Bridge bashing

[PhilJ W]

20 hours ago, peanuts said:

one wonders was that one subsequently turned into a class13 slave unit ?

 

4 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Nah - the 13s were converted, used & scrapped long before that !

A few mechanical items might have lived on in other locomotives but most would have been scrapped.

[melmerby]

Here is a picture of normal and cutdown types together

K&WV railway 2017

 

[PhilJ W]

28 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Here is a picture of normal and cutdown types together

K&WV railway 2017

 

Interesting that the top of the hood is untouched and the side panels have been lowered. A similar pic from the front would show the radiator modifications.

[melmerby]

Somehow 11" was lopped of the height.

[PhilJ W]

21 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

As it has been mentioned, does anyone know of a drawing of the 08s which were cut down? There is one of the 03s (eg on the Barowmore site) but I have never found one of the 08s. Rumour has it that they were done without any drawings at Canton.

Jonathan

Theres a lot of differences as can be seen from the photographs. 

 

47 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Here is a picture of normal and cutdown types together

K&WV railway 2017

 

 

[corneliuslundie]

That is brilliant. The query about the drawing was in connection with a possible future WRRC book on the subject, but don't hold your breath. At our normal rate of progress it will be your grandchildren who see it published.

Jonathan

[Wickham Green too]

At MY normal rate of progress I haven't got any grandchildren ............... nor children, for that matter.

 

( My nephew's expecting a sprog next month* - does that count ? )

* well, it's his wife that's expecting, of course !

[kevinlms]

On 05/04/2020 at 04:59, Rugd1022 said:

Ahem, cough.....!

 

 

 

 

So that was a write off then?

[EddieB]

Er, yes. 08898 was withdrawn in late 1988 (sources give either November or December), but lingered for another ten years before being cut up.

[rab]

9 hours ago, melmerby said:

Here is a picture of normal and cutdown types together

K&WV railway 2017

 

Smaller loco, larger buffers, or is it an optical illusion

[PhilJ W]

1 minute ago, rab said:

Smaller loco, larger buffers, or is it an optical illusion

Not at all. The more you look the more differences become apparent. The slightly smaller windscreens, the high intensity headlight and even the handles on the hood access panels.

[laurenceb]

There is one of he cut-down locos in the siding outside Nemisis Rail at Burton

[brianthesnail96]

All 3 dual braked ones are still around somewhere I believe but I'm not sure where (other than 08 993 at the K&W). Suspect the Wikipedia list is a little out of date.

[F-UnitMad]

Interesting that in this thread drift to the cut-down 08s etc, no one at all has mentioned anything about the driver of the 'full size' one that rammed that bridge. If it had been an HGV incident I'm sure there would've been a lot said about the driver then, 100% of it derogatory.

 

Just saying....

[corneliuslundie]

He certainly couldn't blame his satnav.

Seriously, he might well have been told by a superior to take the loco for the rescue and just not thought about the bridge, because he passed under it every day. But someone was certainly not on the ball.

Too much Felin Fach ale perhaps.

Jonathan

[F-UnitMad]

28 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

just not thought about the bridge, because he passed under it every day.

Yes, "auto pilot mode". I can relate to that as it's what happened to me, in a road context.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

Interesting that in this thread drift to the cut-down 08s etc, no one at all has mentioned anything about the driver of the 'full size' one that rammed that bridge. If it had been an HGV incident I'm sure there would've been a lot said about the driver then, 100% of it derogatory.

 

Just saying....

 

Flawed logic there, which fails to take into account the fundamental difference between a closed / controlled network and an open / uncontrolled one.

 

The road network is an 'open / uncontrolled' network so road vehicles are driven on a 'line of sight principle' - in other words the driver is expected to drive based on what they can see in front of them, plus unless the road has a signed restriction, then an HGV can go anywhere on the road network without prior checks it will fit.

 

Rail vehicles by contrast operate on a 'closed / controlled' network - locos must be specifically authorised to operate over any given section of track while movements are made in accordance with fixed signals and as such there is usually no need for drivers to be observing the line ahead in the same way as road vehicle drivers once they have been given permission to move off.

 

Consequently there was no reason for the loco driver in this instance to be looking at bridges to see if the loco fitted - the onus is on the drivers manager to ensure that the loco chosen is allowed on that particular line.

 

On the other hand with a road vehicle, then the onus is NOT on the drivers boss to ensure a lorry fits under all bridges it may encounter - that obligation rests with the driver. Thus if the lorry hits a bridge* its ALWAYS the drivers fault - where as in the case with the 08, the responsibility would ALWAYS rest with the depot manager for allocating a loco to the duty which wouldn't fit.

 

* Assuming the road signage is correct of course.

[Talltim]

Wouldn’t it have been cheaper to raise the bridge than to make major modifications to a number of locos and completely write one off?

Edited April 7, 2020 by Talltim

[Fat Controller]

36 minutes ago, Talltim said:

Wouldn’t it have been cheaper to raise the bridge than to make major modifications to a number of locos and completely write one off?

Replacing the bridge would have cost several million pounds; I doubt they'd have got the funding. The first-generation locos (the 03s) were fairly simple to modify, the 08s were more involved, but still only a fraction of the cost of rebuilding the bridge.

[JDW]

I did wonder myself how the loco came to get that far - it must have had at least two people not realise, the controller who allocated it to be used for the rescue, and the driver who took it, both of whom must have known that only certain locos were allowed along there. 

As always though, its easy to speculate. I'm sure the report into it must be out there somewhere?

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

there is usually no need for drivers to be observing the line ahead in the same way as road vehicle drivers once they have been given permission to move off.

I should hope that, simply for the sake of common sense, they do!!

 

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

the onus is NOT on the drivers boss to ensure a lorry fits under all bridges it may encounter - that obligation rests with the driver. Thus if the lorry hits a bridge* its ALWAYS the drivers fault

Generally, yes, but for Special Types movements ("wide loads" to you & me) the route has to be planned in advance by the Company and take all obstacles, including bridge heights, into account. More people than just the driver are in trouble if a Special Types move hits something!!

With any bridge strike, the Company will also be questioned by Police, and held responsible in the way of insurance costs etc.

What gets my goat with a lot of discussions and attitudes about HGV bridge strikes is the underlying assumption from the uninformed that drivers "get away with it" somehow, & are free to swan around doing this sort of thing with impunity. Doesn't happen.

[LMS2968]

33 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

I should hope that, simply for the sake of common sense, they do!!

Driving a train is very different from driving a road vehicle. If the last signal was green, then the section ahead is clear. If it isn't, there isn't usually much the driver can do; he can rarely stop within his seeing distance. Many (ab)users of level crossings have failed to realise this, to their cost.

[Wickham Green too]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

.........................  Consequently there was no reason for the loco driver in this instance to be looking at bridges to see if the loco fitted ..........

Does this not come within the scope of route and traction knowledge ?

[LMS2968]

Not as such, no. Route knowledge encompassed many things: speed limits, gradients, signal positions, lengths of loops, but a driver would reasonably expect his train to fit through structures along the route. He would not know the heights or widths of bridges, or of his engine and / or rolling stock.

[The Stationmaster]

47 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Does this not come within the scope of route and traction knowledge ?

Sort of - but only 'sort of' because a Driver would expect to be given the correct loco for the turn he was working and if it was a type he didn't know he would obviously say 'no'.  But where you're talking about 350 shunter A vs 350 shunter B it becomes something of a moot point and in theory the supervisor allocating the loco knew best.  However it becomes a rather different story when the Driver helped himself to the wrong 350 because it happened to be stood open, or he thought it rode better, or he knew the fuel had been pumped up and he wouldn't have to do it himself for a while, because then he would taking the responsibility on his own shoulders.  

 

It is of course common sense to shout if you are given the wrong engine for a restricted route such as that but it then becomes a study in human interaction as much as anything else because the Driver might be quite happy to see the supervisor made to look stupid (it sometimes happened with unpopular supervisors).  But in any event the Driver's ultimate defence, shaky tho' it is, could be that while the Sectional Appendix makes quite clear the maximum permitted height allowed over that line (11ft 6" on the centre line) the maximum height of a 350 shunter is not shown anywhere on the loco itself and he might not necessarily need to know it or have been taught it in training; barrack room lawyer stuff but still an interesting dodge.  

 

And don't overlook one very important fact in all this - we are assuming that the loco got there while making a legitimate movement and for all we know it could have ended up there for less than legitimate reasons