locoholic Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 Another mainline steam "incident" on 30 November... Dispute between driver of Oliver Cromwell and Network Rail signaller at Shrewsbury, causing return charter from Chester to Bristol to be stuck in Shrewsbury station for a couple of hours and eventually WCRC class 37 to be transferred from the back to the front of the train, with 70013 inside in light steam. Not 100% sure what happened, but there was a sudden sharp brake application in the vicinity of Coton Hill, and the train came to rest with a semaphore home signal at danger, level with the 8 or 9th coach, and 70013 near the inner home guarding the station throat, but that signal was showing line clear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 SPAD or signal returned to danger by the bobby would result in a "disagreement" between the 2 parties and the loco crew being relieved of their duty for the ret of the day. Dunno, I wasn't there! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 Even if it was undoubtedly a signal put back in front of the train, wouldn't someone have to interview the driver and decide if they were fit to continue? Presumably if they weren't, there probably wouldn't be any other suitable drivers nearby to take over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 1, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2013 Even if it was undoubtedly a signal put back in front of the train, wouldn't someone have to interview the driver and decide if they were fit to continue? Presumably if they weren't, there probably wouldn't be any other suitable drivers nearby to take over. Problem No.1 - finding a Driver, not so easy nowadays even at major centres. Problem No.2 - finding a steam qualified Driver, that is where it can get really difficult. Simple answer - put the diesel on the front, = instant change of the Driver in charge of the train. However we don't know what happened and we don't know why the locos were swapped round, could just as easily be a technical fault as a human error or disagreement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted December 1, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 1, 2013 The semaphore home signal that appears to be at the centre of the "dispute" is an absolute swine to see in the dark, easy to read through to the signals at crewe jn Obviously i wasnt there and dont know the circumstances of the incident but i will say a brake application at coton hill wouldn't stop you at the home board if the driver had misread rather than the signal being put back iirc the signal does not have tpws/aws fitted either (AB area), from what i can make out is if the signaller is bringing you down to stop at crewe jn he cannot pull off the home board until you pass over a block joint not far from the signal, he can pull it off if the signals protecting the jn and station are off however being as the distant signal is a fixed one you still have to treat all crewe jn's signals as being on anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Any photos of Tangmere after the incident? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted December 9, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 9, 2013 Not much to see really, just a bent rod. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted December 9, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 9, 2013 Black 5 slipping to a stand at Parkstone as mentioned above Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Hmm... 4781, eh? The Ghost Train rides again! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Trevellan Posted December 9, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 9, 2013 Black 5 slipping to a stand at Parkstone as mentioned above. Not trying to be clever here, but a class 5 replacing a class 7 on a fairly heavy train and an ideal time of year for poor railhead conditions. Surely a predictable outcome? My observations of the WCRC crews is that they're very accomplished enginemen, but when the oddds are stacked against you... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 It certainly seemed that the crew was doing the best they could - there were a lot of trees and therefore fallen leaves in the area - once it stopped they got out and seemed to be taking pictures of the railhead - evidence for a possible claim? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 9, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 9, 2013 Not trying to be clever here, but a class 5 replacing a class 7 on a fairly heavy train and an ideal time of year for poor railhead conditions. Surely a predictable outcome? My observations of the WCRC crews is that they're very accomplished enginemen, but when the oddds are stacked against you... I would agree absolutely regarding the load - alas it's a common failing with steam excursion working where although engines are generally in very good condition there is a tendency to push loads to, and beyond, sensible levels for commercial reasons. I realise it keeps the price down for the punters, and thus helps to make the trains a commercial proposition, but there is a limit at which common sense should prevail and it looks as if it didn't on this occasion. However there are clearly other factors and in this instance it also looks as if the engine was overpowered where the gradient was not the steepest it encountered although curvature was greater and that inevitably has an impact. The train also included some heavy vehicles which of course didn't help - I reckon 1 or possibly 2 vehicles over the sensible load for that engine on that road. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted December 9, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 9, 2013 I wonder what the 33 was doing when all this was going on. Having said that I had fun and games on Saturday with a U class, 6 well loaded coaches, 1 in 60 in a leaf filled soggy cutting...despite a Class 50 supposedly giving me a shove. To be fair, if it hadn't been there I'd still be on the first trip now..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted December 9, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 9, 2013 Maybe they should have rostered a Branksome crew. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Cheese Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I wonder what the 33 was doing when all this was going on. Stood quietly at Poole where someone had left it...perhaps not a wise decision in hindsight? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted December 9, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 9, 2013 That is strange...it was on the train when it left Southall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodmin16 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I wonder what the 33 was doing when all this was going on. Having said that I had fun and games on Saturday with a U class, 6 well loaded coaches, 1 in 60 in a leaf filled soggy cutting...despite a Class 50 supposedly giving me a shove. To be fair, if it hadn't been there I'd still be on the first trip now..... Presumably 6 coaches on a fine dry summers day would not be too much of an issue? I assume that vegetation management is one of those things that has to be addressed in a similar manner to the big railway, and therefore subject to the same restraints e.g. Resources, cash and availability to combat the issue although on a different scale. Of course this is then just another of one of the myriad of jobs that has to be done to run trains. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Cheese Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 That is strange...it was on the train when it left Southall. From what I gather 33029 was used to get the ECS to Poole with the Black 5 facing the right way for the tour owing to a lack of turning facilities in the area. For whatever reasons it was not deemed neccessary to leave it on the back on the day...wasn't this tour supposed to have had a Britannia on originally though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimbus Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I wonder what the 33 was doing when all this was going on. Watching the vid on YouTube reveals the answer in a comprehensive commentary: The 33 was intended from the outset, but on the day, a driver was not available. When the train inevitably came unstuck, the relief driver baled out of the Black 5 and made his way by car to pick up the 33 and bring it to the scene. The Nim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted December 9, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 9, 2013 There were quite a few on the 33 when it left Southall! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Whilst the power of the loco has some bearing on matters with perfect rail conditions, ANYTHING can slip to a stand in autumn. Power does not give adhesion on a slippery rail. Maybe the loco crew were sanding the rail by hand to try to get away? I've done that a couple of times when I've been working heavy trains on the main line. The tea can lid comes in useful! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted December 10, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 10, 2013 Power does not equal adhesion. But all locomotives have a maximum tractive effort and when asked to work above that they will fail to lift a train in even perfect conditions. The comment made previously about placing the maximum load behind a locomotive for commercial reasons is well put. If a Class 7 loco is rostered and the load determined accordingly then a Class 5 cannot necessarily be expected to move the train. The fact that it was required to do so up a notorious gradient and in apparently poor rail conditions makes matters worse. For those less familiar with steam (though the same applies to any form of traction) try loading a caravan to the limit of your towing capacity with a Range Rover and starting off uphill; not always easy is it?. Then replace the Range Rover with a smaller and less powerful car ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
avonside1563 Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Ian Riley has posted on The Works that rail head swabs were taken as evidence of the poor rail conditions for subsequent analysis and enquiries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Not trying to be clever here, but a class 5 replacing a class 7 on a fairly heavy train and an ideal time of year for poor railhead conditions. Surely a predictable outcome? My observations of the WCRC crews is that they're very accomplished enginemen, but when the oddds are stacked against you... I would agree absolutely regarding the load - alas it's a common failing with steam excursion working where although engines are generally in very good condition there is a tendency to push loads to, and beyond, sensible levels for commercial reasons. I realise it keeps the price down for the punters, and thus helps to make the trains a commercial proposition, but there is a limit at which common sense should prevail and it looks as if it didn't on this occasion. However there are clearly other factors and in this instance it also looks as if the engine was overpowered where the gradient was not the steepest it encountered although curvature was greater and that inevitably has an impact. The train also included some heavy vehicles which of course didn't help - I reckon 1 or possibly 2 vehicles over the sensible load for that engine on that road. Whilst the power of the loco has some bearing on matters with perfect rail conditions, ANYTHING can slip to a stand in autumn. Power does not give adhesion on a slippery rail. Maybe the loco crew were sanding the rail by hand to try to get away? I've done that a couple of times when I've been working heavy trains on the main line. The tea can lid comes in useful! Looking at the train 11 coaches four of which are heavy coaches (2 Pulmans and 2 catering). It's not surprising that the loco slipped to a stand. It would be interesting to see what the B.R. load book said for this line with a class 5. If the load had been worked out for a class 7 loco to replace it with a class 5 was asking for trouble. If the load was known to be too much for the class 5 why was the relief driver (who went back for the 33) on the class 5? It has been done in the past where the diesel runs light loco one or two sections behind the steam train. It may have not been possible to do this due to line usage, but if any normal train was following the steam train the 33 had to get past it to get to the steam train. One point that I can see about this is that it will cost two pathings,. I'm all for keeping steam on the main lines but in this scenario by having the diesel following could have kept delays down to say 5 mins. OzzyO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
byron Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 A nail taken out of the coffin? No mention of Bittern's run last week that I can find. Managed a max speed of 94mph !5 miles at a continuos 90mph and an average of 71mph start to stop Newcastle - York. Puts things into perspective a bit. Why do we always harp on about the negative in our hobby. Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.