Flying Scotsman

Corrected for accuracy

 

I have thought for some time that a crossing is exactly what it is called and not a stand anywhere you want crossing Al !

 

Well maybe. I remember going out to watch a main line excursion a while back, and when I got to the place I'd picked, a footpath crossing, there was already a chap set up to take video. Fair enough, but I did observe a microphone carefully located in a place where it appeared to only be accessible by leaving the bounds of the foot crossing and trespassing.

 

Ah you met Twizzle! I have seen him too. Seriously, I was at a location where trespass took place, serious enough that a driver stopped, BTP was called and the steam held in a preceding station. There were 4 of us who were clearly old hands at the game, all safely ensconced behind the line, with about 20 village locals spilling down the leading platform slope and congregated round a signal. It was obvious they were locals, they all knew each other and never arrived by car, one even produced a bottle of vino and some glasses.

 

Hi i have seen 60103 twice today go through my home town south Acton station and still not convinced that its the right green, its to light and wrong, garden gate green. sorry FISH7373 81C NFP

 

I dunno I rather like it

 

But that "prohibit" was kicked very swiftly into touch was it not?

 

But that problem exists on the Harrogate line for just about all locos IIRC so the locations you mention are not unique and wrong line working is an established railway practice.

 

Well AFAIK Scotsman never had any gauging problems during her last spell in traffic. So what's changed? Has the track been realigned in places? Do modern methods of measuring the loco give more accurate results than were previously available? And why is this a problem for 60103, but apparently not for comparable locomotives like A4s or the A1?

Even if there are some gauging problems, is that the end of the world? The "Halls" are infamous for their wide cylinders, but 4965 and (until recently) 5972 have both managed to have very successful main line careers.

And if all else fails, there's plenty of preserved lines she can run on...

 

Good summation Ralph, contractors not returning track to the envelope it was set up with is the greatest problem, the fact they are not brought to book about it, further encourages those that think they are almost by stealth removing steam from the network.

By Law, and pointed out elsewhere by others more qualifies than us, the track has to be returned to its former situation, or NR is in prohibition of its own internal measurement it took on when it was created.

The fact nobody has taken the time to push this with them, further adds fuel to the stealth fire.

Been mentioned many times, but they will take no notice of WCRC, RTC, SD or any other, if they all got the act together of an umbrella organisation, maybe, just maybe, this could be reversed, personally think too much damage has been done already.

 

A couple of years ago the matter of a shrinking loading gauge was raised with a Transport Minister. His answer? "TOCs can always buy smaller rolling stock." Like that's going to happen.

 

Scotsman is rather wide over the platform plates at the bottom of the cab at 9'-0". Compare that to a Duchess at 8'-10 5/8". An A4 is the same width along its length at 8'-8 1/2". A Merchant Navy is 9'- 0" across the cab, which is high and well clear of platform edges. I have not got the width of the platform plates for 60163, because the frame diagram on the website is a bit too small to read the dimensions.
So it appears that the extra 1" or so each side on Scotsman is making a difference.

 

With FS so much in the news, now is as good a time as any to bring the current unacceptable situation into the National Domain.

If such an umbrella organisation existed, I am sure they would get plenty of column inches.

 

Trouble is if the Transport Minister went to NR and told them to make sure their contractors put the railway back so it can accommodate a few rare steam excursions, NR will turn round and say "Fine as long as you take the flak from other rail passengers when we disrupt their services to re-do the work". The undoubted answer to that will be "Err maybe don't bother then".

Its all well and good complaining contractors aren't held to account for minor issues which affect a very small number of trips (whatever the legal etc rights are) but if that means disrupting hundreds of normal journeys, its simply not going to happen. The real root of the problem is that modern rolling stock has a different profile to steam locos which means that if its OK for the majority of trains, its not going to get fixed quickly for one offs. At the extreme end the easier solution to NR current track standards not fitting steam locos would be to change the requirements on the open access side of things so that NR has no obligation for a few "hobby trains".

 

Remember by law, they have to maintain the track envelope, and not reduce it.

And, if they did the job correctly in the first place, they would not have to re-visit the work that has been done.

They have no excuse.......

 

I see from recent RAIB reports on passenger entrapments in sliding doors that narrowing the gap between train and platform is taking on an ever higher priority. It seems to me this may not be good news for outside cylinder locomotives, some much more than others of course. So in the case of platform clearances it would seem they very much have a reason for minimising the envelope.