ROG: One Last Task cancelled

[BestWestern]

Who do I think I am? Another enthusiast, believe it or believe it not, but one with rather more realistic expectations of what I can expect from the national network by way of entertainment. Honestly, 442s to Norfolk? A clear case of playing trains. If you feel so upset about it please feel free to contact your MP or perhaps even the minister himself and see how concerned they are about Network Rail's failure to provide the entertainment you seem to want. But I rather think you'll find they have somewhat bigger fish to fry when it comes to oversight of the national network to be too concerned about the interests of such a tiny minority group as railway enthusiasts. And frankly I don't have a problem with that.

In fairness though, it's still crap, isn't it? And it's hardly the first time. It does seem inescapable, to the casual observer anyway, that NR appear to have a somewhat 'slapdash' approach to railtour paperwork. And if you're the people who've spent months, spent money, sold a trainload of tickets....and then the nice man from NR calls to say "Sorry, we cocked it up. Tough sh*t sod off". Well, it's not really very good, is it?

Perhaps a better approach would be to say 'sod off' in the first place....

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

In fairness though, it's still crap, isn't it? And it's hardly the first time. It does seem inescapable, to the casual observer anyway, that NR appear to have a somewhat 'slapdash' approach to railtour paperwork. And if you're the people who've spent months, spent money, sold a trainload of tickets....and then the nice man from NR calls to say "Sorry, we cocked it up. Tough sh*t sod off". Well, it's not really very good, is it?

Perhaps a better approach would be to say 'sod off' in the first place....

Is it really crap? Does the tour operator have no responsibility here to check that its proposed traction/rolling stock are actually cleared for the route of their tour? Why was such a tour advertised without the certainty of that clearance? Strikes me as too many people got carried away with the exotica of 442s well away from their lifelong home area to think too much about the realistic practicalities. If this was a case of the tour not being timed/pathed until too late to fit it in then I would agree that complaints are due. But one-off rolling stock moves will always need more detailed clearance work and there can be no certainty in advance that clearance can be granted. If only Vintage Trains had planned on something more practical like Mk1s. Simple lesson here: if you want to do something "non-standard" make sure it's cleared before you start the serious business of detailed planning.

 

[Bertie the bus]

If only Vintage Trains had planned on something more practical like Mk1s. Simple lesson here: if you want to do something "non-standard" make sure it's cleared before you start the serious business of detailed planning.

I don't know why you are trying to blame Vintage Trains. They had nothing to do with anything. It wasn't their tour. All they were was the ticketing agent for ROG.

 

[AJM580]

Its not the first time NR have done this though - 60007 was barred from travelling to the NNR at the last minute, as was Tornado. Back a few years and there was an occasion when an entire convoy of locos bound for the MNR was stopped by NR slapping an emergency block on the Heywood line. The issue of A4s being barred from Carlisle for some reason to do with guaging also has been discussed on this forum. It always seems that the same problems occur. Why would this happen?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I don't know why you are trying to blame Vintage Trains. They had nothing to do with anything. It wasn't their tour. All they were was the ticketing agent for ROG.

In which case my sincere apologies to Vintage Trains. And a big raspberry to ROG for not thinking things through properly.

Its not the first time NR have done this though - 60007 was barred from travelling to the NNR at the last minute, as was Tornado. Back a few years and there was an occasion when an entire convoy of locos bound for the MNR was stopped by NR slapping an emergency block on the Heywood line. The issue of A4s being barred from Carlisle for some reason to do with guaging also has been discussed on this forum. It always seems that the same problems occur. Why would this happen?

Too many people making assumptions about clearances. It's one area that grandfather rights very often won't apply thanks to re-alignments suited to current traction, not that of yesteryear.

 

[TBirdFrank]

NR is the publicly owned and legal responsible body - not a tour promoter so where Hunter is getting his mistaken ideas from completely eludes me. NR is responsible for maintaining grandfather rights right across the system under the RT1 contract unless agreed in memoranda for change. Laissez faire losses are contract mismanagement by NR and nothing else.

NR is responsible for its infrastructure and records and if it doesn't know its parameters should be condemned, penalised and made to pay up to TOC's and their clients making proper requests until it does!

That applies to all users - not just those wanting to run leisure activities on rail, though why their rights and money should be less important than others also seems to betray a corporate outlook that belongs in the days of spivs and Railtrack too.

 

[BestWestern]

Is it really crap? Does the tour operator have no responsibility here to check that its proposed traction/rolling stock are actually cleared for the route of their tour? Why was such a tour advertised without the certainty of that clearance?

So a tour operator should wait for NR to pull it's finger out and send the magic email at the eleventh hour, and then announce that there's a railtour next week?

You say they should check the stock is cleared; I wonder who they'd need to ask that?! Or perhaps they should just dig out the Sectional Appendix and see if they can work it out for themselves, no need to ask the infrastructure owner?

NR are either prepared to tolerate tours on their network, or they aren't. If they don't want to, they should make it clear and save everybody's time being wasted. If they are happy to oblige, the due process and its paperwork should be handled in a timely professional manner, not left to the last minute because nobody is bothered. Again, this has happened before. That says rather a lot.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It is not realistic for timetable path confirmation to wait for gauging issue resolution. The same STP process applies to charters as well as TOCs introducing new rolling stock. IIRC the final gauging paperwork for 387s on the GWML was signed 7 hours prior to the first advertised passenger service operating from Hayes-Paddington. So it's not just charter operations being left to the last minute. Of course the political ramifications of failing to clear 387s on a London commuter route are somewhat greater than for a one-off railtour in the provinces...

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

NR is the publicly owned and legal responsible body - not a tour promoter so where Hunter is getting his mistaken ideas from completely eludes me. NR is responsible for maintaining grandfather rights right across the system under the RT1 contract unless agreed in memoranda for change. Laissez faire losses are contract mismanagement by NR and nothing else.

Since when did 442s have grandfather rights for Norfolk?! And why, until now, would they have any reason to even consider the possibility?

NR is responsible for its infrastructure and records and if it doesn't know its parameters should be condemned, penalised and made to pay up to TOC's and their clients making proper requests until it does!

Sounds so simple doesn't it. But even now the infrastructure still has countless variations arising from different builders and subsequent amendments, re-alignments, etc. And when considering an application for a one-off movement of somewhat non-standard rolling stock it can hardly be surprising if the the outcome for one or two locations is uncertainty without detailed checking to confirm precise margins of safety. Network Rail has to operate safely just like everyone else.

That applies to all users - not just those wanting to run leisure activities on rail, though why their rights and money should be less important than others also seems to betray a corporate outlook that belongs in the days of spivs and Railtrack too.

Massive difference between a franchised TOC responsible for running hundreds of publicly advertised trains every day and a railtour operator wanting to run a one-off day trip. Under such circumstances much better to keep things simple which clearly wasn't the case here.

So a tour operator should wait for NR to pull it's finger out and send the magic email at the eleventh hour, and then announce that there's a railtour next week?

You say they should check the stock is cleared; I wonder who they'd need to ask that?! Or perhaps they should just dig out the Sectional Appendix and see if they can work it out for themselves, no need to ask the infrastructure owner?

NR are either prepared to tolerate tours on their network, or they aren't. If they don't want to, they should make it clear and save everybody's time being wasted. If they are happy to oblige, the due process and its paperwork should be handled in a timely professional manner, not left to the last minute because nobody is bothered. Again, this has happened before. That says rather a lot.

If Network Rail was allowed to operate on a more commercial basis I doubt there would be any railtours at all. Why would a business want to tie up staff to deal with business that represents such an incredibly tiny proportion of its overall business. But tradition dictates that occasional trips are fine provided they can be reasonably accommodated. Why do you think the regular railtour operators maintain decent sized fleets of go anywhere Mk1s and Mk2s? Apparently they weren't good enough for this tour though goodness only knows why.

It is not realistic for timetable path confirmation to wait for gauging issue resolution. The same STP process applies to charters as well as TOCs introducing new rolling stock. IIRC the final gauging paperwork for 387s on the GWML was signed 7 hours prior to the first advertised passenger service operating from Hayes-Paddington. So it's not just charter operations being left to the last minute. Of course the political ramifications of failing to clear 387s on a London commuter route are somewhat greater than for a one-off railtour in the provinces...

Again a big difference between a franchised TOC and a railtour operator, and also a good example of how the process can be less than plain sailing for everyone. If the 387s had not been cleared then the trains would have either been cancelled or run with alternative stock. That's the real world and railtour operators are just as susceptible to such foibles.

Many, many years ago I learned a valuable lesson when it came to being a rail enthusiast. "Just because you have an interest in railways does not magically bestow on you any additional rights compared with anyone else, and therefore you should keep your expectations within the same limits." Ordinary members of the travelling public have little interest in what is operating their service. However for some enthusiasts it seems to be the be all and end all. But that is not any reason for the existence of a publicly funded railway. Some here really do need to reflect on that.

 

[Temple Meads]

Simply: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

 

[BestWestern]

Why do you think the regular railtour operators maintain decent sized fleets of go anywhere Mk1s and Mk2s? Apparently they weren't good enough for this tour though goodness only knows why.

Ordinary members of the travelling public have little interest in what is operating their service. However for some enthusiasts it seems to be the be all and end all.

All I can say is that your particular brand of rail enthusiasm clearly differs somewhat from that of a good few others. Surely the whole point of using the 442s here was to make the event interesting? And as for the second comment, do you not appreciate that a great many train buffs like, umm, trains? You almost appear to have a chip on your shoulder about it. How odd.

Anyhow, Happy New Year to you

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

All I can say is that your particular brand of rail enthusiasm clearly differs somewhat from that of a good few others. Surely the whole point of using the 442s here was to make the event interesting? And as for the second comment, do you not appreciate that a great many train buffs like, umm, trains? You almost appear to have a chip on your shoulder about it. How odd.

Anyhow, Happy New Year to you

No chip. But I'd much rather appreciate the railway we have and be able to travel around it limited simply by the public timetable as opposed to attempting to recreate the past on relatively expensive one-offs which in the end all look and feel very similar. For me that is the job of the heritage lines and many are doing a fine job. The issue some enthusiasts have is that diesel and electric preservation doesn't sell well to the general public leading its adherents to try their re-enactments on the mainline (because the heritage lines mostly aren't interested) while being reluctant to accept that the mainline has moved on and what was once acceptable may no longer be so. Unless you are prepared to spend serious money like the DPS or A1SLT. Other top quality preservationists are available!

In short I can understand that some people have difficulty in letting go of the past but they should also understand that accommodating that position can sometimes be rather inconvenient to the everyday railway that so many people rely on. It's also why some members of railway staff have such disdain for enthusiasts though where I once worked that was not an issue. And by avoiding the manic approach taken by some enthusiasts I suspect I get more everyday pleasure from my travels.

 

[philthetube]

NR is the publicly owned and legal responsible body - not a tour promoter so where Hunter is getting his mistaken ideas from completely eludes me. NR is responsible for maintaining grandfather rights right across the system under the RT1 contract unless agreed in memoranda for change. Laissez faire losses are contract mismanagement by NR and nothing else.

NR is responsible for its infrastructure and records and if it doesn't know its parameters should be condemned, penalised and made to pay up to TOC's and their clients making proper requests until it does!

That applies to all users - not just those wanting to run leisure activities on rail, though why their rights and money should be less important than others also seems to betray a corporate outlook that belongs in the days of spivs and Railtrack too.

So you and I should pay through our taxes so you can ride on a 442 in Norfolk?

AS for grandfather rights concerning rolling stock are their any obligations? If so how have the railways got away with removing all the watering facilities for steam?

 

[NSEFAN]

No chip. But I'd much rather appreciate the railway we have and be able to travel around it limited simply by the public timetable as opposed to attempting to recreate the past on relatively expensive one-offs which in the end all look and feel very similar. For me that is the job of the heritage lines and many are doing a fine job. The issue some enthusiasts have is that diesel and electric preservation doesn't sell well to the general public leading its adherents to try their re-enactments on the mainline (because the heritage lines mostly aren't interested) while being reluctant to accept that the mainline has moved on and what was once acceptable may no longer be so. Unless you are prepared to spend serious money like the DPS or A1SLT. Other top quality preservationists are available!

In short I can understand that some people have difficulty in letting go of the past but they should also understand that accommodating that position can sometimes be rather inconvenient to the everyday railway that so many people rely on. It's also why some members of railway staff have such disdain for enthusiasts though where I once worked that was not an issue. And by avoiding the manic approach taken by some enthusiasts I suspect I get more everyday pleasure from my travels.

The discussion has gone off-topic somewhat. With regards to charters, there are difficulties in getting paths nowadays given how busy the mainlines are, and I think most people accept this as a reality of the modern railway. What is unacceptable here is how long it has taken for NR to realise that the booked stock is not actually cleared for the intended route. It is unacceptable, regardless of the operator (who has put time and money into planning a train), to say, "oh, sorry, turns out you can't do this" for a completely preventable reason a mere week before the train is due to run.

This isn't a case of holding onto the past, as some form of gauge clearance checking must happen for every train that runs. This should therefore be a fairly routine procedure. Given it's NR's infrastructure, they are in the best position to actually check the clearances and it's therefore up to them to investigate this. The charter has been known about since October, so why does it take NR so long to look up gauge clearances? (which as you've previously said, should be higher on the priority list in this particular case given the unusual rolling stock). Is it simply a case of not enough staff for the workload?

 

[Trog]

Too many people making assumptions about clearances. It's one area that grandfather rights very often won't apply thanks to re-alignments suited to current traction, not that of yesteryear.

I think you are one of them. If it says in the Sectional Appendix that a line is to be clear for a certain type of train, the line legally has to be kept clear for that type of train full stop. Unless a change is agreed between all the relevant TOC's and FOC's and Network Rail.

Any re-alignments should normally be designed to at least maintain existing clearances, and any low hanging improvements grabbed. As any extra clearance adds to the safety margin and allows the maintainers more to play with before they get told that they can not tamp that location again, as the clearances are at the limit. There should also be up to date site recorded data on the clearances at each structure as the track can creep sideways over time and maintenance activity tends to lift it. If you do not know what your clearances are you run a constant risk that one day a train loaded a bit more than normal, on a slightly softer suspension will take a puff of wind etc etc at just the wrong time and there will be a rather loud bang.

There is data for most train types that quantifies how big an area or kinematic envelope a train can fill for any given curve and speed. Basically the maximum height and width the train could reach if it bounced, canted and curved the maximum amount in every direction on the spot.

It should then be simply a matter of comparing the composite worst structure gauge with the maximum kinematic envelope. If the kinematic envelope fits through the composite worst structure great no problem.

If it does not you then have to do a more detailed analyses. To prove if the areas where the two lines overlap are co-incident on the ground, as the tighter structural clearances, may be at a places where the train will be at a slow speed and hence bouncing less giving a smaller kinematic envelope, and being on the straight not using that part of the kinematic envelope caused by end and side throw. There are computer programs that will run the kinematic envelope for a train along a line adjusting its size for the line speed, cant and curvature etc checking the relevant envelope against the structure gauge at the same point. This is a lot of computing and takes time, the result then needs to be sense checked by a gauging engineer of which there are not many. With any conflicts investigated to see if they are real, or if the laser on the structure gauging train just recorded an overhanging weed or some litter blown by the train.

The question is why did this problem only emerge so late, does Network Rail not have enough Gauging Engineers, or did one of them just forget to promptly action the checks or even a bit of both. As the need for a gauging check should have been flagged up the moment someone asked to run stock not listed in the Sectional Appendix.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I think people here are probably guilty of assuming that Class 442 units have the same gauge clearance as loco-hauled Mk3 coaches?