rodent279

A frightening 38 years ago to the day I took this photo of thumper 60018 at Hastings, 12/04/1986! The occasion was my one & only trip to Hastings on a Thumper. When I took these photos, the catastrophic meltdown at Chernobyl was 4 days in the future, Buzby was still telling us it was good to talk, if you saw Sid, you had to tell him, and almost no one had a mobile phone! Last Saturday (6th April), I was reunited with 1013, for an excellent day out courtesy of Hastings Diesels Ltd. I'd really recommend a trip with HDL, the ambience on board is very relaxed, no premium dining but there is good food & beer in the ex-class 411 buffet car.

And doors were not unknown to fail when leaned on, causing death or serious injury to the unwary, and of course an open door can kill or seriously injury an innocent platform bystander, so it's not quite as simple as people being "sheltered and becoming useless", or "nanny state", whatever that is. Because back in the day of course, people were all big and tough and hard, not like us namby-pamby woftee-softee modern types, and didn't mind a few serious injuries or deaths. Hey ho, you know that's life isn't it?

Does that mean they mainly use 0 hours contract staff?

Would an interesting legal situation if seatbelts were fitted, but not compulsory, and a passenger who chose not to use one got thrown into/against a belted passenger, causing serious injury. How would that work out? Who is responsible? Passenger-but seatbelt not compulsory? TOC- but passenger had belt and could have worn it? Legal minefield which I think TOCs would want to avoid like the plague, unless forced to by government.

I stand corrected then. I was under the impression that the dispute between WCRC & ORR was purely about CDL. Does this mean that:- 1-even if a fully compliant CDL system is fitted, there is no guarantee that WCRC can continue to use Mk1's? 2-Are ORR placing other requirements on WCRC in respect of crash worthiness improvements before granting continued exemption to run Mk1's?

Seatbelts on trains would completely change the economics of (passenger) railway operation. We perhaps ought to be careful what we wish for.

Hmmm.......a train full of MPs.....faulty doors........photo opportunities......I sincerely hope nothing goes wrong there.......

This is true, and the mk1 is in my view one of the unsung heros of the BR era, possibly BR's best legacy. Replacing thousands of wooden framed coaches on steel underframe with all steel, welded coaches was an early decision on BR's part. Mk1 stock was much more crashworthy than the stock it replaced, and is probably responsible for saving hundreds of lives and thousands of injuries overall. The safety concerns about mk1 stock do not really lie in their inherent crashworthiness, rather they lie in the risks associated from misuse and/or failure of slam doors. As long as they are maintained well and are structurally sound, I don't think they are about to be banned on crashworthiness grounds alone. Currently the safety regime focuses on preventing accidents happening in the first place, rightly, through TPWS/ATC etc.

I think that if you did survive, you'd be lucky to get away without life changing injuries. A mk2 or 3 would have fared better.

Could the standard MK1 dynamo be replaced by a 24v alternator & rectifier, used to feed a battery, with enough charge to keep doors locked for say 3-4 hours?

This ^^^^^ 👏👏👏

I worded my post badly- I meant to say that possibly the majority of victims were not drunk, and didn't necessarily do something stupid.

I think it's worth noting that not all (maybe the majority?) of those killed had opened a door whilst the train was moving, because they were either drunk, or just DAA* types. In some cases, deaths occurred because an open door struck a passenger on a platform, in some, a door lock was not working properly, and a door gave way when a passenger either leant on it, or was thrown against it when the train went over s&c work, and some just made a genuine mistake and got out on the wrong side. So they weren't all idiots who deserved to be removed from the gene pool. As an aside, whilst I'll admit in the past to doing my fair share of window leaning and opening doors whilst the train was arriving at a station, I can't say that not being able to do so spoiled my enjoyment of my day out on the Thumper. *Daft As ***holes

If integration and interlocking with braking systems is required, I'd imagine that would push costs northwards. Plus of course the hardware is often the cheap part, the labour costs for installation and testing will be the bulk of the cost. If you are WCRC, you might want to add in any potential revenue loss whilst all that is being done.

https://1991-new-world-order.fandom.com/wiki/The_'Tamworth_Triangle'#:~:text=May 11 %2F August 7%2C 1991,Warwickshire a few days later.

Here is the inside of the same door:

And an excellent day out it was too, I got on at Reading (having had to get a FlixBus from Bristol due to strike action!) and off at Basingstoke. One bonus of the strike action was that we had a superb run along the B&H, maintaining a steady 70-75 most of the way without being looped. The ambience on board was good, the set has been beautifully restored, and the CET toilets have been done very well. Being CET, they could be used when looped for passing trains on the single line sections between Exeter & Salisbury. Overall I was really impressed. Being air braked, they would need an air braked steam loco, but given a suitable adapter vehicle, I'm sure they could be used as loco hauled stock on the Extension. With one engine running to provide heat, they could be a solution.

If Hastings Diesels can do it I don't see why WCRC should be exempt. Seems like they (WCRC) are saying "we're big, please don't hit us".

Do we know whether the shelters were painted, and if so, what colour? Would they match the loco colour, or would they just be a nondescript brown, grey or black? And have any survived?

Like this?

It's worth bearing in mind that (if I recall correctly) the main justification for the original SNCF LGV between Paris & Lyons was capacity on the classic PLM route, not a burning desire to do that journey in half the time.

Are we, as voters, mature enough to allow politicians to tell us what we need to hear (not want to hear), without ending their careers instantly? Until we are, there will be no significant change.

Brewham?

So to sum up, GWR is in this sticky situation because Hitachi had cleverer lawyers then the DfT, and they were able to run rings around them, not solely because Hitachi's product is no good, or GWR are inept.

And we still are. We think small, we think everything should be on the smallest scale possible, we have this bizarre idea that doing it as cheaply as possible up front means getting the best value for money. We haven't learnt any lessons, and I don't hold out much hope for ever learning them. We are condemned to a show spiral of decline into a basket case, and I don't see that changing.