Dorset Coast Express 23/08/18 & 6/9/18

If you are referring to my last shot,
That's leading on the climb just outside Dorchester South (passing Winterbourne Monkton heading towards Weymouth) and at the time 47580 was still on the rear. (Does that side of the climb have a different name?)

I am not sure why, but No 9 wasn't putting out a steady volume of steam or smoke on that part of the climb, kind of in spurts but with gaps in between (made getting a good photo showing the steam and smoke tricky)

 

Two hoots for Hook on the One-waymouth

 

Amusing reading the thread for this train on WNXX where the main concern is whether there was any steam ‘shovage’

 

A few shots of the Class 33 "Thunderbird"
Arriving at Weymouth, prior to departure and during a swift stop at Bournemouth to ensure none of the passengers who had alighted there had waited for the return.
And for balance one of No 9 backing the stock out after it had finally come into the station to allow passengers to get their possessions off the train. It then had to go back to Jersey Sidings again until the 33 was due to arrive.
It was 47580 that failed, it ran for about 10 seconds when fired up shut down and would not restart despite numerous attempts.

I was told that No 9 did very little out of Weymouth (noise from the 33 would certainly imply that was the case) but did assist up Parkstone.

 

From RTT it looks as if No.9 was detached at Southampton and then made its way home under it's own steam via Romsey and Andover. So any disconcerted diesel fans can be assured there was no steam shovage after Southampton!

 

I take it that those who wished were able to go back to London by service train, hence only (some of?) the dining passengers going back behind the 33.

All in all not a very satisfactory day, but evidently several parties collaborated to make the best of a bad job.

 

And only a two day gap after Saturday's run to Minehead, so four runs in eight days. There is of course one major benefit; keeping the boiler hot.

One or two on the platforms on Tuesday and one or two on here have muttered about her being "filthy". I would rather call it "grubby", nowhere near as dirty as many locos were in the last years of regular steam operation, and not quite as dirty as the support coach.

 

I don't understand the voicing of concerns about the frequency of use for 60009 in relation to the DCE problems yesterday. It has been clearly established 47580 was the culprit, nothing whatsoever to do with 60009 or its maintenance schedule during a busy spell.

 

SWR seemed very helpful to the passengers and Swanage reacted very quickly. As Robin's picture on the Swanage thread shows even by sticking the 33 on the front of the last service train along with the T9 to get it out towards the mainline. Not sure where the WCRC driver met it, but of course he had to get across from Weymouth (by taxi I guess)

 

It is indeed looking a little "grubby". Which is fine by me. Adds a touch of authenticity.

 

October 2004 and again October 2005 Ian Riley ran 45407 running as 45157, back from Scotland in a mucky state.. The engine both years ran one or two mainline excursions before getting a wash and brush up.

 

Hopefully a nice slice of unexpected hire income for the 33 owners too.

 

I knew people on this train. Apparently the staff only counted 25 passengers on the return leg. Everyone else went on service trains. Most of the staff also went back. So no table service or buffet open.

They asked Network Rail permission for 60009 to haul the train tender first out of Weymouth. NR eventually said yes but the driver highly advised against going tender first up a 1 in 50 with no banker.

 

Thank God the Driver had the common sense to say no.

 

Begs the question of who exactly was seeking permission if the driver deemed it infeasible and how NR was actually persuaded in the circumstances. Surely the first question is to the driver about any proposed working because he has the traction and route expertise?

 

I suspect because of D6515 was not available then MAYBE some coaches could have been left as well. However as NR are not keen on tender first running then I suspect you ask before going to that as an option. Took over an hour to agree T/F from Swanage to Soton couple years ago when the WCRC 33 had a TPWS fault.
However leaving coaches may have caused an issue for the Worcester trip depending on the stock at Southall at the moment.

 

Probably a partial load would have been the only vaguely viable consideration for a solo steam climb but as you say not practical for other reasons. On reflection, it seems highly unlikely to me that the report of seeking and obtaining NR permission for the A4 to take the whole train unassisted is accurate.

 

I agree with the earlier poster that asking the driver first would have been a good move. If something unusual is suggested to control, it does help if answers are prepared for any queries and people on the ground are ready to impliment the scheme.

Also water capacity would need to be taken ito account.
Weymouth - Southampton (RR) - Laverstock Spur - Basingstoke - Brookwood is about 140 miles. The normal range is taken as between 60 and 75 miles depending on tender capacity and size of boiler.

Also dropping a few coaches in Jersey sidings could have repercussions until they were moved.
Whenever the platforms at Weymouth are outberthed for engineering works, all the stock is shunted to the Jersey sidings. (Only one of the two sidings is electrified and that ius needed as a headshunt to the TPO siding.) In the wrong place the off coaches could also block the RRV access point, further affecting engineering works. Checking that out could be why control took so long to make a decision.

Cheers, Neil

 

Would it have needed to be on standby to get there so quickly? Would it need FTR or as its mainline registered just the normal pre run check??

 

33012 is maintained to mainline standards at all times, and there are full time engineering staff at the railway that are qualified mainline FTR examiners