Diesels on steam tours

Yes it is my understanding that pulling a 'dead' diesel is harder than just the weight alone. EDHP is calculated on a model for various rolling stock, the model for Mk1 coaches is different from a line of loose coupled trucks for example. The weight is just a factor in the equation. Although it's accepted that a diesel requires a different model I've never seen that model quoted (i.e. just the fact that it's needed).

 

As far as i understand it when a diesel is idol on the back it is taking is own weight, if its dead on the back then the steam loco is pulling its weight and the resistance from the gearing aswell.

 

It would be very difficult fr a diesel driver to control his engine such that it only takes its own weight. It would either have to be pushing (though not necessarily by much) or the steamer would pull the diesels weight. This would be regardless of if the engine was ticking over or stopped.

 

How? if its idling the engine is on but its not linked to the traction motors....

 

What would be the reaction if the engine on the back was a kettle as well? In the steam days a banker would have been used on steep inclines. Well I do come down on the side of NO diesel on a steam tour, but only marginally. As it is very bad if the locomotive hauling the tour breaks down. Surely (as it has been said already) it is better to have diesel loco's stabled at strategic points along the route, in case of trouble?

 

And how much do you think it would cost to have several locos on stand-by along the route?

 

Thing is though that would put the cost up in having several sets of crew and multiple diesels making the cost of tickets for mainline steam tours even more expensive than they already are?

 

I don't quite understans. If the TOC/NR insist on having back-up traction in the form of diesels for steam hauled specials, then there are only 2 options.
1. Stick one on the back for the duration of the journey.
2. Have a few along the route for T-bird duties.

If No diesel at all is favoured, the I think the time will come (again) that steam will be banned from the mainline.

 

It wouldn't be so bad if they used reliable diesels or diesels with enough fuel in them.

A couple of examples that I recall:

1. The Duke departing from Weymouth hauling a charter train plus a dead 47. The 1 in 50 Upwey bank was very interesting.
2. The Duke departing from Bristol with a class 31 tagged on the back with dragging brakes. Oh how First Great Western must have loved that one as several trains were stuck directly behind it.
3. The classic has to be the diesel charter that ran out of fuel in the countryside and had to be rescued by a farmer with his tractor.

I'm certain that there are many more. <BJ>

 

Yes but they all also happen to be the same (extinct) TOC

 

Having again got myself in trouble for posting comments which others do not appreciate on the 6201 thread, I will againre-state my views ( A direct copy of what I said earlier on page 2 of this thread!)
OK, as I was the biggest complainer about threads being hijacked by this subject, here is my view...

Diesels are used on steam tours for a reason, if not they would not be there. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact of the continued existence of steam on the mainline.

No tour operator wants the diesel there and in most cases it is due to necessity. be it for heating, power or to assist where required. or in some cases, like 76079's tours earlier in the year to drag the train back from places there are no run-round facilities.

Occasionally, Network Rail will insist on diesels for 'insurance' purposes. Again this is not something the tour operator can change.

In 99% of cases, a diesel is only used for the reasons above (Although I am missing several purposes I'm sure!). Often people seem to be under the impression that an engine on the rear is working or pushing, when the fact of the matter is it is only ticking over or, 'carrying its own weight'. Just because it is there does not mean it is in use and please, make sure you have the facts right before criticizing the tour operator/TOC in question.

I really wish that people would take into account that nothing happens without a reason and that it is often not the fault of the tour operator/TOC, before they launch into a tirade of abuse on this subject.

Rant over and apologies if I offend anyone!

 

And to add, the diesel driver can only connect the traction motors to the genny if it is prearranged or at the request of the steam driver, they aren't there opening the diesel up as and when they feel like it. It is the steam loco drivers decision.

Just another thought

If a diesel was to run light to help out at the other end on say the WCML, brake force requirements limit the LE to 75mph too (lines 90 and above I think? 60 on lines 85 and below, linespeed below that I think thats what the rule book states) One path at 75mph max might be pushing it, but 2?

 

It must have been known for some time that 6201's support coach was not piped for steam heat so why did Past Time Rail not explain this in their publicity for the Lakes Express and advise that a diesel would be attached to provide train heat. People who dislike diesels on the back including myself and other train timers can then make an informed decision whether to book or not. I believe promoters do not do this because they know it will lose them custom. I wonder how photographers would feel if steam specials regularly turned with the diesel on the front. Well a similar feeling is felt by the train timer who pays to travel on the train the diesel on the back can and has ruined their day, although not in the case of the Lakes Express which was thoroughly enjoyable. I shall continue to support Past Time Rail as I still believe overall they are one of the best if not THE best steam promoter but if I've learned anything form this experience it is not to book future winter trips behind 6201.

 

Here's a thought....

Had there been a diesel on the back of 6024's train on Saturday, I suspect that when the hot-box occurred at Swindon, 6024 would simply have been removed and the train continued diesel-hauled.

 

On point no.3, wasn't this a light engine move? No stock whatsoever, let alone a charter! Not that I'm defending the company concerned because that was inexcuseable.

As for The Duke - I had a rather good trip behind 40145 on "The White Rose" in 2005, from York to Liverpool Lime Street thanks to 71000's failure on the outward leg to York :smt002

 

Ralph 5407,
The point I am trying to make is that there is no mention in the advertising that a diesel will be provided on the train for heating or if the steam has a problem.If this was advised in advance then I would have no problem at all.
I know the booking clause states that on the day alternative power may be used but this is a blanket clause and is used by everyone so has no benefit to the discerning customer who does not want a diesel at all.
I have no problem with the situation that will occur in Cornwall when if you go down a branch with no run round facilities there has to be a diesel on the train to pull it back.But when you put one on a Preston-Carlisle leg and then change ends for the Carlisle-Crewe leg just because you cant find a generator car then its just plain wrong.If the powers at be don't think the engine is good enough to be on its own then don't run it at all.

 

Another problem caused by a diesel failure at the rear of a steam charter.
There's more if you want them!! <BJ>

http://sixbellsjunction.co.uk/00s/050604sd.htm

 

Steam Dreams

I have just received the new brochure for the above organization and have noticed the new blanket clause.
Perhaps they should rename themselves Steam/Diesel assisted Dreams.
Probably won't go on any more of there's now.

 

It WAS a charter actually - it was supposed to be a Steam Dreams trip to Lincoln with 45231. Due to engineering works the Black 5 couldn't get from the MHR to London so the trip had to be diesel hauled. And then the diesel (33103 I think) ran out of juice on the way!