You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying that it isn't worthy of discussion, or that we're discussing the third-rail shorting.

What I'm saying is that this incident, unlike a bunch of other engine failures over there, is being discussed here because it was called to our attention; the reason it came to the attention of folks beyond the localised rail enthusiast community in the U.K. is because of its spectacular nature. The photograph/video still doesn't hurt, either.

I just spent a few minutes checking up on what the British rail forums and rail news sources are saying about this incident. For the most part, they're either not discussing it at all, or they ended up saying very little. The only thread I could find that went into any in-depth discussion of the situation that even gave ANY indication that this incident could have some serious ramification for mainline steam in the UK was this one:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index. ... ine-steam/

And even there the "doomsaying" is being countered with scepticism.

A similar incident with, say, 765, 4449, or 3751, even on a line like the Grand Canyon, would create overload on rail forums here, mostly because mainline steam is getting scarcer with every year, NS notwithstanding.

British mainline steam has survived more serious incidents yet, including 60532 "disassembling itself" in an uncontrolled slip, and a boiler tube failing under steam on another Bullied Pacific. American mainline steam is nowhere near as prevalent, but we're still seeing occasional steam on the mainline in spite of a catastrophic derailment (Dismal Swamp, NS 1987), a boiler failure (1278 at Gettysburg), and an occasional incident just like Tangmere's (4070 losing a right eccentric rod while doubleheaded with 2102 en route up to Horse Shoe Curve in May 1977--that incident killed any hope of seeing 1361 on the Curve in steam). The major difference is that in Britain litigation has yet to replace football, cricket, etc. as national pastimes as it has here.

The true major issue is that in both the USA and UK, the rail lines are seeing such increased usage on the same or reduced route capacity that any such incident creates increasingly bad delays to the ever-increasing number of higher-priority trains--commuter trains, intermodal freights, etc. You would be hard-pressed to find a major main line with the excess capacity to take a chance on "gumming up the works" with a potential steam train delay, either here or elsewhere. And the lines on which you could? "Middle of nowhere" lines like the Western NY and Pa., the Santa Fe "Peavine" to Phoenix, the Buckingham Branch section of the Amtrak Cardinal route, etc. Compared to this issue and others such as where to find suitable cars, a rod biting the ballast is almost trivial.

The comment seemed pretty clear to me, especially with the emphasis on "ONLY". Maybe you're having trouble conveying what you mean?



Well, one could certainly get the impression you were putting a damper on the discussion with some of your previous comments.



So, since you're not fond of jumping to conclusions, let me ask you this: What makes you think you can determine why the original poster chose to post the discussion? Who are you to judge his motives, how he heard about it and why it is or isn't worthy of discussion.

If you don't think it's worthy of discussion, fine, but stop second guessing why the rest of us are discussing it and whether or not we should be doing so.

I stumbled across this forum while looking for information about tangmeres woes, as yet there is very little available online about it here in the UK. indeed I was surprised that the subject is generating such a lively debate on what seems to be a primarily American forum, however as an unreconstructed pedant I am compelled to point out that tangmere is an unrebuilt battle of Britain class not a merchant navy as the unrebuilt version of that loco is currently extinct.

Mr Mitchell's point about increasing traffic on most UK main lines is well taken. Leaving aside any discussion of whether or not the crew should have taken any action prior to the failure - more important is the fact that it took place towards the back end of the evening rush hour on a very busy main line out of Waterloo station in London. Many commuter trains suffered delays/cancellations and the line was not cleared for some hours.

This year the rail regulator proposed removing the £5,000 cap on delay payments liability for charter operators. At the moment any delay claims above this are paid by Network Rail. After much lobbying - to the effect that this would kill all charter business - steam diesel or electric - this threat was recently removed and replaced some "proportional" liability.

So - in railway politics - the timing of the incident was...unfortunate.

It would not be an unreasonable reaction by NR to at least limit the times when steam charters can run on this particular line. Following a bad summer for steam bans/enforced diesel "assistance" partly caused by hot weather but made worse by Network Rail taking minimal action on lineside clearance of vegetation it is possible that some additional limits on steam operations could be enforced.

The need for steam trains to make their slot in the schedule is an issue here as well. A couple of weeks ago, TVRM's 630 made a run from Knoxville, Tenn. to Asheville, NC. At Asheville, the diesel helper suffered some sort of failure. By the time a replacement unit was procured, the train's slot for the return trip was missed, and as a result, the train was quite late returning to Knoxville. The delay could not be blamed on the steam locomotive, but a delay occurred nonetheless.

Why couldn't NS have just let 630 run the trip by itself. It has preformed well enough after the Roanoke bearing incident.

Maybe the train was too heavy for just #630, as the word "helper" implies, it is there to help, generally because it is needed. #630 was built when rolling stock was much lighter and shorter, it can't pull as much as engines like NKP 765, SOU 4501, or N&W 611.

Also, diesels, while I don't like them in a steam excursion consist, do have a very nice feature known as Dynamic brakes, which is convenient when going down a steep hill.

That is true, maybe when 4501 is back next year they run a double header without the diesels?

Maybe...depending on the particular line involved. Time is money...big money on heavily trafficked lines. Even with a second steam locomotive, failure of one locomotive is problematic under anything but ideal circumstances. As the locomotives will be MU capable, from an operating standpoint it makes no sense to not have the diesel backup already in the consist.

Looks good. They will identify the problem, correct it and carry on.

Going back to a previous post in this thread. The amount of noise to be observed in the videos is abnormal. There should be no appreciable rod noise after "a season of running", it is not normal unless something is drastically off in terms or tram, quarter, lubrication or some facet of maintenance. Regardless, if you can "hear it" it's being damaged and or wearing at an accelerated rate.
In terms of the problem....simple, the wrist pin came out. The problem was not detected via inspection nor by listening or "feeling" the loki while in operation. It's an experience issue......somewhere somehow that's what it comes down to. These things don't just come apart.

No doubt they will learn from it and hopefully it benefits them in the long run.

Cheers, Jason

Considering the 630 is in the shop for work on replacing staybolts and NOT pulling the North Pole Limited trains at TVRM, I'd say they were intentionally trying not to beat the old girl to death on those trips. Obviously, that didn't happen. The diesel set died during the eastbound run, and 630 did handle the entire train by herself for a portion of that run until the slug set was restarted. Judging by reports, the 630 and the replacement diesel helper were both worked pretty hard coming up the hill out of White Pine towards Morristown on the return---not much choice as you need a certain amount of power to drag that train over the hill. It's a safe bet to say that 630 would have been on her knees on that hill (if not stalling) if they went without a diesel coming back. A Southern Ks-1 has a lot more power than you would expect, but she was never designed for operating a 14 car passenger train at mainline speeds.

Not entirely sure of water consumption levels either, but expecting a 2-8-0 to maintain 35-40mph track speed with a 14 car passenger train for 130 miles is going to use up far more water than with a helper....and remember, she doesn't have a stoker either, so all that coal has to be hand-shoveled into the firebox. There are several reasons that you would want diesel assistance on that run.

630 has gotten out on the mainline some by herself, but the situation of the 1970s is repeating itself. Longer trains, and longer routes. That's why they went for bigger power then, and that's why it's happening again.
Kevin

People forget that shoveling all that coal is not something people are used to...anymore. Trying to do it at speed for mile after mile is literally, a Herculean task. I'd like to try my hand at it sometime, but I also know my limitations...

I met a guy several years ago who was an engineman on the Cumbres & Toltec. He likened firing a K-36 from Chama to Cumbres Pass (14 miles of 4% grade, I believe) to "90 minutes of intense aerobic exercise." And to think there were once many men who did that for 8, 10, 12 hours every day!

Or sixteen, like my great uncle..up Raton Pass!