NR anti-steam bias?

[w0033944]

I'm posting this opinion (and I stress it is merely an opinion) with the intention of learning new information surrounding the approval of steam on the national network and stimulating a fair debate. I am not trying to form a virtual lynch mob or trigger a flame war.

Having posted in the "A4's banned from Carlisle" thread (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=97964"]), I have been asked why steam fans think that Network Rail has an anti-steam bias. I don't intend to repeat in full the events which have led to me having this opinion (they can be found in the thread linked above and the "Bad news regarding the NNR March Steam Gala" thread) but here is a brief summary:

1. In September last year, Tornado was due to visit the North Norfolk Railway for a steam Gala (http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/star_to...k_railway_gala_by_engineering_works_1_2358781). It was unable to access the network due to overunning engineering work - fair enough, these things happen.

2. Late last month, the NNR were informed that permission for A4 Sir Nigel Gresley to visit the railway for the March Gala had been revoked with very little time left before the event, as the agreement that these RA9-rated locos could use an RA6-rated branch had been reversed following a reassessment of structures on the route.

3. Again at the last minute, A4 Bittern had been banned from passing through Carlisle station as it is thought that there has been 25mm lateral track movement (though there is a suggestion in the thread that NR did not feel the need to actually measure it ?).

My point is that, even if there is no link between these events in terms of a dislike of steam within NR, it appears to many steam enthusiasts as though there is, and, in this era of spin and PR, we are told that perception is everything. It seems strange, therefore, that these three last-minute hassles have occurred within the past 6 months or so without any PR response from NR beyond dry press releases explaining each event. I'm afraid to say I'm reminded of two maxims - "Once is chance; twice, is coincidence, but three times is enemy action" and "there's no smoke without fire".

Opinions?

 

[Pumbaa]

I think it's more simple than that. NR has a duty to the taxpayer and its customers - the TOCs, FOCs and OAOs. Steam operators may be a customer but they're small fry. While I don't think NR should be deliberately obtrusive, I don't want them bending over and spending money unnecessarily that benefits only a small number of people. Overall, I think the present situation is fair as it stands.

 

[w0033944]

I think it's more simple than that. NR has a duty to the taxpayer and its customers - the TOCs, FOCs and OAOs. Steam operators may be a customer but they're small fry. While I don't think NR should be deliberately obtrusive, I don't want them bending over and spending money unnecessarily that benefits only a small number of people. Overall, I think the present situation is fair as it stands.

I agree that diverting much-needed funding to aid railtours/access to heritage lines would be unfair in the extreme; my argument is that repeatedly waiting until the last minute to inform such operators of a change of plan seems to suggest bias. If this is not the case, could NR either explain why such decisions must be made at the last minute or consider if there is a way in which they could provide operators with greater warning of such changes?

 

[Pumbaa]

Yeah - throw more money at it. Which is exactly the opposite of what's happening.

 

[w0033944]

Yeah - throw more money at it. Which is exactly the opposite of what's happening.

Was that post intending to be sarcastic? I apologise for asking, but it's difficult to detect such things online.

 

[Pumbaa]

No that was genuine! All its customers are being equally shafted by exactly the situation you describe. And that isn't going to change in the current climate of NR > must become efficient = cut everything.

 

[w0033944]

No that was genuine! All its customers are being equally shafted by exactly the situation you describe. And that isn't going to change in the current climate of NR > must become efficient = cut everything.

I see - thanks for clarifying. In that case, we are in agreement!

Maybe there is an argument to be made that, until politicians stop banging-on about "austerity" and stop cutting NRs budget, there ought to be a temporary main line steam ban?

 

[Johnny_w]

I suspect that a 'temporary' Ban outside of firerisk could easily lead to a complete removal.

Personally the Tornado thing from last year was down to contractor failings and overrunning works - which is fine - but could the locomotive not have been walked through the works (Literally if necessary) ?

SNG - It's the last minute sting that hurts, was that entirely necessary to leave it for the last minute?

In my humble opinion it's the "shrugged shoulders" attitude and "meh" kinda response that you get from Network Rail.

Network Rail and contractors are very risk adverse (isn't everyone these days)

JW

 

[w0033944]

I suspect that a 'temporary' Ban outside of firerisk could easily lead to a complete removal.

Personally the Tornado thing from last year was down to contractor failings and overrunning works - which is fine - but could the locomotive not have been walked through the works (Literally if necessary) ?

SNG - It's the last minute sting that hurts, was that entirely necessary to leave it for the last minute?

In my humble opinion it's the "shrugged shoulders" attitude and "meh" kinda response that you get from Network Rail.

Network Rail and contractors are very risk adverse (isn't everyone these days)

JW

Maybe it's that. Certainly it's the "Oh, by the way, that loco you said would be available? It won't be - we've decided you can't have it" attitude from NR which grates with me.

 

[12CSVT]

1. In September last year, Tornado was due to visit the North Norfolk Railway for a steam Gala (http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/star_to...k_railway_gala_by_engineering_works_1_2358781). It was unable to access the network due to overunning engineering work - fair enough, these things happen.

2. Late last month, the NNR were informed that permission for A4 Sir Nigel Gresley to visit the railway for the March Gala had been revoked with very little time left before the event, as the agreement that these RA9-rated locos could use an RA6-rated branch had been reversed following a reassessment of structures on the route.

3. Again at the last minute, A4 Bittern had been banned from passing through Carlisle station as it is thought that there has been 25mm lateral track movement (though there is a suggestion in the thread that NR did not feel the need to actually measure it ?).

No different from London Underground 'S' stock being banned from the platform roads at Leicester. If they're out of gauge, they're out of gauge.

 

[w0033944]

No different from London Underground 'S' stock being banned from the platform roads at Leicester. If they're out of gauge, they're out of gauge.

It isn't the concept of "out of gauge" that's the problem here, though. What's awkward for heritage railways and railtour operators is when NR discovers some problem at the last minute for a loco movement which was previously accepted.

 

[eastwestdivide]

"Once is chance; twice, is coincidence, but three times is enemy action"

Don't think that's really applicable here: it's not the same thing happening three times. It's three different things - engineering work overrun, reassessment of structure rating, and potential for out-of-gauge problems.

 

[carriageline]

Personally the Tornado thing from last year was down to contractor failings and overrunning works - which is fine - but could the locomotive not have been walked through the works (Literally if necessary) ?

Seriously? No trains where running AT ALL. Passengers where getting on buses, trains where delayed and cancelled all over the place. And then, you want the workers to stop working, put everything back together so you can run a poxxy kettle through a T3 possession (which, I might add, is also completely against the rule book, there is no way you could 'legally' get that train into the possession). Why does it take precedent over any other train? What makes it so important?

And to the person bleating on that NR have an attitude saying "you can't have it", I'm sure that's exactly how it happened.. Jesus

 

[Simon11]

I'd rather NR focus their efforts on the passengers trying to get to their destination, rather than leisure tour trips.

 

[Harbon 1]

Two of the situations that the OP stated are at the NNR. If a loco is not suitable for a line then it is not suitable for a line, that's the end of it. If they allow special dispensation then fine but if they change their mind then it must be for a good reason. We've had a lot of rain this year, and at the end of last so if a loco that is heavier than the line allows then there could be issues with the integrity of the embankments. Just my personal opinion.

 

[w0033944]

Two of the situations that the OP stated are at the NNR. If a loco is not suitable for a line then it is not suitable for a line, that's the end of it. If they allow special dispensation then fine but if they change their mind then it must be for a good reason. We've had a lot of rain this year, and at the end of last so if a loco that is heavier than the line allows then there could be issues with the integrity of the embankments. Just my personal opinion.

Interesting thought - it may well be due to that, actually. Yours is certainly a more considered comment than the one from the person who decided to swear at my impudence for daring to question NR; thanks for that. From what the railways General Manager said, and given that they had no backup loco planned, I doubt that their understanding was that A4s could not use the NR Bittern Line except for a one-off exemption. I'd argue that if you're given provisional permission to do something and, with less than a month to go have heard nothing to the contrary, it is reasonable to act as though that permission still applies.

I suppose what I'm wondering here is whether having a mainline connection is really worth the expense when NR has to be able to cancel stuff at the last minute (which I've been repeatedly told is necessary). When a heritage line an be repeatedly inconvenienced through no fault of their own due to being reliant on a large, top-heavy bureaucracy, surely the days of promising locos for Galas etc., are at an end? I say this as railways and tour operators must be aware of the need not to repeatedly disappoint customers, and, in a situation where a loco may be unable to attend due to national network difficulties, with notice given by NR late in the day, that is seemingly a likely scenario.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't think that's really applicable here: it's not the same thing happening three times. It's three different things - engineering work overrun, reassessment of structure rating, and potential for out-of-gauge problems.

I appreciate that the causes were different on each occasion. I should have made it clear that I meant that there have been three last-minute cancellations of steam movements on NR since September.

 

[EM2]

When a heritage line an be repeatedly inconvenienced through no fault of their own due to being reliant on a large, top-heavy bureaucracy, surely the days of promising locos for Galas etc., are at an end?

If their connection is RA6, and I would imagine that they know this, why would they book an RA9 loco?

 

[thegrimeater]

If their connection is RA6, and I would imagine that they know this, why would they book an RA9 loco?

I've been told so many different things to do with the number 7 and the NNR so not going to comment on that but I believe the Grosmont to Middlesborough line is RA6, a line number 7 traverses fairly regularly going too and from its home line the NYMR

 

[eastwestdivide]

...
I appreciate that the causes were different on each occasion. I should have made it clear that I meant that there have been three last-minute cancellations of steam movements on NR since September.

Yes, understood. I was trying to make it clear that describing it as "three times = enemy action" isn't appropriate, unless the overrunning engineering works were somehow orchestrated by NR's secret anti-steam police.

 

[w0033944]

Yes, understood. I was trying to make it clear that describing it as "three times = enemy action" isn't appropriate, unless the overrunning engineering works were somehow orchestrated by NR's secret anti-steam police.

OK, scrap the first one (I agree it was unavoidable, and I disagree with Johnny_w's suggestion as, if service trains were unable to run, it would have been unfair to expect a steam loco to run through). I just wonder whether the NNR should risk advertising a booked loco again?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If their connection is RA6, and I would imagine that they know this, why would they book an RA9 loco?

In 2010 there was a successful visit by Britannia Class 70013 Oliver Cromwell (RA8), and Tornado (RA9) made a visit in 2012, so I can't see why they ought to have assumed that RA6 is an absolute upper limit?

 

[Bevan Price]

No that was genuine! All its customers are being equally shafted by exactly the situation you describe. And that isn't going to change in the current climate of NR > must become efficient = cut everything.

Except for the millions they must be spending on new, expensive fences, even in areas where few people live.

 

[andypops]

Except for the millions they must be spending on new, expensive fences, even in areas where few people live.

I am genuinely in disbelief that you think that Network Rail don't need to spend any money protecting boundaries. Might I suggest you need to have a serious think about the implications of poor boundaries? After all, it is always important to consider the underlying reasons behind anything, and while this is a skill most people seldom use it really does lead to a more informed way of life.

In response to your comment, how about...as part of the drive to improve asset protection by preventing trespass incidents leading to accidents / fatalities, or ingress of 2-4 legged animals (these are commonly found in areas where few people live, and big fences are generally quite effective at keeping them off the line).

Just look at the number of RAIB reports from the last 2-3 years which highlight degraded boundaries as probable or causal factors and you might see that this is money which needs to be spent to meet NR's obligations, and ensures both the safety and efficiency of the line. A single incident of a train striking a cow shut down the south portion of the Welsh Marches line in Feb 2013 for about 4 hours during the morning peak, potentially affecting several thousand people and several freight paths. This is a monthly occurrence. Another cow strike derailed a class 150 on the Fishguard branch (in 2012), nearly sending the whole lot down an embankment (see here). And what about human fatalities caused by ingress facilitated by degraded fences?

So whether it is appreciated or not, repairing, replacing and improving boundary fences is very nearly as important for the safety of the line as the signalling. Please try to think about this next time you think NR are wasting money on seemingly pointless projects.


Regarding the OP's point about kettles, I genuinely empathise with the short notice of the cancellations but I think it is important to remember that resources are limited, and it's only right that NRs contractual obligations to TOCs and FOCs (including maintenance of the PW) are held above those of occasional railtours. After all, who pays more towards the upkeep of the infrastructure? And wouldn't the public prefer to use a railway which is as safe as possible, rather than one which has been poorly maintained due to rushed work? Again, check the RAIB reports which highlight overburdening & high workloads during maintenance leading to accidents.


As a halfway solution, why do the railtour operators not take a proactive approach and appoint a person to liaise with NR regarding these specific issues, and try to solve all the problems before they are noticed at the last minute? It's in their interest, after all...

...but then again, some people may be of the opinion that certain railtour operators are not proactive, and would rather blame the evil NR rather than accept they could have done more themselves.

 

[Johnny_w]

Seriously? No trains where running AT ALL. Passengers where getting on buses, trains where delayed and cancelled all over the place. And then, you want the workers to stop working, put everything back together so you can run a poxxy kettle through a T3 possession (which, I might add, is also completely against the rule book, there is no way you could 'legally' get that train into the possession). Why does it take precedent over any other train? What makes it so important?

And to the person bleating on that NR have an attitude saying "you can't have it", I'm sure that's exactly how it happened.. Jesus

Jesus - keep your knickers on.

It was only a suggestion and a light query. Thanks for the attitude though, it's appreciated.

maybe this forum should just be for people employed on the railway rather than public?

Personally I have to explain, at least daily, the finer complexities of the running of a High voltage electricty network. If I took that attidue every time someone asked me a question, or made a suggestion, I'd be sacked!

At least we know understand that T3 possesions have no rail movement period (What's a T3 by the way?)

JW

 

[Tomnick]

T3 refers to the section of the Rule Book that covers possessions - and train movements are actually permitted, albeit limited to engineering trains only. I'm sure that other (non-passenger) trains will have been passed through possessions in an emergency on occasions in the past - but that comes with the cost of further delay to the work, if indeed it's physically possible at all. Either way, this one certainly didn't constitute an emergency!

 

[Johnny_w]

T3 refers to the section of the Rule Book that covers possessions - and train movements are actually permitted, albeit limited to engineering trains only. I'm sure that other (non-passenger) trains will have been passed through possessions in an emergency on occasions in the past - but that comes with the cost of further delay to the work, if indeed it's physically possible at all. Either way, this one certainly didn't constitute an emergency!

Thanks - interesting stuff.

 

[carriageline]

Sorry, I presumed you had some sort of knowledge, it was an arsey reply and I didn't mean for it to be that much!! Long day and all that, and this place can grate on you at times!!

Anyway:

T3 is a possession of the running line for engineering work (T3 is the rule book module that contains all the rules and regs for "possessions of the running lines for engineering works", incase you want to read)The only trains allowed are engineering trains (ballast trains, rail grinders etc), or say a recovery train or breakdown crane.

For a passenger train to pass through , it would require the T3 to be given up, which would mean everyone signing out of the worksites and possession, the track/running lines being made safe and clear for the passage of trains. As it was for signalling equipment (from what I read!) then I would assume the equipment was not yet installed, which would mean temporary arrangements would have to be put into place (ie temporary block working), which can take hours to put in place when the panels light up at say, kings cross, nevermind to let one train through.

That on it's own, can take hours. And then that of course adds hours onto the already overrunning possession.

In short, you can't walk a train through a T3 possession. As simple as it seems, it just isn't allowed, for a whole myriad of reasons.

I hope that clears it up somewhat!

 

[andypops]

Jesus - keep your knickers on.

It was only a suggestion and a light query. Thanks for the attitude though, it's appreciated.

Personally I find it more offensive that the enthusiast lobby are throwing attitude about wanting things to be done to suit them, rather than considering or caring about the safety and normal running of the revenue-earning railway.

What if NR let the steam lobby run an A4 through Carlisle, leading to it striking the platform, damaging the engine irreperably and maybe even injuring a few people on the platform. I bet my left leg that the steam lobby would then be up in arms blaming NR.

As a national company they have a duty to take a proactive approach to safety and protecting their assets, and don't have any contractual obligations to allow steam to go everywhere for the benefit of enthusiasts. Personally, I'm incredibly happy about that, and I think people who disagree are fools.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy to see steam being used on the mainline. But enthusiasts must start to realise it is a privilege, and not a right.

 

[Johnny_w]

that's an interesting distinction and I wouldn't disagree Andy.

It's been lamented *many* times. It's NOT the fact that they can't run certain routes ect it's the 11th hour decision.

People make plans, spend monies on pre-arranged travel, accomodation to be let down
48hrs before something is due to happen.

I'm no foamer and I'm very reasonable and yes these things are often unavoidable - but there is an impression that network rail don't give a toss.

Maybe a little better PR would help to grease many people's opinions and attitudes toward them?

[Off Topic]

As an engineer in the Electricity supply industry we are often vilified when people have power cuts with ill informed opinions and sever levels of anger, so I try not to do this to others.

The 'select' commitee just after Christmas ploughed into the various DNO CEO's unjustly without any consideration of what we actually managed to achieve.

So I do understand some of the pain of constant critism and anything I've posted is not meant to critisise but to garnish better understanding.

JW

 

[andypops]

It's NOT the fact that they can't run certain routes ect it's the 11th hour decision.

People make plans, spend monies on per-arranged travel, accommodation to be let down 48hrs before something is due to happen.

I agree with you completely; it could be seen as tantamount to spoiling someone's holiday. It is easily seen as not being fair, and I certainly wouldn't like it to happen to me. But rules are rules, and it doesn't just affect railtours, it affects revenue earning service too.

Maybe a little better PR would help to grease many people's opinions and attitudes toward them?

I agree. But then again, as a very minority stakeholder, would it be right for NR to spend their limited resources on liaising with enthusiasts at all? Compared to managing difficult periods of planned maintenance which influences huge numbers of people - e.g. the WCML shutdowns? There is a finite pot of cash, and perhaps instead a proactive approach by people who organise tours would be better?

As I said in my first post in this thread, why do the railtour operators not take responsibility for liaising and "greasing the cogs" themselves, to adjust plans and try to foresee any 11th hour problems as needed. For example, if they could obtain and analyse the gauge assessments from NR themselves (or through a contractor), or factored in a lot more resilience in pathing, routing etc, it would be much harder for NR to "find" 11th hour issues which might've been foreseen. But then again, there are always going to be some problems which are truly unavoidable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

anything I've posted is not meant to critisise but to garnish better understanding.

Absolutely, that's why we have these discussion threads

 

[umontu]

Just wanting to throw another incident I remember out there.

Tornado was due to visit Ribble Steam in 2012 for Preston guild and everything was fine.

Then, almost six months after it had been announced and tickets put on sale iirc, NR suddenly said the radius of the curve connecting Ribble steam to the wcml was too tight.

Why did they only just figure that out that late? I almost couldn't believe it!