Fire Risk

I think having a fire risk rating for locos is just adding another layer of unwanted complexity to the problems of matching loco to duty. “Our planned loco 12 weeks ago when we put the request in was gauged as restriction 1, fire risk group 3. But now we’ve had two weeks of sun and NR want a fire risk 1 loco, but the only one available is gauge restriction 4 and doesn’t fit”. It would just be a nightmare.

It also ignores other factors in fire risk, such as how the loco is handled, or the quality of coal.

And in any case, how do you judge? A Castle is louder than a Bulleid pacific - does that mean it’s a worse fire risk? I suspect loco owners, who have money on the line if their loco is graded poorly, might want rather more of an objective view than, for example, conflating chimney noise with probability of spark throwing. And those same owners might find their insurance premiums affected because NR rates them as a high fire risk using some arbitrary metric.

So I think grading locos by fire risk would introduce more problems than it solves. Keep it simple!

Tom

 

Totally agree, the responsibility for whether and how a steam loco is used on the mainline rests with the operator. They have the duty to assure "fitness to run" afterall. If its reasonably forseeable the loco poses a significant ignition risk that should be an element of its fitness and a documented decision the operator makes.

 

Probably fair, but I'd expect NR to assume worst case at this time of year. I'm not quite sure how you'd measure it, but I'd have thought fire risk could be assessed in terms of ashpan and chimney "leakage" levels at a given level of working and speed - a measure that might inform choices of loco and duty.

 

Yes, I think the caveat should be dragged out of the T&Cs and given prominence.

 

Of course NR carries overall responsibility for the integrity of the network and will assume worst case scenario. What needs to be averted is a situation where episodes like the one under discussion make the 'worst case senario' a fixture of the calendar.
This surely involves the operators proactively taking greater ownership of fire risk assessment for steam traction against commonly established criteria forming part of relevant RSSB standards.
One example given up thread is ashpan dousers.
Another might be specifications for effectively assessing spark containment. If I look back 25 years or so I seem to remember part of the mainline certification process involved a loaded test run in hours of darkness for a visual assessment of spark arresting effectiveness. Is that still the case?
Advances in technology must make it fairly straightforward to get a visual record of ashpan security too.
The overall point being if more isn't done by those with the agency, there must be a strong chance something blanket will be permanently imposed by NR.

 

Without a doubt.

 

Given modern equipment and fire risks in the hotter drier summers we are having I suggest that NR needs to do some major work with lineside vegetation and that has nothing to do with running steam

 

There is plenty of room for informed or uninformed speculation about how much worse heatwaves and droughts will get, and how quickly. Plenty of trustworthy sources make very clear that they certainly will get worse. How main line train operators (of all kinds) and heritage railways deal with the resultant fire risk (and other consequences) now and in future seems an entirely appropriate topic for this thread.

 

Vegetation is a problem, undoubtedly. However by far the greater balance of hazard and threat in terms of fire risk emanates from a steam loco. Expecting NR to do over much to manage their element is a fools errand. The steam loco owner/operators want to be on the mainline far more than NR does so the onus is surely on the former to find better and new solutions, whether physical or simply being self restricting when circumstances demand.
As an example, and fully expecting a 'pile on', how wise was it to move 44871 from a region where it was operating unrestricted 350 miles south into an area that was already under some restrictions and clearly under imminent threat of the level being escalated? Fair enough there was a will to ensure RTC was able to provide a steam hauled train on 12th July but why did caution not intervene?
Being a responsible operator has to be about controlling the controllables applying all the foresight one can.

 

As far as I remember, all variants of class 33 were built with ETH.

With two locos, there should surely be sufficient electrical supply for the train. Unless of course, the ETH equipment has been removed, or not maintained/certified, or simply does not meet current regulations.

Even if a rear loco were required, one 33 each end two separate drivers required, no higher crew cost than having a 47 on the back.

If my memory serves, Waterloo - Exeter services which ran with 9 mk1 in summertime, were restricted to 8 mk1 during the heating season.
So one 33 should have sufficient 'hotel power' for up to 8 mk1 equivalent.

If there were 1x33 each end, the ETH of the rear loco should be sufficient. If there is a steep section requiring full traction power both ends, the driver of the trailing loco ought to be able to switch off ETH for short portions of the journey.


Mind you, it is over 30 years since I had any dealings with the running of cl33.

 

Why? Not heard of any fires started due to high temperatures.

 

Stratford last Friday?

 

Is it definitely a fire that started on the railway though? Public media doesn't make it clear.

 

There are a couple of photos of the damage on the Greater Anglia website, it certainly looks serious and significant.

The original link that I posted is no longer valid, so i have removed it

 

If you want to consider fire risk from locos other than steam, hang around somewhere on the third rail network after dark and you'll see how many sparks the contact shoes can throw off.

 

The point is that irrespective of the cause there is now a lot of hi-tech equipment and cabling hidden in the undergrowth, and given the current climate an increased likelihood that it will catch fire at times

 

Looking at what seem to be fresh cut bushes, it seems that box must have been well into a lot of vegetation.

Bryan