CME 15/07/17

Not saying it was an easy ask but 6201's problems were caused by poor railhead conditions so IMO that instance cannot be used as evidence against 45690 taking 12 in good railhead conditions.

 

Back to the train.... Hopefully my log from Carnforth to Carlisle is in the pdf below for those who might like to view it. Didn't get every quarter and only did mileposts on the run down to Carlisle.

 

O

Oh the irony! Someone NOT on the train complaining about others NOT on the train posting comments on a discussion forum but craving the input in the form of photographs from others still NOT on the train...

This thread has ended up giving some really interesting comments about the labours of Leander from many not on the train and given many a better understanding of the probable causes.

 

Original post corrected. Samsung's last upgrade has a habit of changing words. The coach was removed on route.

Why can't I "drag that up yet again" when it was a factual occurrence? The post I was replying to asked what a tour operator could do if a problem occurred that could mean cancelling some customers tickets. I gave a real life example of what one tour operator and TOC chose to do. Please point out the factual inaccuracy - did the train fail to stop and explain to customers what had happened?

Ralph, you are severely conflicted as someone who works for the said tour operator. Quoting a FACTUAL occurrence is NOT "slagging off."

So on Saturday, one option was for the operator to drop a coach and inform customers accordingly. Steam Tours do not operate in a parallel universe, impervious to normal yet unfortunate business practices. That option was not taken and the result has lead to some really interesting comments and information in this thread.

 

Replying to a question is not grinding an axe.

But you may wish to look up trolls....

 

No need to look it up. We just tune in to your master class on the subject.

 

The thread is titled CME 15/7/17 think we've gone on a bit of a tangent!

 

What does it matter where a picture comes from?
As for comments, there are interesting comments, and you are very correct in stating there are many about the labours of Leander, and then there is the tedium of you and your mate shall we say, "second guessing" decisions made in the real world by operators dealing with difficult real world circumstances. Oh, and then there is the bleeding heart act when people get short with you because you continue ad nauseum even after very credible explanations are proffered. I do sympathise really - I find it very hard to believe that not every one on the internet agrees with you.

For just a little while there the thread was a happy place with interesting commentary, I guess you got left behind for a bit when you were picking up all those toys and putting them back in your pram.

But seriously, I know you are just trolling, and I'm probably just as guilty for feeding you a little, but I've said my piece and I'm done with it. I won't really be bothered if you respond or not. Have a nice day.

 

I would like to give my take on the comment from Dobbs 0054 of just drop a coach from the load. I base this on being a steward on mainline tours and 41 years in the airline industry where it is not exactly unknown for flights to be cancelled/overbooked and numbers of stranded passengers need to be dealt with.

Lets assume that the operator had 48 hours notice that the Class 7 loco was not available, (it may well have been less or more of course, we do not know, but upthread a mention was made of a letter early that week mentioned 46115).
Based on looking at the You Tube footage the train passenger consist was
6 X First Class at 48 seats per coach
2 x Standard Class at 64 seats per coach
1 x Buffet at 50 seats
1 x 4 compartment half brake at 32 seats

Total for train thus 498

So to remove a coach you would have to decide which type of coach to ditch and on what basis. Thus you are looking to loose 48 or 64 passengers, you of course can not loose the half brake, buffet or kitchen car.

Do you protect those who booked early, or the diners because the food will have already been ordered and perhaps supplied.

How do you contact those people that you are not going to let travel, and all those that would probably need re seating during the "juggle round" resulting from this. You can not just assume that people have read emails you sent them so you would have to call them all. I have experienced many examples whilst stewarding of people not reading emails or letters they were sent with info on the tour weeks in advance.

So there will almost certainly be people who turn up on the day thinking they have a seat who no longer do. What do you do with them? They will be on the train and you will be moving before you find out, other than Milton Keynes where it is pathed to allow a VWC service to pass all station stops are less 4 minutes or less so you can not sort it out on the platform. So they will milling around in vestibules whilst people are getting seated and then you are going to tell them that they will be getting off at the next stop. Of course if they are Preston passengers that does not work as you can not let them out at Carnforth loop, so they would be there until Carlisle with nowhere to sit down.

 

You are entitled to your views and to air them but nothing justifies personalised criticism or "being short" with fellow members. As you note most threads have cordial exchanges which turn bad when the same handful of folk decide to shift away from the substance of the debate to spend time making accusations of axe grinding. I would be really pleased to know what these folk think the purpose and motive of this so called axe grinding is, that using a forum such as this would achieve. Holding and voicing opinions or forthright views is not synonymous with having an "agenda" but I can only assume some judge others by their own motives.

 

I hit the wrong button to continue
I know first hand the chaos when a split dining first coach has the tables laid up incorrectly and just moving a few people at each pick up turns in to a rugby scrum in a narrow aisle, and explaining why they are not in the seat number on their ticket.
If you want people to get off the train I suspect a number would refuse to unless you give them a ticket or money, so you need to have people around to do that. Some may not have a credit card or sufficient money with them or believe it will not be refunded anyway.

We always end up with strollers and wheelchairs, which we do not know about, if some of the reseated passengers are not mobile enough to move big distances on a train doing 100 MPH behind Less Ross so you would have to ask others more mobile to move. Remember this would all have to be done before the next station stop recent history shows MK, Rugby, Nuneaton and Crewe have large passenger loads. With the exception of Crewe they are all quite close together if you are trying to sort out many queries, having people arguing they have a ticket and do not want to get off.

So in the airline industry you would book them on a competitor airline, or put them in a hotel and feed them and book them on you next flight. Or you may dangle money and ask for volunteers (no do not use the United option) and fly them later.
In the normal rail industry of course you would either expect them to squeeze themselves on a shortened service or wait for the next.

It all sounds very easy to say "remove a coach" it is not really that simple. Maybe it was discussed, may be not, I do not know I did not steward that one last Saturday, but I can see that it is not as simple as just saying do it.

 

Am I the only one who is totally fed up with the constant he said/he didn't say farce that has once again hijacked this thread (and many others before it).

As someone who witnessed both the tremendous sight of the 15/7/17 CME and the (now resurrected) shambles that occurred on last year's Euston - Carlisle when a coach was detached before the train departed perhaps I might make some factual observations.

Last Saturday's train was a fantastic tour de force not only by the locomotive, but by the loco crews on both north and southbound legs. Let us remember that these crews are just as much WCR employees as those who sit in the offices at Carnforth and make decisions on operational matters which are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. It is very easy to take a retrospective judgment but then hindsight is always a 20/20 view. On Saturday the decision was ultimately the right one, but it was a very close call.

Re last years misadventure I would take very much the opposite view. The chaos, bewilderment and misinformation which intending passengers from Preston (I was there as an observer only) was disgraceful. Ralph has quite reasonably commented from the perspective of a steward staffing the train and (if I recollect accurately) posted at the time that the RTC train manager was of the opinion that a stop should be made at Preston so that disappointed passengers could be spoken to, and it was WCR who over ruled the suggestion. In such circumstances it is only to be expected that criticisms would result, especially as the problem with the defective coach was known about at Southall circa 05.30 am, some 6 hours before the train was even due in Carnforth where steam plus just one (support) coach was attached. Six hours was apparently inadequate time to shunt/make available a replacement from the substantial number residing at Carnforth. More fundamental is given the age and nature of MK1 stock why no spare at Southall?

What seems to me common to both scenarios is just how seriously under-resourced mainline steam operation is. This underlying problem is not a failing on the part of any individual, but the overall provision available for TOCs to actually deliver the goods. Given the 15/7 train was fully booked in advance the 12 coach load was known to be essential in providing sufficient accommodation. The only Class 6 (or above) loco at Carnforth is, until BIL is fully ready, Scots Guardsman. Having all your eggs in one basket is never a sound business plan.

So sometimes WCR get it right and sometimes get it wrong and it would be unreasonable to expect anything else. As for those who ALWAYS take one side or another in such arguments the only fact they demonstrate is the short-sightedness of their personal, often significantly biased, and unrealistic view.

 

I don't disagree with you. I was merely positing the options of the situation.

Other businesses have similar issues and have to manage them. Maybe they have insurance against such issues.

In the end, pure steam was delivered. A bit of excitement was generated - though I'm not too sure Mr Beet will be so pleased. We have had an interesting discussion and some of us have learned some new stuff along the way.

 

About time too

 

Same needs to happen on a few threads on NP as things do drift close to the edge at times ! Sure a song will pop up ASAP no doubt

 

In my estimation the stakes regarding mainline steam are quite high, the biggest hazard being an avoidable self inflicted foul up. As such, while the desire to provide a pure steam experience on this occasion was estimable, to my mind it was a little gung-ho given the available steam traction. There could not have been more than a 75% confidence 45690 would cope alone in forseeable circumstances.
In the event crew and loco avoided disaster but it seems to have been a squeaky bum situation. These are best managed out in advance would be my proposition.
As regards the mono ocular, it may read as anti WC. In fact I think much of their work is admirable, especially the diesel side. The steam side does suffer from the chronic lack of suitable 7 plus traction and there perhaps needs to be a more realistic approach to marketing by RTC or SD which has a less ambitious, real world core. My main beef is that "oh dear, how sad, never mind, better luck next time" is an inadequate response when the service does not meet expectations. This applies across the sector.
Overall this tour was a triumph in the face of self-inflicted adversity. It managed to get home, well done to all the folk at the sharp end, but you were stymied by the planners in my view. A diesel support would have been sensible insurance with the proviso the purists on board got adequate recompense.

 

There seems to be two problems being highlighted here, the on paper the overloading of the tour engine compounded by bad coal, there is a shortage of 7& 8 class motive power that Carnforth can call on, and the available engine was a 5 xp, so in theory a less capable engine given the load, prehaps insurance in the form of diesel assistance may have been a better option, but that also gives rise to bad publicity if the tour has been sold on being 100 per cent Steam .in short a no win situation.
Another issue seems to be the failure of a coach at the start point, and no replacement being offered, even though , there were spare coaches that could have been added at Carnforth later in the tour, with no spares seemingly available at Southall. and no one can explain why, the only reason i can think of is that only coaches that are needed for a tour are given a FTR prior to the tour, and that there would be no spare vehicles, that can be added, unless a fault was found at the point of an examination, and another vehicle placed in that set, that is the only scenario that would explain the lack of a spare vehicle at Southall, and later at Carnforth, after all, even if there is a coach sat in a siding, if it has not been inspected and passed as being fit it can not run on NR,there still has to be someone able to inspect that coach, if they are not there , then that coach i would imagine any failed coach would have to removed and the tour operate with the set as it was .