Cambrian and Fort William summer steam

[Rhydgaled]

On the 22nd, while some of you were seeing off the final 3-CIG EMUs, I was at my nearest station of Fishguard Harbour to see another special event. This was a steam excursion, however with no turntable at Fishguard these days the train was hauled into the station by a class 47, with Nunny Castle on the rear. Nunny Castle was then able to lead the train out on it's return journey. This got me thinking about the regular steam trains during the summer on the Cambrian line and on various other routes, for example the Jacobite in Scotland.

 

My questions is do these regular workings have a diesel on the back too, or are there still turntables on those routes that have regular summer steam workings? Preserved railways of course often have a very low speed limit so there's no problem with running tender engines backwards, but out on the national network I would have thought a slow-moving tender-first steam excursion would interfere with the normal timetable.

[Bomag]

Both West Highland and Cambrian services work tender first. The line speed on both of these is low enough so that it dosen't make a difference.

[Rhydgaled]

Both West Highland and Cambrian services work tender first. The line speed on both of these is low enough so that it dosen't make a difference.

Doesn't the Cambrian line have some stretches of 90mph linespeed, hence the use of class 158s? Maybe there's enough time between the 158s for even a slow-moving, tender first, train to get out of the way.

 

There's a similar service southwards out of Bristol Temple Meads too, I would have thought that would encounter fairly high linespeeds en-route. Is it the same story there?

[Bomag]

Doesn't the Cambrian line have some stretches of 90mph linespeed.

 

Not on the coastal section used by the steam service. Ditto the Mallaig extension.

 

Tender first running was not as rare as some assume, particularly on rationalised or freight only lines. The Standard 2MT tender was deigned for good visibility going backwards.

[Rhydgaled]

Not on the coastal section used by the steam service. Ditto the Mallaig extension.

 

Tender first running was not as rare as some assume, particularly on rationalised or freight only lines. The Standard 2MT tender was deigned for good visibility going backwards.

That one only runs Machynlleth - Porthmadog/Pwllheli then, I wrongly assumed it ran through from Shrewsbury. I'm guessing a diesel is used to get the steam train out to Machynlleth then. What about the one from Temple Meads? I think it goes down to the preserved Paignton & Dartmouth so I guess they have a turntable and the loco can use a triangle to turn round at Bristol. Am I right there?

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

On the Mallaig (at least when I went on it ) the Black 5 ran back tender first from Mallaig. I do recall that Fort William is effectively a Y. There used to be turntables but they were all lifted. Mallaig is a mere shadow of it's former life.

 

This station and Kyle were both busy fishing ports with extensive fish trains from both and also ferry terminals for the islands. The K1's and indeed The Great Marquess were frequent visitors.

[Guest Phil]

IIRC 76079 was cleared to operate at the same speed in either direction on Network Rail metals - 60 mph. I think this was unique among tender locos as most are officially restricted to 35 or 45 mph tender leading.

 

I became aware of the speed differential when one of our then Bescot drivers was booked for exceeding speed limitations on IIRC a Nottingham-Derby leg of a tour with 34027. I remember thinking this was a little bizarre at the time because Bulleid tenders tended to have a small window - considerably more useful than the LMS or LNER tenders. But this is academic anyway because PhilH pointed out in a previous thread that footplatemen tend to hang out the cabside windows when working backwards anyway.

 

This year the Cambrian loco is rumoured to be 44871 which presumably will have to operate the return working at a slower speed than 76079 used to. Be interested to see how punctuality fares with previous years workings.

[John_Hughes]

I believe the Cambrian one is steam-hauled to Mach at the beginning of the season and then steam-hauled back home at the end, the latter movement tender-first.

 

On at least one occasion some years ago it was used to shove a failed unit which had stuck on Talerddig Bank, apparently being signalled into the section as a breakdown train going to assist. How they handled the couplings I have no idea....

[StaffsOatcake]

IIRC 76079 was cleared to operate at the same speed in either direction on Network Rail metals - 60 mph. I think this was unique among tender locos as most are officially restricted to 35 or 45 mph tender leading.

 

I became aware of the speed differential when one of our then Bescot drivers was booked for exceeding speed limitations on IIRC a Nottingham-Derby leg of a tour with 34027. I remember thinking this was a little bizarre at the time because Bulleid tenders tended to have a small window - considerably more useful than the LMS or LNER tenders. But this is academic anyway because PhilH pointed out in a previous thread that footplatemen tend to hang out the cabside windows when working backwards anyway.

 

This year the Cambrian loco is rumoured to be 44871 which presumably will have to operate the return working at a slower speed than 76079 used to. Be interested to see how punctuality fares with previous years workings.

 

The black 5 still needs to cleared for the route and still might to have a big yellow tractor attached at the front as the Black is not ERTMS fitted.

 

As yet I can find no mention in the handbook/guide of portable units for ERTMS sets even in the most recent issue.

 

I hear grumblings ahead or is that the sound of Barmouth bridge creaking under the weight of the Black 5

[Guest Phil]

The black 5 still needs to cleared for the route and still might to have a big yellow tractor attached at the front as the Black is not ERTMS fitted.

 

As yet I can find no mention in the handbook/guide of portable units for ERTMS sets even in the most recent issue.

 

I hear grumblings ahead or is that the sound of Barmouth bridge creaking under the weight of the Black 5

 

Gonna be an interesting one this.

 

I'm sure a thread on here mentioned that 44871's tender was going to be modified with a false floor to keep the weight down over the leading tender wheelset. This was apparently going to provide space to put the ERTMS gear.

 

Of course the big problem is that ERTMS is running rather late.

Or rephrase that sentence to read the late running ERTMS is a big problem !!!

 

A colleague told me last week that the system cannot cope with what might seem quite simple problems such as ;

 

A 158 from Pwllheli arrives in the Up platform at Machynlleth to attach to the front of an Aberystwyth - Birmingham service. Allegedly, because the trailing 158 is "the" Aber-New St train, ERTMS can't cope with the fact that the working cab has "moved" 150 feet up the platform to the set from Pwllheli which now leads.

 

If the engineers are struggling to get ERTMS to work on the bread and butter class 158s, I guess the "jam" black five is way down the pecking order.

[The Stationmaster]

I believe the Cambrian one is steam-hauled to Mach at the beginning of the season and then steam-hauled back home at the end, the latter movement tender-first.

 

On at least one occasion some years ago it was used to shove a failed unit which had stuck on Talerddig Bank, apparently being signalled into the section as a breakdown train going to assist. How they handled the couplings I have no idea....

 

Couplings should be no problem, brake compatibility (lack of) would probably be best not talked about in polite circles.

[StaffsOatcake]

Gonna be an interesting one this.

 

I'm sure a thread on here mentioned that 44871's tender was going to be modified with a false floor to keep the weight down over the leading tender wheelset. This was apparently going to provide space to put the ERTMS gear.

 

Of course the big problem is that ERTMS is running rather late.

Or rephrase that sentence to read the late running ERTMS is a big problem !!!

 

A colleague told me last week that the system cannot cope with what might seem quite simple problems such as ;

 

A 158 from Pwllheli arrives in the Up platform at Machynlleth to attach to the front of an Aberystwyth - Birmingham service. Allegedly, because the trailing 158 is "the" Aber-New St train, ERTMS can't cope with the fact that the working cab has "moved" 150 feet up the platform to the set from Pwllheli which now leads.

 

If the engineers are struggling to get ERTMS to work on the bread and butter class 158s, I guess the "jam" black five is way down the pecking order.

 

The DMI (driver machine interface) sets in the 158's have yet developed another problem.

 

 

You can't see them when the sun shines!!!!

 

Oh when the sun shines!!

 

 

According to the manual coupling of the units shouldn't be a problem as these movements are made under authority of shunter/signaller or On Sight Mode, and the new instructions should be issued to the leading vehicle DMI and all previous arrangements should be cancelled by placing the DMI into Non-leading Mode. Selection of this mode is selected by the driver.

 

it all sounds such fun doesn't it

 

 

 

 

[John_Hughes]

ERTMS - according to the 'official' whispers I hear - will not be in operation on the Cambrian for a while as the computer screens aren't easily readable in the cabs of some units.

 

So allegedly no problem for the steamer this year, though if delayed into next year there could be problems at the WHR crossing in Porthmadog, which assumes that ERTMS is up and running.

 

(Edit - I see I'm not the first to post this - sorry!)

[StaffsOatcake]

ERTMS - according to the 'official' whispers I hear - will not be in operation on the Cambrian for a while as the computer screens aren't easily readable in the cabs of some units.

 

So allegedly no problem for the steamer this year, though if delayed into next year there could be problems at the WHR crossing in Porthmadog, which assumes that ERTMS is up and running.

 

 

(Edit - I see I'm not the first to post this - sorry!)

 

 

 

Does it??? As far as I'm aware there are still discussions to be had as to how the WHR will cross the Cambrian and nothing has been finalised yet. Mind I wouldn't know that much about events on the darkside try and stay away from anywhere passed harbour station.

 

Still requires the Black 5 to be passed for the route so now watching NR dispatches for this

[John_Hughes]

Does it??? As far as I'm aware there are still discussions to be had as to how the WHR will cross the Cambrian and nothing has been finalised yet. Mind I wouldn't know that much about events on the darkside try and stay away from anywhere passed harbour station.

 

Still requires the Black 5 to be passed for the route so now watching NR dispatches for this

 

Cae Pawb Crossing - as it is now known - has indeed been fitted with ERTMS equipment. The cabinets and associated equipment were wired up earlier this year.

[Rhydgaled]

Sounds like the problem I knew about with ERTMS (only showing kilometers per hour and not miles per hour) is just a drop in the ocean compared to what has been going wrong! (I was unaware of these problems, apart from the one of fitting it to steam locos). Hasn't ERTMS already been activated on some railways in mainland Europe? have they never run a service that needs to be split/joined to go to/from multiple destonations??!!?!?

[The Stationmaster]

Sounds like the problem I knew about with ERTMS (only showing kilometers per hour and not miles per hour) is just a drop in the ocean compared to what has been going wrong! (I was unaware of these problems, apart from the one of fitting it to steam locos). Hasn't ERTMS already been activated on some railways in mainland Europe? have they never run a service that needs to be split/joined to go to/from multiple destonations??!!?!?

 

Thus far various countries have trialled different versions of ERTMS (I understand the Swiss trial was not exactly as successful as hoped but don't know about results elsewhere).

 

If the system is anything like others (and certain simplifications of the specification from the original spec suggest that it might be, at least in some respects) the biggest problem is always going to be integration into existing trains, especially older designs of existing trains which tend to be far less 'electronic' in their control systems. I understand part of the problem with train integration for the UK trial has been the need to translate some technical stuff from Italian into English while there have also been physical difficulties (like not including financial provision in the orginal project scope for some essential works).

 

Speed conversion from kph to mph shouldn't present a difficulty although it might result in awkward cab displays. However if the basic ERTMS is designed to match continental pointwork speeds a problem can arise as British pointwork turnout speeds are generally different from those used on the continent - a problem which was first encountered with the use of TVM technology on CTRL. However ERTMS should be considerably more flexible then TVM, which just leaves a programming task.

 

The thing which still puzzles me is how fully functioning ERTMS could be fitted to a steam loco (with the possible exception anything fitted with the LMS method of push-pull working) as it is mandatory in the system for power to be cut-off and the brakes applied in order to prevent SPADs. I await the outcome of that with some interest

[phil-b259]

The thing which still puzzles me is how fully functioning ERTMS could be fitted to a steam loco (with the possible exception anything fitted with the LMS method of push-pull working) as it is mandatory in the system for power to be cut-off and the brakes applied in order to prevent SPADs. I await the outcome of that with some interest

 

IIRC the solution agreed to allow continued steam operation of trains like the Jacobite and Cumbrian summer specials was to develop a portable ERTMS device along the lines of the current portable RTEB kit. Originally it was planned that such trains would have to be piloted by the ERTMS fitted yellow class 37s, however the ensuing outcry from not only the enthusiast community, but also the various councils and tourist bodies meant that the portable alternative (despite it initially being ruled out) was looked at again. By definition this will not be 'hard wired' into the loco so I suspect a derogation will have to be obtained possibly based on the fact that there are 3 people on the footplate rather than the 1 on ordinary service trains to ensure compliance with the ERTMS kit, the only other alternative that springs to mind is to connect the ERTMS device to the TPWS required by all main line certified locos although that would require the TPWS kit to be modified

[Guest Phil]

Stationmaster raises an interesting point about ERTMS which I presume also applies to TPWS. If a train is exceeding the speed which the system expects it to be travelling at, there is normally an intervention which cuts power and applies the brake.

 

Just how does TPWS close the regulator on a steam loco, or perhaps we shouldn't ask.

[The Stationmaster]

Stationmaster raises an interesting point about ERTMS which I presume also applies to TPWS. If a train is exceeding the speed which the system expects it to be travelling at, there is normally an intervention which cuts power and applies the brake.

 

Just how does TPWS close the regulator on a steam loco, or perhaps we shouldn't ask.

 

Probably the latter But it's not just a question of closing the regulator as in most circumstances it would probably be necessary to put the blower on at the same time to avoid the risk of a blowback - it could get very complicated.

[Guest Phil]

Probably the latter But it's not just a question of closing the regulator as in most circumstances it would probably be necessary to put the blower on at the same time to avoid the risk of a blowback - it could get very complicated.

 

I was trying to be simplistic Mike but you understand the repercussions of blower, cutoff etc etc

[John_Hughes]

Well, the Great Western trials way with ATC a century ago showed that it was possible to bring an express train to a stand even when the regulator was left wide open, simply by applying the vacuum brake.

 

Should be even more efficient with air-brakes!

[Guest Phil]

Speaking to a West coast driver last night who confirms he has weeks 2 and 4 of the Cambrian work and has already got his suitcase packed. Well the last bit might be stretching the truth I guess !!!

 

Anyone who has seen the rear inside cover of the current Steam Railway magazine will know who I mean, and who, incidentally, didn't know how they got hold of his birthday details !!