The complete steam news magazine

Heritage Railway Opinion - 29 September 2011

It began with Sir Lamiel setting fire to the East Coast Main Line south of Doncaster, and ended with Network Rail understandably slapping a midweek ban on steam using the route until further notice.

Newspapers have run headlines talking about the £1 million cost of the disruption in the wake of the incident on September 2, and those commuters who have no interest whatsoever in railway heritage will certainly not have been sympathetic to hear that they were held up because of the failure of a veteran locomotive 43 years after British Rail banned all steam from the national network.

There is no point in pretending that this is anything other than a major incident which caused extensive delays, and that Network Rail felt duty bound to act.

However, what was contained in the extremely small print of those reports – or in most cases no print at all – was the fact that the chaos on the ECML on that day was further compounded by the later failure of not one but two regular East Coast services north of Peterborough.

These, as much as anything, would have disrupted the early evening services from the capital. They do not in any way excuse the steam failing, but they do provide balance and a degree of context.

Before we begin throwing stones at glasshouses, it has to be accepted that any train, no matter how new or old, is capable of failure and breaking down.

The previous week, a Network Rail ballast train was derailed at Bordesley, again causing widespread disruption to public services, including the light engine movement of Kinlet Hall to the Nene Valley Railway gala.

Of course those responsible for the Sir Lamiel debacle must take the criticism on the chin, fully face up to their responsibilities and respond accordingly, and we must not try to play down the massive impact that this failure alone had on the route on the day.

Yet it is far too easy, at least as far as general public opinion goes, to load the entire blame for the whole day’s mishaps on heritage steam, which up to now has enjoyed a splendid and almost blemish-free track record on the ECML, the route of the ‘Flying Scotsman’.

Yes, it went wrong on this particular day.

However, while Britain still has a superb railway network, it is one that is in places bursting at the seams, and not coping as well as it might with unforeseen difficulties. The reduction of capacity following the Beeching report is nowadays felt at so many pinch points as train travel has reached its highest level for decades.

Apportioning blame does not necessarily equate with acting on problems: more often than not it is no solution at all.

Steam is still a massive ambassador for our railways: you only have to look at the reception meted out to Tornado at every station on its main line runs, nearly three years after it was launched on the main line.

As it is, this appears to be the first major retreat, albeit hopefully only a temporary one, on Open Access, the policy that gave steam operators the right to run on the network wherever feasible.

Obviously fears are sounding that this could be the thin end of the wedge, and restrictions on other routes could follow in the future if there are deemed sufficient valid reasons.

Steam will now have to work hard to regain the total confidence of the ‘powers that be’ regarding its operation on this route. The expertise is there: it can be done.

Let us all hope that sufficient sensible progress is made to see this ‘ban’ is relaxed as soon as agreeable to all parties.

In October, a Help for Heroes special is marking 40 years since the groundbreaking relaxation of the British Rail steam ban in 1971.

All the magnificent  work that has been carried out over those decades, by steam operators, locomotive owners, train operating companies and the track authorities, including BR and Network Rail, should not be swept aside because of one incident.

Robin Jones
Editor