Strathspey Railway

46443 is the only steam loco I've ever driven (21st birthday present - 20 years ago this year ), so yes definite soft spot! 46512 did a lovely job on our trip Easter Sunday.

 

92219 has now made it into the shed after 46464 vacated the space at the back of number 2 road. Dismantling is expected to start in June, so far there has been an independent boiler / firebox inspection and report, as well as a few rivet heads burnt off and split pins removed. A blog to chart progress is planned.
Not the best quality picture though.

 

Be interesting to see how 92219 progresses after its long tour of yards at Buxton, Butterley, Kirkby Stephen, Tebay etc, have passed it on the motorway a couple of times.

 

Really look forward to seeing the last 'proper' BR steam loco restored. (I'm ignoring the show pony!)

 

If the black 5 is anything to go by, the 9F has a very bright future.
Personally I would like to see it heading a train back to Grantown.

 

The Strathspey railway will be running diesel traction on Fridays in June. This will be to the normal three round trip timetable, departures from Aviemore at 10.15, 12.45 and 15.00.

The intended roster is.
07th June - 27 050
14th June - 37 674
21st June - 27 050
28th June - 31 327

 

You are far from alone in that.

Excelent to see the 9F make it in to the shed.

Aviemore has excelled in turning out locos to an impeccibly high standard, this one will be some sicht when finished.

 

Wow! What a stunning looking loco.

Pictury by Robin Taylor, posted on 46464 Facebook Group (https://www.facebook.com/share/p/yEX14Sjjdm3yKr5m/?mibextid=K35XfP)

 

The Strathspey Railway will be running Diesels on Fridays during September.

 

We're planning to visit early next week is there any info on which steam loco's likely to be running? Thanks

 

It will probably be 5025 next week.

 

The FS report is out

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...at-aviemore-station-on-the-strathspey-railway

John

 

My camper van is fitted (by me) with a rear view camera and an ultrasonic reversing warning to help me avoid banging into things when going backwards. These are available for a remarkably small amount on ebay and elsewhere. FS has a big tender corridor door on which these could be permanently fitted. It might not be up to "railway" standards, which usually mean a 5- year development cycle and paying nasally for rippling levels of consultancy, but as well as human life and limb, two irreplaceable heritage artefacts were put at risk here. An added level of security at modest cost seems unopposable.

I would guess that most loco- hauled railways would benefit from some such arrangement, which on other stock could be mounted in a magnetically- attached box and communicate with the driver by radio. Sender and receiver battery powered, and no radio signal or corrupted communications means don't move. It looks like a totally avoidable situation to me.

 

Shouldn’t be necessary I think the regulation is to stop six feet short and then ease up, obviously not done it this case.

 

(Deleted)

 

The report shows that this was clearly the drivers intention but.......the train was not where he was expecting it to be.

And to be pedantic the recommendation is that you stop "at least" six foot short. Depending on the situation many steam drivers prefer to stop 15 to 20 feet short so that when they make contact with the train there is not a big lung full of steam still in the cylinders.

Peter

 

We had this stop short discussion previously. It is a rule / procedure on the main line, not necessarily on the line in question - it does not represent a standard.

 

As above, the report states the driver's intention was to stop and ease up - but the train stopped the loco first..
I think a significant point from the report was the role of the owner's rep. He occupied the fireman's seat, had the best view of the stock, had his head out of the window - but didn't feel it was his role to tell the driver to stop. This may have resulted from overcrowding of the footplate and general confusion as to whom should be doing what.
Of course the ORRs main point is there should have been specific Risk Assessment and Method Statement in place covering what was an unusual movement for the railway. This would have prewarned the driver that the stock was in an unusual place and put mitigation measures in place.

 

That’s surely a nonsense. Are they really saying that there needs to be a risk assessment in place for a shunt move that just happens to be further up the siding than the last one? If that is really the case then I fear that the railways are on the cusp of being unworkable. What should have been controlled is the number of people on the footplate and absolute clarity about the roles. That’s notoriously difficult where visiting engines are concerned, but not impossible. It can take a bit of “balls “ to establish there is a hierarchy and who is at its head, but that doesn’t change the necessity for that to happen.

 

I'm not sure that they were asking for a RA for each specific move, that would be excessive, but they noted that there was no risk planning in place at all for the visit of Flying Scotsman (an extremely unusual loco for the line) or special events in general. One off events bring unusual practices & unfamiliar motive power, that increases risk. A rule that states the train controller has a simple conversation with the driver when a train is overlength would have prevented this incident, or acknowledgment that an A3 tender first has much reduced visibility compared to an Ivatt 2..
In response tonight the Strathspey has released a statement to the effect that they have already addressed all of the RAIB's concerns.