9F Locomotives - Restrictions on Network Rail

Severn Valley Railway recently tested Royal Scot at up to 50Mph, having previously tested Met 1. Britannia was tested at 60 mph on the Mid Hants a couple of years ago, 76084 was tested at 60mph on the GCR at the beginning of the year. I would be very concerned if these runs were not 'authorised' as these heritage railways actually market themselves for testing!

 

If the track condition and geometry is satisfactory for higher speeds there is no reason why permission should not be given for trains not carrying passengers provided that special arrangements are made at any uncontrolled level crossings. These would normally be footpath or accommodation crossings and may require staff to be in attendance. There may be cases where risk assessment indicates that a notice warning of times and dates of higher speed runs would suffice.

 

I think that you'll find that each occasion has to be specially exempted by the ORR. There is no blanket exemption. Could be wrong, but that is how I understand it.

 

I think that list of ORR licences and exemptions is more to do with railways connected to the national network. The GCR isn't listed at all, either under licence holders or exemptions, whereas the GCRN is. I think you are barking up the wrong tree, to be honest.

If it really bothers you the contact details are on here: http://www.gcrailway.co.uk/special-services/testing/

It may well be that each occasion is specifically authorised, I don't know.

 

I'm not the least bit bothered. I was initially simply responding to 99Z. If you think I'm barking up the wrong tree, that's fine by me but, by your own admission, you don't know, either.

 

The testing of 6100 on the SVR at speeds greater than 25 MPH took place between Bewdley and Kidderminster only. One reason being, that there are no occupation crossings in that section to worry about.

 

I just thought I'd bring this thread up to the top of the list; there seems to be a bit of duplication.

 

Apologies if the question has been asked and answered before but does the same restriction apply on any heritage lines thus prohibiting use of a 9F?

 

Actually there's triplication. Could the mods do a: "9F - the great big combined thread"!

 

It depends on the railway concerned. The 'ban' on the 9F on NR is simply because the infrastructure owners considers it too much of a risk to allow it - there is nothing from the ORR etc that prevents the locos opperation per say.

In practice the decision will come down to an engineering led risk assessment - basically are there any raised check rails or tight curves which would cause issues? If not then alls well. If however there are issues in some places can they be mitigated by banning the loco from certain areas of track.

If the owner operator of heritage railway X takes a different view to NR then thats fine - but please remember that even longest Heritage railway is a drop in the ocean in track miles compared to the amount of trackwork on the national network and NRs position is largely governed by the inordinate amount resources necessary to trawl through every bit of infrastructure and check its suitability for a 9F

 

Your insight is most appreciated and it probably boils down to if there was the will a way would be found. I remain unclear as to the enormity of the task however to check a given route or routes for raised check rails, not knowing the level of detail held on the infrastructure database.
For arguments sake if an owner was willing to pay for a route assessment of Carnforth to Hellifield and Hellifield to Carlisle plus environs would that present an insurmountable challenge? My assumption is that not all heritage vehicles are routinely gauged pan network wide in any case more on a route by route basis?

 

Really, yes, because it also involves an assessment of any route likely to be taken by the loco from its home base to access that particular route, any possible diversion that might need to be made from that route, including into sidings, for operational reasons, and any route likely to be taken to return the loco to its home base. And I'd be amazed it there were no conflicts in the Carlisle area.

A second problem is that, even if the owner / operator were to stand the costs, the staff required to carry out the assessment have to be in place. Is it? If sufficient staff to do this are currently twiddling their thumbs, then NR has an overstaffing problem.

 

WRT staff it would only be viable through a subcontracted arrangement as clearly nr will not have idle resources and even if fully externally funded such a project would be very low priority.
Totally hypothetically my scenerio perhaps included a road move to a suitable base like 70013 has to. The question of assessing diversion routes and sidings must apply to all steam locos in a gauging sense?
Totally agree that Carlisle is likely to have raised check rails simply on the basis of the extent of trackwork. It does noticed insurmountable though to come up with a plan that effectively manages the risks of very low speed manoeuvres as was the case historically elsewhere, surely?

 

I would hazzard a guess that in 1968 raised check rails were rare. Most points and crossings were made from rail bolted together. Cast crossings were used in complex heavily trafficed areas such as Newcastle, Borough Market etc but if memory serves right none had raised check rails.

Therefore when the 9f was in regular traffic there was no problem for most routes. On todays railway high speed crossings with raised check rails are becoming the norm hence the ban

 

Despite all the above I can't believe that Grosmont to Whitby couldn't be checked. It's only a few weeks since NR sent Lizzie over a too-tight curve at Derby with unfortunate consequences so perhaps there is a view that a locomotive with all-flanged wheels can go into every corner of a principal route.

 

The postion could be said therefore to be a precautionary ban pending a full engineering assessment which is unlikely to ever happen?
There must be a process to seek vehicle acceptance though, if the will and resources were allied?

 

Sorry to divert the thread (via a set of points with raised checkrails?), but I didn't hear which track at Derby was the cause of the problem.

I noticed a video of it appearing from Chadd Sidings; was the curve at the exit from there the culprit?

 

Chadd sidings curve is OK as are all the platform lines (except No. 5 I believe). I think that it was a backwoods crossover but I wasn't there.

 

Even if a small number of routes were cleared in this way would any loco operator want to go through the rigmarole of main line certification if route availability was so severely limited; and which might be further curtailed at any time if further PW 'improvements' were carried out?

 

Totally agree that the practicalities are almost certain to millitate against a positive outcome.
What is very obvious from most comments is that the majority see only reasons not to attempt returning a 9F to the mainline rather than how solutions could be sought. As mentioned before, if the will was there a way would be found. History teaches us that at least.