5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
partaking).

I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
7.15)
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 17:33:30 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>partaking).
>
>I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>7.15)

The actual time is very likely to be slightly different. It'll probably come up in RTT one day before.

I'm assuming the timings will be unchanged from those planned nine days ago.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
> partaking).
>
> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
> 7.15)

It's now up on RTT.

I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
couldn't do the new date.

I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.

In message <svrji3$vck$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:43 on Thu, 3 Mar 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>> partaking).
>>
>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>> 7.15)
>
>It's now up on RTT.
>
>I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>couldn't do the new date.

There does seem to be some inertia in the bookings process, with tours
in the summer getting fully booked already, and yet empty seats on ones
re-arranged at short notice.

>I still plan to bale at West Drayton

Hey, isn't that bail?

>on the return, and get TfL Rail back.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <svrji3$vck$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:43 on Thu, 3 Mar 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>> partaking).
>>>
>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>> 7.15)
>>
>> It's now up on RTT.
>>
>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>> couldn't do the new date.
>
> There does seem to be some inertia in the bookings process, with tours
> in the summer getting fully booked already, and yet empty seats on ones
> re-arranged at short notice.
>
>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton
>
> Hey, isn't that bail?

I wasn't sure, but it looks like I was using the right word:
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bale%20out>

So it looks like 'bale out' is the normal UK spelling, and 'bail out' is
American.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <svrji3$vck$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:38:43 on Thu, 3 Mar 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>> partaking).
>>>
>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>> 7.15)
>>
>> It's now up on RTT.
>>
>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>> couldn't do the new date.
>
> There does seem to be some inertia in the bookings process, with tours
> in the summer getting fully booked already, and yet empty seats on ones
> re-arranged at short notice.
>

This tour runs quite often, and is cheaper when hauled by other locos. So
there's probably a limited market for the FS variant. Reorganising at very
short notice would almost inevitably cut the numbers further, with more
bookings lost than gained. And people living near the pick-up points for
that route get plenty of steam tours.

The ones that are booked up months ahead are probably tours that aren't
often available.

In message <svsnf3$e2h$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:51:31 on Fri, 4 Mar 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton
>>
>> Hey, isn't that bail?
>
>I wasn't sure, but it looks like I was using the right word:
><https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bale%20out>
>
>So it looks like 'bale out' is the normal UK spelling, and 'bail out' is
>American.

Even though that's an American dictionary?

Collins seems to think that only hay (etc) is baled. But boats full of
water, and crew from shot-down aeroplanes, are bailing.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 15:05:08 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <svsnf3$e2h$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:51:31 on Fri, 4 Mar 2022,
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton
>>>
>>> Hey, isn't that bail?
>>
>>I wasn't sure, but it looks like I was using the right word:
>><https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bale%20out>
>>
>>So it looks like 'bale out' is the normal UK spelling, and 'bail out' is
>>American.
>
>Even though that's an American dictionary?
>
>Collins seems to think that only hay (etc) is baled. But boats full of
>water, and crew from shot-down aeroplanes, are bailing.

'it is nonstandard in America to use “bale,” though that spelling is widely accepted in the UK'

https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/bail-bale/

In message <2db42ht1n1r2g586gaoscl0tnrkifk1gt3@4ax.com>, at 15:20:02 on
Fri, 4 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 15:05:08 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <svsnf3$e2h$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:51:31 on Fri, 4 Mar 2022,
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton
>>>>
>>>> Hey, isn't that bail?
>>>
>>>I wasn't sure, but it looks like I was using the right word:
>>><https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bale%20out>
>>>
>>>So it looks like 'bale out' is the normal UK spelling, and 'bail out' is
>>>American.
>>
>>Even though that's an American dictionary?
>>
>>Collins seems to think that only hay (etc) is baled. But boats full of
>>water, and crew from shot-down aeroplanes, are bailing.
>
>'it is nonstandard in America to use “bale,” though that spelling
>is widely accepted in the UK'
>
>https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/bail-bale/

There are numerous contradictory entries in various dictionaries and
grammar primers. I prefer the UK based ones.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <2db42ht1n1r2g586gaoscl0tnrkifk1gt3@4ax.com>, at 15:20:02 on
> Fri, 4 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 15:05:08 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <svsnf3$e2h$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:51:31 on Fri, 4 Mar 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, isn't that bail?
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't sure, but it looks like I was using the right word:
>>>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bale%20out>
>>>>
>>>> So it looks like 'bale out' is the normal UK spelling, and 'bail out' is
>>>> American.
>>>
>>> Even though that's an American dictionary?
>>>
>>> Collins seems to think that only hay (etc) is baled. But boats full of
>>> water, and crew from shot-down aeroplanes, are bailing.
>>
>> 'it is nonstandard in America to use “bale,” though that spelling
>> is widely accepted in the UK'
>>
>> https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/bail-bale/
>
> There are numerous contradictory entries in various dictionaries and
> grammar primers. I prefer the UK based ones.

Both spellings are accepted in the UK. So you can spell it whichever way
you like, I'm not fussy. You'll have to find something else to argue about.

In message <svtel3$4o2$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:27:15 on Fri, 4 Mar 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <2db42ht1n1r2g586gaoscl0tnrkifk1gt3@4ax.com>, at 15:20:02 on
>> Fri, 4 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 15:05:08 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <svsnf3$e2h$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:51:31 on Fri, 4 Mar 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, isn't that bail?
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't sure, but it looks like I was using the right word:
>>>>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bale%20out>
>>>>>
>>>>> So it looks like 'bale out' is the normal UK spelling, and 'bail out' is
>>>>> American.
>>>>
>>>> Even though that's an American dictionary?
>>>>
>>>> Collins seems to think that only hay (etc) is baled. But boats full of
>>>> water, and crew from shot-down aeroplanes, are bailing.
>>>
>>> 'it is nonstandard in America to use “bale,” though that spelling
>>> is widely accepted in the UK'
>>>
>>> https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/bail-bale/
>>
>> There are numerous contradictory entries in various dictionaries and
>> grammar primers. I prefer the UK based ones.
>
>Both spellings are accepted in the UK. So you can spell it whichever way
>you like, I'm not fussy. You'll have to find something else to argue about.

I think you mean "something else to joke about".
--
Roland Perry

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>> partaking).
>>
>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>> 7.15)
>
> It's now up on RTT.
>
> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
> couldn't do the new date.
>
> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>
>

The outward ran mostly on time
<https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
(5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
at Milton Junction (presumably here
<https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
Slough…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>> partaking).
>>>
>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>> 7.15)
>>
>> It's now up on RTT.
>>
>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>> couldn't do the new date.
>>
>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>>
>>
>
> The outward ran mostly on time
> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
> (5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
> over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
> at Milton Junction (presumably here
> <https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
> problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
> time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
> Slough…
>

It seems to have failed at Slough; 2P73 Didcot-Padd was stuck at the signs
outside Slough but has shunted back to use another platform; and 1Z99 (the
code for a train going to assist a failure) is on the Down Main at Langley…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 05/03/2022 21:31, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>>> partaking).
>>>>
>>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>>> 7.15)
>>>
>>> It's now up on RTT.
>>>
>>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>>> couldn't do the new date.
>>>
>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The outward ran mostly on time
>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
>> (5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
>> over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
>> at Milton Junction (presumably here
>> <https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
>> problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
>> time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
>> Slough…
>>
>
> It seems to have failed at Slough; 2P73 Didcot-Padd was stuck at the signs
> outside Slough but has shunted back to use another platform; and 1Z99 (the
> code for a train going to assist a failure) is on the Down Main at Langley…
>

OTT reports: This service was cancelled between Slough and London
Paddington due to a problem with a steam locomotive (ME).

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 05/03/2022 21:31, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>>>> partaking).
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>>>> 7.15)
>>>>
>>>> It's now up on RTT.
>>>>
>>>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>>>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>>>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>>>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>>>> couldn't do the new date.
>>>>
>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The outward ran mostly on time
>>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
>>> (5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
>>> over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
>>> at Milton Junction (presumably here
>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
>>> problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
>>> time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
>>> Slough…
>>>
>>
>> It seems to have failed at Slough; 2P73 Didcot-Padd was stuck at the signs
>> outside Slough but has shunted back to use another platform; and 1Z99 (the
>> code for a train going to assist a failure) is on the Down Main at Langley…
>>
>
> OTT reports: This service was cancelled between Slough and London
> Paddington due to a problem with a steam locomotive (ME).
>
>

Yup, it was cancelled at Slough. At Reading, there was an extended stop,
and they then announced that the loco was experiencing problems because of
dirty coal. It continued, but rather slowly.

It limped into Slough, where it sat in platform 5 for ages before they
announced that it would be terminated, as they didn't have confidence that
it could make it to PAD. By the time I caught a TfL Rail service from
platform 3, a WCR 47 had turned up and coupled to 60103. I assume it was
awaiting a path back to Southall.

To answer an earlier question from the previous thread, the service coach
remained coupled to the loco tender on the return from Worcester, so they'd
obviously waltzed round the triangle together.

In message <t00krd$l21$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:31:25 on Sat, 5 Mar 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>>> partaking).
>>>>
>>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>>> 7.15)
>>>
>>> It's now up on RTT.
>>>
>>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>>> couldn't do the new date.
>>>
>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>>
>> The outward ran mostly on time
>>
>><https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/
>>0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
>> (5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
>> over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
>> at Milton Junction (presumably here
>> <https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
>> problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
>> time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
>> Slough…
>
>It seems to have failed at Slough; 2P73 Didcot-Padd was stuck at the signs
>outside Slough but has shunted back to use another platform; and 1Z99 (the
>code for a train going to assist a failure) is on the Down Main at Langley…

Seems they didn't take 47804 with them. If they had, would it have been
allowed to propel the train to Paddington?

--
Roland Perry

In message <t00r6j$uoq$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:19:47 on Sat, 5 Mar 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>To answer an earlier question from the previous thread, the service coach
>remained coupled to the loco tender on the return from Worcester, so they'd
>obviously waltzed round the triangle together.

Worcester L.M.D. [XWR] no report
Tunnel Jn Service reverses here 1247 1249
Worcester Shrub Hill [WOS] Service reverses here 1300 1317
Worcester Foregate Street [WOF] pass 1323
Henwick [XHK] Reverses here no report
Worcester Foregate Street [WOF] pass 1347
Tunnel Jn Service reverses here 1354 1356
Worcester Shrub Hill [WOS] pass 1354
Worcester Signal 54 Service reverses here 1356 1402
Worcester Shrub Hill [WOS] pass 1405
Worcester L.M.D. [XWR] 1406
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t00krd$l21$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:31:25 on Sat, 5 Mar 2022,
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>>>> partaking).
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>>>> 7.15)
>>>>
>>>> It's now up on RTT.
>>>>
>>>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>>>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>>>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>>>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>>>> couldn't do the new date.
>>>>
>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>>>
>>> The outward ran mostly on time
>>>
>>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/
>>> 0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
>>> (5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
>>> over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
>>> at Milton Junction (presumably here
>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
>>> problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
>>> time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
>>> Slough…
>>
>> It seems to have failed at Slough; 2P73 Didcot-Padd was stuck at the signs
>> outside Slough but has shunted back to use another platform; and 1Z99 (the
>> code for a train going to assist a failure) is on the Down Main at Langley…
>
> Seems they didn't take 47804 with them. If they had, would it have been
> allowed to propel the train to Paddington?
>

No, only to the first suitable location to clear the running line. And it
was already at such a location when it was declared failed. Plus it would
be restricted to a maximum of 20mph…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t00krd$l21$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:31:25 on Sat, 5 Mar 2022,
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>>>>> partaking).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>>>>> 7.15)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's now up on RTT.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>>>>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>>>>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>>>>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>>>>> couldn't do the new date.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>>>>
>>>> The outward ran mostly on time
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/
>>>> 0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
>>>> (5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
>>>> over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
>>>> at Milton Junction (presumably here
>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
>>>> problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
>>>> time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
>>>> Slough…
>>>
>>> It seems to have failed at Slough; 2P73 Didcot-Padd was stuck at the signs
>>> outside Slough but has shunted back to use another platform; and 1Z99 (the
>>> code for a train going to assist a failure) is on the Down Main at Langley…
>>
>> Seems they didn't take 47804 with them. If they had, would it have been
>> allowed to propel the train to Paddington?
>>
>
> No, only to the first suitable location to clear the running line. And it
> was already at such a location when it was declared failed. Plus it would
> be restricted to a maximum of 20mph…
>

But wouldn't it have been able to run round the train, and then haul it on
to Paddington?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t00krd$l21$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:31:25 on Sat, 5 Mar 2022,
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>>>> partaking).
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>>>> 7.15)
>>>>
>>>> It's now up on RTT.
>>>>
>>>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>>>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>>>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>>>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>>>> couldn't do the new date.
>>>>
>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>>>
>>> The outward ran mostly on time
>>>
>>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/
>>> 0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
>>> (5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
>>> over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
>>> at Milton Junction (presumably here
>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
>>> problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
>>> time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
>>> Slough…
>>
>> It seems to have failed at Slough; 2P73 Didcot-Padd was stuck at the signs
>> outside Slough but has shunted back to use another platform; and 1Z99 (the
>> code for a train going to assist a failure) is on the Down Main at Langley…
>
> Seems they didn't take 47804 with them. If they had, would it have been
> allowed to propel the train to Paddington?

As was clear from the planned movements, the diesel was always going to
stay in London.

The train didn't have a gennie car, and so was steam heated. Or, rather,
only the front half was, with the steam not making it all the way to the
back of the train. So, on the outward journey, the Premier Dining coaches
were completely unheated, and I assume that it was the same in Standard
class on the return.

In message <t020po$il9$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:01:28 on Sun, 6 Mar 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t00krd$l21$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:31:25 on Sat, 5 Mar 2022,
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>>>>> partaking).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>>>>> 7.15)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's now up on RTT.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>>>>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>>>>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>>>>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>>>>> couldn't do the new date.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>>>>
>>>> The outward ran mostly on time
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/
>>>> 0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
>>>> (5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
>>>> over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
>>>> at Milton Junction (presumably here
>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
>>>> problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
>>>> time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
>>>> Slough…
>>>
>>> It seems to have failed at Slough; 2P73 Didcot-Padd was stuck at the signs
>>> outside Slough but has shunted back to use another platform; and 1Z99 (the
>>> code for a train going to assist a failure) is on the Down Main at
>>>Langley…
>>
>> Seems they didn't take 47804 with them. If they had, would it have been
>> allowed to propel the train to Paddington?
>>
>No, only to the first suitable location to clear the running line. And it
>was already at such a location when it was declared failed. Plus it would
>be restricted to a maximum of 20mph…

Interesting. Does that 20mph limit also apply when the engine at the
back is acting as a banker? Something I didn't think happened at all,
until various people insisted that it did, in a discussion somewhere
at the end of last year. (The crew in the diesel allegedly being told by
walkie-talkie from the kettle, when to put their foot down).
--
Roland Perry

In message <t023p5$8vs$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:52:21 on Sun, 6 Mar 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t00krd$l21$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:31:25 on Sat, 5 Mar 2022,
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>>>>> partaking).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>>>>> 7.15)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's now up on RTT.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>>>>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>>>>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>>>>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>>>>> couldn't do the new date.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>>>>
>>>> The outward ran mostly on time
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/
>>>> 0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
>>>> (5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
>>>> over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
>>>> at Milton Junction (presumably here
>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
>>>> problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
>>>> time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
>>>> Slough…
>>>
>>> It seems to have failed at Slough; 2P73 Didcot-Padd was stuck at the signs
>>> outside Slough but has shunted back to use another platform; and 1Z99 (the
>>> code for a train going to assist a failure) is on the Down Main at
>>>Langley…
>>
>> Seems they didn't take 47804 with them. If they had, would it have been
>> allowed to propel the train to Paddington?
>
>As was clear from the planned movements, the diesel was always going to
>stay in London.

Yes. I wonder why though.

>The train didn't have a gennie car, and so was steam heated. Or, rather,
>only the front half was, with the steam not making it all the way to the
>back of the train. So, on the outward journey, the Premier Dining coaches
>were completely unheated, and I assume that it was the same in Standard
>class on the return.

Is that because the steam simply wasn't sufficient, or was there a break
in the pipe halfway.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t023p5$8vs$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:52:21 on Sun, 6 Mar 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t00krd$l21$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:31:25 on Sat, 5 Mar 2022,
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>>>>>> partaking).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>>>>>> 7.15)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's now up on RTT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>>>>>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>>>>>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>>>>>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>>>>>> couldn't do the new date.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>>>>>
>>>>> The outward ran mostly on time
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/
>>>>> 0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
>>>>> (5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
>>>>> over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
>>>>> at Milton Junction (presumably here
>>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
>>>>> problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
>>>>> time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
>>>>> Slough…
>>>>
>>>> It seems to have failed at Slough; 2P73 Didcot-Padd was stuck at the signs
>>>> outside Slough but has shunted back to use another platform; and 1Z99 (the
>>>> code for a train going to assist a failure) is on the Down Main at
>>>> Langley…
>>>
>>> Seems they didn't take 47804 with them. If they had, would it have been
>>> allowed to propel the train to Paddington?
>>
>> As was clear from the planned movements, the diesel was always going to
>> stay in London.
>
> Yes. I wonder why though.

Enthusiasts really don't like a diesel on the back, whether it's 'helping'
the kettle, or just dead weight. The train had an undemanding schedule, so
the extra assistance wasn't needed, and it would have complicated the
shunting at Worcester. The already high costs would obviously also rise.

>
>> The train didn't have a gennie car, and so was steam heated. Or, rather,
>> only the front half was, with the steam not making it all the way to the
>> back of the train. So, on the outward journey, the Premier Dining coaches
>> were completely unheated, and I assume that it was the same in Standard
>> class on the return.
>
> Is that because the steam simply wasn't sufficient, or was there a break
> in the pipe halfway.

I think there were a number of leaks along the train. As the train pulled
into PAD in the morning, the carriages at the rear were enveloped in great
clouds of steam. I'll upload some later.

I obviously knew that the train would be using platform 10, so arranged to
arrive on the train ahead of it, which used platform 11. I stayed at the
rear of the 345, so was well placed to capture the arriving 47 and steamy
carriages. Somewhat surprisingly, I was almost the only photographer in
that part of the platform. The was a BTP PC stationed to stop anyone
proceeding beyond the yellow line at the platform end (the loco was off the
platform).

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t00krd$l21$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:31:25 on Sat, 5 Mar 2022,
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>>>>>> partaking).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>>>>>> 7.15)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's now up on RTT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>>>>>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>>>>>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>>>>>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>>>>>> couldn't do the new date.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>>>>>
>>>>> The outward ran mostly on time
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/
>>>>> 0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
>>>>> (5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
>>>>> over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
>>>>> at Milton Junction (presumably here
>>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
>>>>> problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
>>>>> time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
>>>>> Slough…
>>>>
>>>> It seems to have failed at Slough; 2P73 Didcot-Padd was stuck at the signs
>>>> outside Slough but has shunted back to use another platform; and 1Z99 (the
>>>> code for a train going to assist a failure) is on the Down Main at Langley…
>>>
>>> Seems they didn't take 47804 with them. If they had, would it have been
>>> allowed to propel the train to Paddington?
>>>
>>
>> No, only to the first suitable location to clear the running line. And it
>> was already at such a location when it was declared failed. Plus it would
>> be restricted to a maximum of 20mph…
>>
>
> But wouldn't it have been able to run round the train, and then haul it on
> to Paddington?
>

Yes it would, but that's not what Roland asked ;)

In that situation it would still likely have been cancelled and hauled
straight to Southall; firstly you're at a location with plentiful onward
transport to the last two set-down locations, and secondly you then
wouldn't have your tail-end loco available for the ECS from the terminus.

And you'd still have had to wait for the 387 stranded behind to change ends
and shunt clear once you'd declared a failure and decided what to to.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t023p5$8vs$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:52:21 on Sun, 6 Mar 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t00krd$l21$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:31:25 on Sat, 5 Mar 2022,
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> 5th March, seats available in all classes apparently. (I'm not
>>>>>>> partaking).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose we just need the timings (they admit to leaving Paddington at
>>>>>>> 7.15)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's now up on RTT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the timings are unchanged from the original plan, a fortnight
>>>>>> earlier (and different to the website, which no longer shows times). My
>>>>>> seat is also unchanged, but I expect to see more empty seats where
>>>>>> replacement passengers couldn't be found for the original booked pax who
>>>>>> couldn't do the new date.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still plan to bale at West Drayton on the return, and get TfL Rail back.
>>>>>
>>>>> The outward ran mostly on time
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WOS/2022-03-05/
>>>>> 0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=WR>
>>>>> (5 late Maidenhead, 2 early Worcester), but the return (a few minutes late
>>>>> over the Golden Valley line) delayed for 30 minutes during the water stop
>>>>> at Milton Junction (presumably here
>>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/5DTNBZh3hcaiZUGK7>). It appears that there was a
>>>>> problem with the water tanker and a different one had to be used. Further
>>>>> time lost at Reading due to "coal dust". Currently 42 minutes late at
>>>>> Slough…
>>>>
>>>> It seems to have failed at Slough; 2P73 Didcot-Padd was stuck at the signs
>>>> outside Slough but has shunted back to use another platform; and 1Z99 (the
>>>> code for a train going to assist a failure) is on the Down Main at
>>>> Langley…
>>>
>>> Seems they didn't take 47804 with them. If they had, would it have been
>>> allowed to propel the train to Paddington?
>>
>> As was clear from the planned movements, the diesel was always going to
>> stay in London.
>
> Yes. I wonder why though.
>

Because it wasn't required for shunting movements at the far terminus,
wasn't required for banking duties at any point of the journey, and wasn't
required for ETS purposes.

Why tow 110 tonnes of dead steel around the countryside for no reason?
You'd probably have to make the train at least one coach shorter (if
platform lengths define the maximum train length) or maybe four coaches
shorter (if train weight defines the maximum length).

And you'd have *two* locos to run round the train at Worcester! Unless you
turned the entire set, in which case the train might have to be even
shorter due to the length of the turnback siding at Henwick (and I know
IETs can only go in one direction around the triangle at Worcester because
of the lengths of the two different change ends locations at Tunnel
Junction).

Anna Noyd-Dryver