wholly owns our "company", which in due course we then receive back again in the form of the operating subsidy which covers operating costs, something which does of course includes paying fines for not meeting targets...

None of this money actually exists in the real sense as it's entirely cyclical, but the fact we have a performance regime in the first place does sound good to the press and public (even if it is total nonsense) and the only real beneficiaries of it are the lawyers and accountants who administer the whole thing.

 

In the railway case it is not cyclical payments, indeed very little of the fines if any get back to DfT.

 

The money collected as fines goes to the TOC(s) that have been delayed. Passengers can then reclaim the money through the 'delay repay' compensation scheme. If all those members of the public eligible for compensation make a claim, and in my experience there are usually plenty of on train/station announcements informing them on how to claim, then a significant amount of that money will end up with the passengers that have been affected, the remainder compensating the TOC(s) for loss of business/harm to reputation etc.

 

So in the railway terms it is far from just a paper exercise, it is a real and significant monetary loss for Network Rail which does not end up with the government.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Titan

[LMS2968]

Technically the air supply doesn't have to come from the powering loco - and some of the first mainline certified steam locos to have air braking retro fitted did indeed have a Westinghouse pump hidden away on the tender. Similarly the class 73s had the ability to be translator vehicles between air and vacuum braked stock due to the installation of various proportional valves etc.

I know that, in practice, the air supply can be anywhere in the train and was in at least one case n the tender. I don't think the rules allow that today.

[Titan]

 I don't think the rules allow that today.

 

What led you to that conclusion?

[caradoc]

In the railway case it is not cyclical payments, indeed very little of the fines if any get back to DfT.

 

The money collected as fines goes to the TOC(s) that have been delayed. Passengers can then reclaim the money through the 'delay repay' compensation scheme. If all those members of the public eligible for compensation make a claim, and in my experience there are usually plenty of on train/station announcements informing them on how to claim, then a significant amount of that money will end up with the passengers that have been affected, the remainder compensating the TOC(s) for loss of business/harm to reputation etc.

 

So in the railway terms it is far from just a paper exercise, it is a real and significant monetary loss for Network Rail which does not end up with the government.

 

And the money that Network Rail pays Train Operators for disruption, whether caused by its own failings (quite rightly) or incidents outside its control, such as bridge strikes, level crossing misuse, fatalities or indeed charter train failures, all adds to the organisation's costs and resulting perceived inefficiency and incompetence.

 

When steam returned to the main line in the 1970s there were specified routes with lower traffic levels and therefore less risk of disruption to BR; Some of these routes, eg Didcot/Tyseley, are now busier (for passenger trains at least) than at any time in their history. Perhaps main line steam will eventually be confined again to a very limited number of 'secondary' (or even tertiary) routes, such as the Cumbrian Coast, where the costs of any disruption caused can reasonably be borne by Network Rail.

[LMS2968]

What led you to that conclusion?

It was a previous discussion, possibly not on here, that a group wanted to fit the pump to the tender but was told that this was no longer acceptable. I wasn't involved; it was just a bit of interesting reading.

[96701]

Among all this chat about Network Rail paying fines, do not forget that NR is nationalised, so any fines are coming from taxpayer's pockets.

[Titan]

Among all this chat about Network Rail paying fines, do not forget that NR is nationalised, so any fines are coming from taxpayer's pockets.

 

That is only true of the delays that are Network rails responsibility. Any fines that are not NR's responsibility they will recover from the TOC that caused the delay, not the taxpayer.  The notable exception being charter trains...

[Reorte]

The signals are spaced much closer together today than they were in the 1960s/1970s and a vacuum braked train running at or close to line speed wont be able to stop in the distance allowed so have to run at reduced speeds,that is also the reason we have differential speed limits for freight and other train types which are air braked fitted but have a longer application time.

 

Put quite simply if the trains cannot run at a speed similar to the normal traffic then they wont get a path, and I think its about time the charter operators were liable for the full costs of delays their 'playing trains' causes other operators, NR should not be subsidising them!

Sure, there are practical reasons why fitting air brakes helps. I was replying to a comment about the safety issue - they're clearly acceptable on the safety front. If vacuum brakes makes them less practical by reducing the ability to get a path, that's just something for the owner and operator to think about when they're deciding if it's worth spending the money to get a loco main line certified. I don't think anyone's said other trains should get out of their way, or it worked in 1960 so should work now, and comments like "playing trains" are just putdowns (why is running a steam charter business more playing than any other business on the railway?)

[royaloak]

Why not? Surely by that not being the case that may well infringe one of the principles of open access, something which was supposed to be fundamental to privatisation in the first instance.

Every other open access operator (Hull Trains, Grand Central etc) are liable for the full costs of delays so I dont see how your point is relevant and please explain why a Charter operator should get 'special' treatment?

[Clearwater]

One point that I’m sure will be considered at senior management level in the discussions over the use of heritage traction, particularly steam, is the positive publicity impact. That has some non monetary value. Look at the mostly positive coverage of Scotsman, the BBC documentary on Tornado’s 100mph rum etc. Contrast those with a lot of the more run of the mill stories that are generally negative (Gw cost overruns, DOO, Southern Fail etc etc).

 

I appreciate the challenges of operating traction, and it appears so does Hendy, but equally Hendy I think recognises that there are additional positive benefits to such operations. None of that, though, needs to come at the expense of safe operations. That means compromises both from other rail users and heritage promotors. However, sensibly managed and operated steam is a net benefit to UK rail as a whole.

[royaloak]

Sure, there are practical reasons why fitting air brakes helps. I was replying to a comment about the safety issue - they're clearly acceptable on the safety front. If vacuum brakes makes them less practical by reducing the ability to get a path, that's just something for the owner and operator to think about when they're deciding if it's worth spending the money to get a loco main line certified. I don't think anyone's said other trains should get out of their way, or it worked in 1960 so should work now, and comments like "playing trains" are just putdowns (why is running a steam charter business more playing than any other business on the railway?)

Playing trains is what they are doing, they want/need special treatment from Network Rail to make their business figures stack up, if they were liable for the full costs of delays they caused then one of two things would happen, they would disappear from the railways or they would get their own house in order so they didnt cause any delays in the first place.

 

Passengers travelling on TOC trains dont care why they are delayed but simply see it that 'the bloody trains late again' which damages the TOCs image, and I dont see why a TOC should have their image damaged by a Charter Operator,they really dont need any help as most TOCs struggle with image as it is.

[royaloak]

One point that I’m sure will be considered at senior management level in the discussions over the use of heritage traction, particularly steam, is the positive publicity impact. That has some non monetary value. Look at the mostly positive coverage of Scotsman, the BBC documentary on Tornado’s 100mph rum etc. Contrast those with a lot of the more run of the mill stories that are generally negative (Gw cost overruns, DOO, Southern Fail etc etc).

 

I appreciate the challenges of operating traction, and it appears so does Hendy, but equally Hendy I think recognises that there are additional positive benefits to such operations. None of that, though, needs to come at the expense of safe operations. That means compromises both from other rail users and heritage promotors. However, sensibly managed and operated steam is a net benefit to UK rail as a whole.

Ask the passengers stuck on the trains behind a failed steam engine and see how 'positive' they are about it!

[jjb1970]

I'd see some steam operation as the equivalent of a halo product for the railways. Many companies produce halo products which maybe make a nominal profit but the development of which could not be justified in normal financial terms. And it is not unusual for companies to carry these products at quite a hefty loss and effectively subsidise those consumers fortunate enough to buy them. The gain in terms of boost to corporate image, technology development and trickle down etc means whatever the immediate rate of return might be, it is worth it. And this isn't just about misty eyed enthusiasts in chunky sweaters dreaming up excuses to justify their pet ideas, high volume Asian consumer electronics outfits routinely indulge themselves by developing very high end ultra niche products that sell in trivial quantities and which won't set their accounts on fire but they clearly see the effort as worthwhile, Sony being a good example. So, I do think there is a place for some preserved steam operation regardless of some of the logical arguments. I guess the key word there is "some", it is a small niche. 

[Clearwater]

Ask the passengers stuck on the trains behind a failed steam engine and see how 'positive' they are about it!

Suggest you reread my post. My point is it needs managing appropriately but to ignore the benefits heritage charters bring is shortsighted. When you see the reaction, the smiles, the excitement when a steam train is sighted, the benefit is incalculable. Your point is a narrow one on specific passengers on a specific train.

 

Senior management is paid to make those trade offs between the risk of delays and the other wider benefits. Don’t forget the rail system needs a huge chunk of public money to keep going at all. Without courting public opinion (and it’s not just 60+ men who like steam trains), the railways would risk being in a far worse place than they are.

[royaloak]

Suggest you reread my post. My point is it needs managing appropriately but to ignore the benefits heritage charters bring is shortsighted. When you see the reaction, the smiles, the excitement when a steam train is sighted, the benefit is incalculable. Your point is a narrow one on specific passengers on a specific train.

Who have paid a lot of money for 'the railway' to get them from A to B on time, something that would have happened if a Charter Train hadnt failed!

 

My point might be narrow bot is very relevant.

 

Most of the people who get all dewy eyed over Flying Scotsman probably never get on a train from one year to the next so I fail to see what benefit they bring, like it or not (me personally, I dont like it) the railways are a business and that business is shifting lots of people efficiently and effectively and making a profit from doing it!