Edwin_m
-
Posts
6,449 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by Edwin_m
-
-
9 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:
By rights that should have been done by the Guard. It was never easy for the Guard to decide when a train was out of control, and they were perhaps unfairly criticised after some accidents. However it must have been fairly clear in this case if the Buffet Car staff noticed the speed was far too high and took emergency action.
Indeed, this is one of quite a few reports that say, with a slight air of disbelief, that the guard was just reaching for the brake valve when flung to the floor by the sudden movement of the train.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, rodent279 said:
Similar thing happened in the US back in the 50/60s. Brake pipes between a Pennsy GG1 and the train were connected, but one of the cocks got shut en route. Off went the train, the driver didn't notice much until he tried to brake from 80mph for the terminus (Baltimore Union), only had the loco brake to stop. He managed to get speed down to s about 35 mph before it went though the stops and onto the concourse, which then collapsed.
Amazingly, no one was killed.
Pretty much the same with a Deltic-hauled express at Darlington in the 70s. The train ran over an object on the track dislodging a traction motor casing, which then bounced back down the train closing the brake cock behind the locomotive. It ran right through the station and overturned a DMU before being stopped by the buffet steward pulling the communication cord.
-
3
-
1
-
-
I wonder if our preference for running brake tests relates to having had unfitted and part-fitted freight trains for longer than most other countries. Some historic accidents were due to confusion about how much of the train had a working brake. Obviously not an issue for the last 35+ years though, and I think the requirements were tightened up relatively recently.
-
2
-
-
January's Modern Railways has an article on Porterbrook re-configuring some of the 769s (319s fitted with diesel engines, still able to operate on either 25kV or 750V electrification, intended for GWR but never introduced) to carry parcels. It appears they are looking to do more than just leasing them to someone else, but want to find an operator and sell space to the logistics companies.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Grovenor said:
But see
and several other posts, the post from Limpley Stoker that you quoted is far from correct.
I agree it is a barriered crossing, as others have already pointed out. I was querying the part about train speed.
-
On 19/12/2023 at 17:48, Limpley Stoker said:
Bradford on Avon crossing is ungated but as it is close to the station the train movements are slow !
I think all scheduled passenger trains now stop (they didn't a few years back) but there are some freight and it is often used for diversions of GWR London-Bristol trains.
-
The official site doesn't quote the Oxford-Cambridge journey time (reflecting the expectation that few people will travel the whole route). It quotes 45min from Oxford to MK and 35min from Bedford to Cambridge, so the end to end time is likely to be somewhat under 2hr.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, doilum said:
Sadly not the breakthrough. I am on condensed view. I wonder if it is to do with the amount of photographic content? The prototype discussion page is slow to load but does eventually.
Has somebody's cat got their paws on the forum settings?
-
1
-
5
-
-
5 hours ago, kevinlms said:
Reminds me of a view expressed by a now late engineer of my club, who told us all that a steel bodied brake van (no bogies) had to be bolted to the ground, otherwise it would potentially be blown over.
When asked why these brake vans didn't blow over in regular railway service, he replied that the weight of the bogies helped to keep the brakes on the track! Needless to say, his advice was ignored. 30 years later, it's still upright!
Not quite as stupid as it first sounds. With no bogies the wind force acting sideways on the body is trying to pivot it about the bottom corner of the downwind side, and the weight acting downwards at the centre of gravity is opposing this. The effect of both of these depends on the distance from the pivot as well as the size of the force (the moment in engineering speak). With bogies fitted the weight is greater so it can oppose a greater wind force before the body starts to tip over.
However, this ignores two other things. Firstly, with the bogies fitted there is more area exposed to the wind, so the wind force is higher and it acts (on average) higher up, so increases the tendency to rotate about the pivot. Secondly, the potential pivot is now the wheels on the downwind side, which are closer to the centreline of the van, which reduces the effect of the weight.
The balance between these effects depends on the dimensions and weight distribution of the van, but as a guess I'd say there is little risk of it overturning. Dismounted van bodies in fields, which are wooden and therefore lighter than a metal brake van, don't tend to overturn either. But there have been occasions when containers have been blown off wagons on windy days due to defects in the fixings.
-
Are/were there any Bo-Bo-Bo diesels? If so, where do they put the fuel tank?
-
1 hour ago, JZ said:
Trying to do some research.
Got that mouse well under control.
-
3
-
1
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:
Or there's always "Oi - You!" 😆
Gerroffda-table.
-
1
-
1
-
-
It is arguable that one cause of the Dolphin Junction accident in 1941 was the use of a borrowed LMS engine with the driving position on the left and no ATC equipment. I don't know if there was a formal restriction on this sort of operation but it probably wouldn't have happened in peacetime.
-
Someone posted a photo from ground level on another forum, from which it was clear that the slip didn't coincide with an OLE structure.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Was it intended to be a conscious break from the Big Four companies, none of which used blue or grey except in a very limited way?
-
37 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:
Trains being assisted in rear were not necessarily coupled to the banking engine - some places banked "loose" which meant that there was no need to stop the train once the train engine was over the summit and coping by itself. Depended on local practice (local instructions). It was not completely unknown in this situation for the banker to fall away from the train before reaching the summit if the train engine was up to the job but the banker itself was having problems. It was then important that the banker did not try to catch up again cause a rear end collision, also that the signalbox should not give train out of section until the banker has also arrived.
An example of the hazards of this sort of operation: Report on the Collision that occurred on 18th May 1969 near Beattock in the Scottish Region British Railways
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, melmerby said:
These are on the Amtrak Harrisburg line at Leaman Place.
They appear to be reversed in that they mimic a LQ signal
I think they're actually replicating an UQ signal positioned to the right of the track and laterally inverted compared with the UK version, as mentioned in previous posts.
-
10 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:
Curious, since the current major developments around St Neots are quite near the existing station - Monksfield and Winteringham. Tempsford seems a long way from those.
Meanwhile, future planning for the Tempsford area seems up in the air, at least according to this article in a local paper:
...and uncertainty concerning EWR is put forward as one of the reasons for reconsidering the plans for Tempsford! Bit of chicken-and-egg going on there, I think.
I suppose that if EWR can get an agreement that a new Tempsford station would also include Thameslink trains, then that might make some sense, although Tempsford is a bit of a drag from the main housing areas of St Neots.
Yours, Mike.
Those developments are probably one reason EWR isn't serving the existing St Neots station. Another rail route there would need extensive demolition of residential areas. Tempsford is early enough in the planning process that the rail alignment can be protected for future built, even if it isn't built straight away. It certainly makes sense for it to be a stop on the ECML too, as this should open up a range of connections.
-
3
-
1
-
2
-
-
These featured in an article in Modern Railways magazine sometime in the 1980s, in connection with traffic to Aberdeen. I assume they had smaller wheels than other flats, enabling a lower deck but limiting the axle load.
-
1
-
-
Worth remembering that the former route from Bedford to Sandy was mostly on low-lying land close to major rivers, so not somewhere housing might be considered. I don't know the reasons behind development further east taking place around Cambourne instead of along the former route.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Something to do with the proposal to fit T4 bogies to the Mk4s, before SIG was chosen instead?
-
5 hours ago, VarsityJim said:
Ah, so that’s why taking a decision 60 odd years ago to ‘mothball’ the whole Bedford to Cambridge route would probably not have been such a good idea either! Three evils in play then, closure in the first place (which wasn’t part of Beeching’s report), mothballing, or do as has been done. Tricky without a crystal ball!There's a political problem here. Saying that we want to close this line but we'll keep it just in case it's needed in the future allows opponents to level a charge that the proposer doesn't really believe in what they are saying.
4 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:Many villages grew around their railways so, other than duplicate lines, they will not be in the wrong place.
Not much evidence of that happening between Bedford and Cambridge while the line was opening, although some has happened since closure, thereby blocking it. And more to the point, it has been decided that current and future housing development, where the residents will benefit from rail connections, is not going to be along the former alignment.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Markwj said:
My current view (if I look down).
-
9
-
-
30 minutes ago, Ray H said:
Another idea could be to re-model one of the intermediate stations between Bletchley and Bedford so that it has four platforms. All trains would call with the fast overtaking the slow. It is difficult to plot this out without knowing the run times of the fast trains but I think it would have the effect of increasing the TPH figure, probably enough to facilitate at least one freight path per cycle.
Skip stopping is another idea to effectively increase line capacity but it does mean that travel between some adjacent stations (if there is any) might not possible but that could possibly be overcome by having a different skip pattern in each direction such that people could get to the station they want by a change of direction at specific stations - skip stopping doesn't necessarily mean missing out alternate stations.
I wonder how long it will be before the single line sections between Bedford and Bletchley start to affect the maximum service level/punctuality?
According to November's Modern Railways, they are looking at adding a loop somewhere on the Marston Vale but haven't decided between keeping all the stops or closing some with better service at the others. They propose to double the single track at Fenny Stratford. There's no direct mention of the one at the Bedford end but discussion of St Johns having only one platform and being unsuitable suggests the section will be doubled, which is what I've understood from previous articles or documents.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
2
-
Impact of Running Brake Test on running times
in UK Prototype Questions
Posted
The brake continuity test is still required after coupling up hauled stock (coaches as well as wagons). I think it's not used with modern multiple units but others may know better. By confirming that air pressure exists at the furthest vehicle from the locomotive, it establishes that brake pipes have been connected correctly and are not blocked.