British Pullman 2025

And if NR had announced it Monday say, everyone would be moaning that they did not wait until closer to the trip.

 

Dammed if they do, dammed if they don’t.

Todays decision from Black Fire Risk around Kent was a local area manager decision, not an NR national control one. So clearly the local team felt it enough to go to Black, but rather weirdly for today only. That may actually be taking in to account the loco and support crew too, who may obviously suffer in the heat, and NR may not want the delays that could arise from that.

But ultimately there is a multitude of factors, and if NR can run steam they will, so often those factors don’t get lined up till very close to the day.

If NR call it early, then the forecast changes and we actually get rain they’ll be facing a hefty bill for the wrong call, or if they don’t call it hefty bill for fires caused and service delays.

 

We are now in yet another heatwave covering much of the country. For quite a few of us this has followed a very dry spring. The 'great storm' that went over Kent a week or so ago only gave the mid Kent area 4 mm of rain.

To me, a 100% steam only gricer, it would be indefensible to allow a steam railway locomotive to operate in any way on the main line in such conditions when today's temperatures could be in excess of 30 C over much of the route.

So, IMHO whoever made the decision about yesterday's Pullman train made the right one.

To me again, that just leaves a question mark over the timing of that decision in a country where the forecasts we get are becoming more and more accurate for even as much as a week ahead. Cue the sudden onset of a period of rain of biblical proportions!

Bryan - will spend today building an ark - B

 

Two separate points. One, in general, I'm inclined to cut NR the benefit of the doubt in trying to enable operation and not jump early - but that is speculation. The detail of the forecast will have interacted with conditions on the ground, and those observations may have changed faster than originally expected. As a trained meteorologist, you'll be aware how circumstances can change - and how important decisions can hinge on questions of interpretation (think of the stories about James Stagg in June 1944).

The duty of care point is I think more interesting than you allow. @2857Harry refers not just to non-NR crews, but also the consequences of a failure. Those do fall on NR, and involve NR's duty of care to their own employees. That is a reasonable position.

What I haven't seen mentioned is that SE route is now being combined with SE Trains, giving an integrated control operation. I haven't read the detail of this, but it does suggest a possibility that the decisions will be taken with slightly more weight to SE Trains' considerations than previously. Opinions will vary about whether that's a good thing, and I suspect that discussion belongs outside this thread.

Oh, and finally - this is one train on a busy network. Just possibly, with business as usual and other changes going on, this didn't get high enough anyone's priority list to make a decision to avoid inconvenience.

 

Absolutely. I think the set up of GBR and the whole access regime and its regulation will be a topic in its own right.

The effects of climate and weather trends on (a) the infrastructure and (b) what commercial operators of steam can expect to operate in an average year will be another.

 

Well this is 2025 not 1995 so Duty of Care is a big thing these days. As stated it may not just be the steam crews and associated staff but failed trains sitting around in heat with perhaps poor or non working a/c is not great, plus self evacuation is an issue NR seem to have a big issue with, even if they cause a lot of it to happen.

Why would the NR Kent manager be getting any emails about financial implications, it is their network and users know the rules. Not the first tour cancelled on the day, let alone day before. Except of course it still ran as far as I can see from RTT, just with out steam. For all we know an eventuality like this may be covered in the contract for the loco hire, whoever that is with Belmond or DBC?

And on Duty of Care I read in the Bluebell R & A that the ORR have made them fence off 7 overbridges in case trespassers fall off. Duty of Care for people even breaking the rules.

 

Like some other opinions I have voiced another one to cause some froth is considering various factors but especially changing climate conditions would it not be a sensible consideration for more loco owning groups (especially those with multiple locos like LSL & West Coast) to look at an oil fired conversion for at least one of their locos? Even if, unlike for Rood Ashton Hall (assuming that conversion is still going ahead), doing so for most locos is not historically accurate for the class.

Beyond the elimination of fire risk surely there are other benefits to an oil fired conversion

• Refuelling is much easier - if you can take water somewhere you can most likely take oil, as time goes on fewer and fewer locations are suitable for coaling as you need for a road vehicle to be next to the locomotive with no overhead wires present, also presumably the area around the tender has to be clear of the public so you cant really coal in a platform from the other side incase some lumps fall.
• I don't have much knowledge of access to the types of oils that can be used but I imagine it is likely to be easier to get hold of than coal is these day (although it might be more expensive)
• Presumably in theory longer term fossil fuel based oils could be replaced by biofuels (even if there are debates over the environmental impacts of their production and their general environmental credentials), I am fairly sure I heard somewhere of a oil fired loco which could use an oil made from used cooking oil from McDonalds (A partnership with a McDonalds pay for conversion and fuel resulting in a branded loco would certainly see some people spontaneously combust in rage but it would be a unique way to pay for an overhaul), the studies of alternatives to coal on some persevered lines with an equivalent solid fuel options has had mixed success but as far as I am aware nothing would be suitable for use on the main line where energy demands are much higher.
• It would be relatively simple to extended the operational range of an oil fired loco similar to the 2nd water tender LSL have and the Vintage water carrier something you cant really do with coal. You can also maximise the usable volume of space in the tender although I am sure many would also be horrified by the idea of the non-traditional look such a tender would have.
• Safety wise you eliminate things like concerns over crews using long irons under the wires when they shouldn't or other issues with getting coal out of the tender or just coal falling from the tender when full.
• Presumably the being in the cab while coal is shovelled will expose crews to some coal dust even if attempts to do so are minimised and that is likely to be worse for health than an being in the cab of an oil burner.

 

For those of us who enjoyed the German oil fired 012 pacifics in the 1970s, and then 012 100-4 in heritage use, know that a propely set up oil fired loco looks and sounds great. And they don't seem to cause many lineside fires!

Bryan

 

FYI 01 1104/012 104-6 which was saved and owned by Dr Beet and based in Carnforth is currently back in Germany operating on the main lines as an oil fired loco.