Cumbrian Mountain Express - 14/10/17

Agreed on shorter trains. If price was really a factor would so many of the tours be predominantly Premier Dining and First Class? Would the enthusiasts you allude to be that bothered by a few quid more? Probably smoothed out between the classes.

 

OK

 

Taking the issues in East Lancs out of the equation and they look like they were imposed by a medical emergency as well as tough rail conditions, the real and PERSISTENT villain of the piece is the constantly late running TPE from MIA. A nine minute delay due to that regular culprit made all the difference whether Leander meandered over Shap or rocketed. The TPE is the genesis of the delay so TPE should be liable for any charges. The TPE made the CME late which in turn delayed the Pendo. NR need to have serious words with TPE rather than cast wary eyes at steam.

 

CME 14 October 2017 in retrospect

Well a week has passed and time to reflect. First, there was the usual excellent post (and analysis) from 1020 Shireman – thank you; other posts ranged from the informed through the interesting to the darkly negative. The video of the restart at Wilpshire was a testament to Mick Kelly’s skill in coaxing the train forward on a 1/86r gradient with only 6 tiny steel to leafy, gooey steel contact points that had to support almost 7 tons. Well done and thank you Mick – being “stuck” would have been difficult and time consuming to resolve and may have had long term consequences – “a skin of our teeth moment”.

A class 6 loco with 12 coaches on this route, at this time of year was always going to be a big gamble. On a sunny and breezy day after a few days of similar weather we might have got away with it. From Carnforth the late running TP Edinburgh train didn’t help (yet again) and maybe the 20mph TSR on Grayrigg contributed – only the driver will know if he could have run harder. From Carlisle to Ais Gill, leaves, but probably mainly weather affected large parts of the climb and I suspect that a very experienced driver ran as fast as he could. After the medical incident at Clitheroe, we started the climb to Wilpshire at 50 mph so took plenty of momentum into the climb. The climb to Wilpshire has always been notoriously difficult when poor rail conditions prevail. In BR days late night freights hauled by class 40s often slipped to a halt on the upper part of the climb caused by dew on the line. (Back then, assistance was available from Blackburn).

So what are the alternatives for a 12 coach CME,

Don’t run the CME at this time of year.

Provide a class 8 loco (if one is available). The “Guidelines” propose an autumn limit of 11 coaches northbound over Shap, an extra coach is probably within the scope of the operators risk assessment. Subject to rail and steaming conditions on the day this should allow the train to keep time to Carlisle. The performance over the S&C might be more determined by rail conditions but should be better than a class 6. Up to Wilpshire a pacific would be more susceptible to slipping than a 4-6-0 but might have sufficient momentum to clear the problem sections, if not it would prove more difficult to restart.

Provide 2 class 6 locos (probably available). The normal limit for a class 6 northbound over Shap is 9 coaches which is reduced to 7 during the “autumn period”. The guidelines propose that a second loco has an allowance of only half of its individual load, making 10.5 coaches in total. Comments would then be similar to the class 8. The advantage is that there are now 12 driving wheels rather than 6, so potentially less propensity to slip (if sharing the load). The disadvantages, the schedule allows 13 mins to water at Appleby and 17 mins at Hellifield both locations are capable of rapid water delivery but from a fixed point. This would mean drawing forward to water the second loco. This could not be done within the given timeframe, or perhaps watering one loco at Appleby and the other at Hellifield. On the climb to Wilpshire if the train slipped to a halt (less likely with 12 driving wheels, but they would be relatively close together so on the same stretch of dodgy track) how easy would it be to restart with another 134 tons on the drawbar of the lead engine? Operating costs would increase (if only marginally as claimed by Ian Riley).

Run with 9 coaches (or should this be 7). To achieve 9, let’s be even handed and lose one Premier, one First and one Standard. Based on next year’s prices this amounts to a loss of income of around £27,500 and assuming the same mix as Saturday’s CME this equates to around -32%. There will probably be some saving when hiring and operating a shorter train but this is likely to be disproportionately less. So the Standard class ticket would have to rise from £109 to say £130-£139.

Run anti-clockwise (north over the S&C and south over Shap). This would avoid the load restricting climb north over Shap and the problem climb up to Wilpshire – but these are the fun bits. It would, however, bring into play Stainforth cutting where I recall 46229 slipping to a halt (possibly more than once). Paths are available when starting at Crewe or Liverpool but not from London, at least with the same start and finish times. I can’t figure out if/how this could be done, maybe someone else can.

Run with a diesel on the back. Oh no, shame on you Oswald for even suggesting such a thing! It does seem the sensible thing to do and has the added advantage when climbing up to Wilpshire that the locomotives are separated by a couple of hundred yards and thus less likely to be on the same stretch of dodgy track at the same time.

Change nothing and try again.

So there are some options, I hope that WCRC do not choose the last option.

“Network Rail’s Autumn” begins on the 15th September. On the 16th September Tornado hauled 13 coaches north over Shap on the Boarder Raider (suggested limit 11). I don’t recall too many posts pointing out that DBC were not complying with “The Guidelines”. I wonder why?

 

In the north of England I'd say leaf fall and poor rail conditions are rarely a problem in September. October 1 would be a more sensible start date for those guidelines. September is prime time for steam on the main line and the risks do not warrant cutting into the season to that extent. That's regardless of who the operator is!

 

An excellent, measured critique sir and one which will be tolerated because its written by a perceived friend rather than enemy even though it reaches the same conclusions as the supposed grudge holders. Regarding the DBC comment, probably if any difficulty had been encountered there would have been criticism? The perceived criticism WC endures is not entirely baseless and most of it rationally made with good intent as far as can be seen, just as with Oswald T here.
Returning to this train, the most apt word used in that summary is "gamble". There was a high probability / certainty of each of the following:
wet and windy conditions
TPE runs late,
stiff gradients,
larger load than prescribed,
probable standing start at Whalley,
likely adverse rail throughout.
All the ducks therefore need to be in a row for such a venture to succeed, which is beyond the planners control and if there are "wary eyes" it will be because of this, not a tardy EMU.
My concern is seeing the right things done for sustainability reasons. Nothing that happened last Saturday has advanced the cause. The skin of teeth were thanks only to the miraculous skills of Mr Kelly so I would hope his opinion gets full consideration next time a train of this sort is in the offing. I suspect the response would be "I'll give it a go but I think we will get into trouble".
The solution is clearly motive power matched to train length, route, forseeable conditions etc
As an observation, the first winter CME has routinely been double headed. Not sure whether there is a significant price premium? Surely, though, if it was an advertised feature that would attract custom in its own right, thus offsetting any price sensitivity?
There was actually an unusually high number of certified locos in the north last weekend too - 45699, 44871 and 46233 in addition to Leander.
Also, whilst the 8F is restricted speed wise, this must only be critical Shap to Carlisle compared to a slogging Jub up to Shap? If the northbound climb can be accomplished faster by 8F + Jub (or 5MT) is the point to point timing better than the latter solo? (This is a general question because the 8F was not fit apparently on this occasion.)

 

Agree with you OTW. but Tornado is in a different class and has precedent of running over the route with 13 in both good and bad weather with no problem. That is in accordance with the guidelines.

 

Tongue was firmly in cheek.

 

And the TPE was late again today!

 

If 46115 had been available, is it likely that the extra 3.5 tons of loco weight over the same number of wheels would have made any difference to adhesion on Wilpshire?

 

Impossible to say definitively of course but 46115 has appeared very sure footed. One would expect the additional adhesive weight to make a positive difference though, had it not been in bits!

 

All depends on railhead conditions. Even the most surefooted loco will struggle if conditions are against it.

 

Looks like Leander has been gaining time all the way from Hellifield to Appleby on todays VT Cumbrian Express. Forecast was dire so expect the railhead was wet. Does anyone know what the load is?

 

Load 10 including support

 

That is beyond doubt. However, I think its a reasonable hypothesis that in like for like circumstances 46115 would have better prospects than 45690, which is the question actually posed.