A4's banned from Carlisle

[ryan125hst]

I heard a rumour when seeing Sir Nigel Gresley on a light engine move at Retford on 6th March that Network Rail have banned A4 locomotives from Carlisle station due to gauging issues. This appears to be true as The Cumbrian Ranger railtour today had to have Bittern replaced with a Class 47 at Carnforth, although Bittern did run behind light engine and appears to be booked to take the train from Carlisle down the Settle and Carlisle for the return journey.

Are A4's banned from the whole of Carlisle station, or just certain platforms? What has changed to suddenly cause gauging issues? A4's have used the station in the past.

Is this likely to be a permanent ban or just temporary until gauging is checked/alterations are made?

Thank you

Ryan

 

[Lou92]

Yes, NR is worried that an A4 might strike the platform edge as the track may have possibly moved laterally (but not worried enough to check for movement, apparently).

 

[plastictaffy]

Read it in The Railway Magazine today. Apparently, if the track hasn't been checked for alignment within it's timeframe, it's deemed to have moved 25mm which is the most allowed. This would be the worst case scenario, but if it had moved by that much, the A4's would run the risk of striking the platform edge. GWR locomotives, interestingly, are not currently banned from the station.

 

[Katketty]

Saw Bittern at Carlisle today and she did indeed haul the train back south again. I believe the issue lies at the northern end of platform 3 where there is a wee kink in the track. Thus Bittern could not pull the railtour into the station or it would have to run through this kink and -possibly- strike the platform.

This was solved by having a Class 47 pull the train into Carlisle initially with Bittern following on later. She was held at Carlisle for a short time before going off on a little jaunt and eventually returning to the station in reverse. She could then couple on to the rear and off she went!

 

[w0033944]

First the banning of Sir Nigel Gresley from the Bittern Line to access the NNR March Gala, now this. What has NR got against A4s?:roll:

 

[Katketty]

60009 "Union of South Africa" was due to haul The Hadrian railtour through Carlisle on Saturday the 29th of March. However she has now been replaced by 46115 "Scots Guardsman" due to "gauging issues in Carlisle platform" according to this website.

60007 "Sir Nigel Gresley" will be hauling The Cathedrals Express on the same day between London and York so at least there shall be some A4 action on the go!

 

[gwr4090]

First the banning of Sir Nigel Gresley from the Bittern Line to access the NNR March Gala, now this. What has NR got against A4s?:roll:

A1s and A4s are RA9 (largely due to the axle weight distribution of the tender), and require special dispensation to run over much of the network which is RA8 or less (determined by strength of underline bridges). This has been the cause of several bans including the Norwich-Sheringham branch which is RA6.

 

[w0033944]

A1s and A4s are RA9 (largely due to the axle weight distribution of the tender), and require special dispensation to run over much of the network which is RA8 or less (determined by strength of underline bridges). This has been the cause of several bans including the Norwich-Sheringham branch which is RA6.

Hang on - why did NR say late last year that Sir Nigel Gresley could use the Bittern Line and only reverse that decision on reassessment of the structures at the last minute if the difference between the A4 rating and that of the line itself is a full 3 categories? Even if we're saying that RA9 locos normally have dispensation to run on RA8 lines, that still means that the reclassification of the Bittern Line was from RA8 to RA6 - that seems like a very big jump to me!

 

[gwr4090]

Hang on - why did NR say late last year that Sir Nigel Gresley could use the Bittern Line and only reverse that decision on reassessment of the structures at the last minute if the difference between the A4 rating and that of the line itself is a full 3 categories? Even if we're saying that RA9 locos normally have dispensation to run on RA8 lines, that still means that the reclassification of the Bittern Line was from RA8 to RA6 - that seems like a very big jump to me!

Nothing has changed. The Bittern line has always been RA6 and A4s require a special dispensation to cover any route below RA9. Although provisional approval for a movement may be given quite early, gauging and route assessment for a particular route which has not been traversed in the last 6 months are not usually carried out until shortly before the movement is actually due to take place. Indeed trains are sometimes cancelled at only a few days notice when new problems emerge. Also I suspect that the granting of dispensations has been tightened up recently.

 

[w0033944]

Nothing has changed. The Bittern line has always been RA6 and A4s require a special dispensation to cover any route below RA9. Although provisional approval for a movement may be given quite early, gauging and route assessment for a particular route which has not been traversed in the last 6 months are not usually carried out until shortly before the movement is actually due to take place. Indeed trains are sometimes cancelled at only a few days notice when new problems emerge. Also I suspect that the granting of dispensations has been tightened up recently.

Where is the accountability, though? If provisional approval can be given for a loco to use a line three ratings below that which the loco theoretically needs, it suggests that the RA system is pretty vague and meaningless, and that's an impression only increased when a reassessment suspiciously shortly prior to an event states that such flexibility no longer applies.

 

[DarloRich]

Where is the accountability, though? If provisional approval can be given for a loco to use a line three ratings below that which the loco theoretically needs, it suggests that the RA system is pretty vague and meaningless, and that's an impression only increased when a reassessment suspiciously shortly prior to an event states that such flexibility no longer applies.

What accountability do you want?

Why do steam enthusiasts always seem to think there is a vendetta, hidden agenda and/or conspiracy against them?

 

[w0033944]

What accountability do you want?

Why do steam enthusiasts always seem to think there is a vendetta, hidden agenda and/or conspiracy against them?

Perhaps because it's happened before (BR steam ban post-15 Guinea Special)?

I understand that safety must be the primary consideration. I question, however, the value of route availability ratings if an RA9 loco can be allowed to use an RA6 route. I don't make a big thing of this, because in most cases it's utterly irrelevant, but I do have scientific training in biology/medical research to Masters level, and thus I find the above fact incredible (in the literal sense of the word). If science categorised data with a similar lack of specificity or rigour we'd still think that phlogiston existed.

I also find it odd that NR should give initial approval and then reassess the route a few months later; surely the assessment was planned when the initial approval was given? If they had warned the NNR at that time that the route was to be reassessed and this might result in a late revoking of permission for the A4 to use the line, the railway wouldn't have been left scampering around for a loco in steam to fill the timetable. I infer from this that NR either didn't know the reassessment would happen (proper planning prevents p***-poor performance) or, more likely, they knew about it but "forgot" to notify the NNR.

When one adds this saga surrounding Carlisle, especially if information provided earlier in this thread is accurate (no measurement of platform clearances despite an "assumption" of 25+mm of lateral movement) then it seems bizarre to say the least, and, even if there is no anti-steam bias within NR, it gives the impression of one. I'd have thought that, with PR being so prevalent in all big organisations, someone would have made the point internally that repeatedly disrupting steam movements on the network doesn't give a good impression.

It also worries the NNR, as they previously arranged for Tornado to visit for one of their Galas only for NR to shut the line from its base, again at the 11th hour. As Trevor Eady (General Manager of the NNR pointed-out on local radio, it gives the railway a bad reputation - while we know it isn't their fault, Joe/Jo Public who want to see a big express engine might reasonably conclude the the NNR are making speculative promises. Such reputational damage can make a huge difference to an organisation whose profits are small enough to be vulnerable to such factors.

 

[Tomnick]

I question, however, the value of route availability ratings if an RA9 loco can be allowed to use an RA6 route.

Seems quite reasonable to me - anything with a higher RA than the route that it's travelling over might, for example, carry various restrictions (speed over specified structures, lines not to be used and so on), be deemed 'OK' only on an occasional basis or (given that route availability is surely based on several different factors) have no problems whatsoever! It's a well established and relatively simple system, but with that simplicity comes the possibility that a 'barred' vehicle might actually be passed after a detailed assessment.

 

[DarloRich]

I also find it odd that NR should give initial approval and then reassess the route a few months later; surely the assessment was planned when the initial approval was given? If they had warned the NNR at that time that the route was to be reassessed and this might result in a late revoking of permission for the A4 to use the line, the railway wouldn't have been left scampering around for a loco in steam to fill the timetable. I infer from this that NR either didn't know the reassessment would happen (proper planning prevents p***-poor performance) or, more likely, they knew about it but "forgot" to notify the NNR.

The NNR ( or at least the operators of the locomotive) should know.

The problem with the assessment is that things change. Perhaps a slight movement of the ground meant a slight realignment of a section of track ( often under bridge) meaning the locomotive was out of gauge. Something as simple as tamping or stone blowing might throw the gauge out. That is the real issue - the "gauge" changes almost like a living thing

When one adds this saga surrounding Carlisle, especially if information provided earlier in this thread is accurate (no measurement of platform clearances despite an "assumption" of 25+mm of lateral movement) then it seems bizarre to say the least, and, even if there is no anti-steam bias within NR, it gives the impression of one. I'd have thought that, with PR being so prevalent in all big organisations, someone would have made the point internally that repeatedly disrupting steam movements on the network doesn't give a good impression.

But checking costs money. Also why spend that money if it has no impact on all of the other trains that use the station?

So in checking the platform at Carlisle for one train you put a speed restriction on elsewhere affecting 1000's. Which has the greater priority? Which has the greater PR impact?

Which story gets the most traction:

1) NR stops steam train journey or
2) NR affects thousands of passengers so puffer buffers get day out?

it is about seeing the bigger picture and understanding that there is a list of priorities in spending a diminishing pot of money

It also worries the NNR, as they previously arranged for Tornado to visit for one of their Galas only for NR to shut the line from its base, again at the 11th hour. As Trevor Eady (General Manager of the NNR pointed-out on local radio, it gives the railway a bad reputation - while we know it isn't their fault, Joe/Jo Public who want to see a big express engine might reasonably conclude the the NNR are making speculative promises. Such reputational damage can make a huge difference to an organisation whose profits are small enough to be vulnerable to such factors.

But are NR beholden to a private company? Are they responsible for the promises a third party makes? Does the operation and maintenance of the network not take priority?

I appreciate the frustration, i really do, as i like to see a steam train and ride on one - I just also understand something how and why those decisions are made

 

[w0033944]

Seems quite reasonable to me - anything with a higher RA than the route that it's travelling over might, for example, carry various restrictions (speed over specified structures, lines not to be used and so on), be deemed 'OK' only on an occasional basis or (given that route availability is surely based on several different factors) have no problems whatsoever! It's a well established and relatively simple system, but with that simplicity comes the possibility that a 'barred' vehicle might actually be passed after a detailed assessment.

So a bridge can accept a loco of a given weight travelling at 5 mph one day but is unsafe a week later?:-? Plus, if the frequency of such movements was the deciding factor, why did NR wait until it was too late for the railway to organise a suitable replacement loco before deciding that this was happening too frequently?

Whatever the cause, if NR are clamping down on loco movements on the Bittern Line, what effect will this have on the NNR? Which steam classes passed for mainline use are RA6 rated? I fear the NNR may have to return to its roots in the early years of preservation - a couple of Mk1s being towed by an industrial shunter as nothing bigger can access the line.:cry:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The NNR ( or at least the operators of the locomotive) should know.

The problem with the assessment is that things change. Perhaps a slight movement of the ground meant a slight realignment of a section of track ( often under bridge) meaning the locomotive was out of gauge. Something as simple as tamping or stone blowing might throw the gauge out. That is the real issue - the "gauge" changes almost like a living thing

NR gave the reason as a weight restriction, not gauging issues. I fully understand that realignment/lateral movement is unpredictable, but that was not the reason given in this case.

But checking costs money. Also why spend that money if it has no impact on all of the other trains that use the station?

I understood from the information provided that NR thought the track had shifted and that safety guidelines/rules meant that the assumption had to be that this movement was at least 25mm. Without measuring, how did they know that standard service trains could safely use that platform? Can NR really say "We think the track has shifted by an unknown amount - we don't think it's safe for an A4 to use it but we're taking a punt that it's safe to continue to run service trains and (possibly) GWR locos(!) through there as we can't measure the clearances in case commuters complain"? I'd have thought commuters would complain more if their train clattered into the platform edging and NR admitted they thought the track had shifted but decided not to check that it was safe?

So in checking the platform at Carlisle for one train you put a speed restriction on elsewhere affecting 1000's. Which has the greater priority? Which has the greater PR impact?

See above - making sure that service trains don't hit it must surely be a greater priority?

Which story gets the most traction:

1) NR stops steam train journey or
2) NR affects thousands of passengers so puffer buffers get day out?

Number 2 of course, but "NR doesn't check suspected track movement resulting in commuters being injured as train hits platform" would beat it hands down.

 

[DarloRich]

NR gave the reason as a weight restriction, not gauging issues. I fully understand that realignment/lateral movement is unpredictable, but that was not the reason given in this case.

but the structures change as well ( it is really one in the same) - the bridge could be hit by a lorry, have the sleepers changed from one type to another, have deteriorated to a level whereby the heavier train isn't able to pass over but the normal lighter units can, the track may have been singles (or doubled) changing the how the weight is spread etc etc

I understood from the information provided that NR thought the track had shifted and that safety guidelines/rules meant that the assumption had to be that this movement was at least 25mm. Without measuring, how did they know that standard service trains could safely use that platform? Can NR really say "We think the track has shifted by an unknown amount - we don't think it's safe for an A4 to use it but we're taking a punt that it's safe to continue to run service trains and (possibly) GWR locos(!) through there as we can't measure the clearances in case commuters complain"? I'd have thought commuters would complain more if their train clattered into the platform edging and NR admitted they thought the track had shifted but decided not to check that it was safe?

Because of the way the gauging envelop is calculated. It is drafted in such way as to allow this movement without impacting on the normal service trains. However, an out of the ordinary locomotive, with a much a different shape might breach this envelope therefore cant run until the track is measured. Other types of train, that fit within the gauging template, can run

Bluntly they know the standard trains fit as none have reported striking the platform edge! It might be something as simple as a platform coping stone moving slightly impinging on the gauge but being within the clearness needed by the widest/tallest/biggest whatever service train

The actual movement will be measured when the measurement train next passes over.

 

[w0033944]

but the structures change as well ( it is really one in the same) - the bridge could be hit by a lorry, have the sleepers changed from one type to another, have deteriorated to a level whereby the heavier train isn't able to pass over but the normal lighter units can, the track may have been singles (or doubled) changing the how the weight is spread etc etc

Fair enough - I just wanted to clarify what NR said. AFAIK there have been no bridge strikes or doubling/singling.

Because of the way the gauging envelop is calculated. It is drafted in such way as to allow this movement without impacting on the normal service trains. However, an out of the ordinary locomotive, with a much a different shape might breach this envelope therefore cant run until the track is measured. Other types of train, that fit within the gauging template, can run

Bluntly they know the standard trains fit as none have reported striking the platform edge! It might be something as simple as a platform coping stone moving slightly impinging on the gauge but being within the clearness needed by the widest/tallest/biggest whatever service train

The actual movement will be measured when the measurement train next passes over.

Let me get this straight.

1. NR have information that the clearance may have changed.

2. Safety concerns mean they must assume a 25mm reduction in clearance

3. Due to a "gauging envelope" (could you explain how this is calculated or determined, please?) it is assumed that the movement cannot be so great as to affect service trains (so presumably something prevents the change from being so great as to lie outside of this envelope?)

4. This leads to to NR effectively crossing their fingers and waiting for reports of things hitting the platform. If something does, they can presumably spout some opaque words referring to "calculating gauging envelopes" to confuse people. If nothing happens, they pat themselves on the back and assume that the clearance won't get any worse, at least until the next scheduled measuring train. No thought is given to some PW workers taking occupation of the line one night when service trains aren't running to check clearances.

Is this really correct? If so, it may seem perfectly sensible to someone in the industry, but, viewed from my perspective as a reasonably intelligent outsider it seems haphazard and laissez-faire. I'm also intrigued as to how they can allow GWR locos to use the platform. For a shift in gauging that's unmeasured, NR seem to be pretty certain of the extent of it!

 

[DarloRich]

That was tongue in cheek - apologies!

It will have been checked and measured but the measurement trains can measure much better/accurately than a human.

As for gauging, i have no idea how these things are calculated! I just know there is a form of template. For Carlisle I would assume it is built around the pendolino to facilitate tilt.

 

[w0033944]

That was tongue in cheek - apologies!

It will have been checked and measured but the measurement trains can measure much better/accurately than a human.

As for gauging, i have no idea how these things are calculated! I just know there is a form of template. For Carlisle I would assume it is built around the pendolino to facilitate tilt.

I did wonder! Presumably, the manual measurement has shown that the gauging won't accept an A4 but will take a GWR loco?

 

[DarloRich]

I did wonder! Presumably, the manual measurement has shown that the gauging won't accept an A4 but will take a GWR loco?

I guess so! I assume it is to do with things like cylinder positions, equipment locations etc. Are they not narrower profile wise than an A4?

 

[w0033944]

I guess so! I assume it is to do with things like cylinder positions, equipment locations etc. Are they not narrower profile wise than an A4?

NRM website shows 9' width for an A4, while Wikipedia (I know...) suggest a "Castle" is 8'11", a "King" being 8'11 1/2'.

 

[TheEdge]

Fair enough - I just wanted to clarify what NR said. AFAIK there have been no bridge strikes or doubling/singling.

Actually, the area around North Walsham has been fairly unlucky for bridge strikes recently. I can't remember exactly when they were or when (but they were in the last few months) but those north of Walsham don't have to worry about supporting the tanks, only the odd sprinter so they might have gone un-noticed for weight limits until the A4 started looming again.

Or that last but might be total conjecture.

 

[w0033944]

Actually, the area around North Walsham has been fairly unlucky for bridge strikes recently. I can't remember exactly when they were or when (but they were in the last few months) but those north of Walsham don't have to worry about supporting the tanks, only the odd sprinter so they might have gone un-noticed for weight limits until the A4 started looming again.

Or that last but might be total conjecture.

Thanks for that information - I must have missed the news of those bridge strikes. I suspect, as you mentioned that the weight issues are north of North Walsham; other than the odd engineer's train it's very lightly-loaded.

 

[breadfan]

Would the Scottish Lowlander railtour, in September, be affected?

It is planned to have an A4 north from Carlisle and back.