Class 314’s to work the Gospel Oak - Barking route

[corneliuslundie]

It is never a good idea to blame "them" for foisting European standards  on "us" as the UK has long been one of the biggest initiators of ENs. And will still be in CEN and CENELEC - just as well as many ENs go on to become international standards which we are committed to adopting, so we need to continue to have input.

When i was involved in standardisation the biggest complaint was the UK Civil Service using implementation of ENs as a way if insinuating their pet ideas into legislation. I don't know if it still happens.

Anyway, good to hear of progress on the "Goblin" line units.

Jonathan

[black and decker boy]

12 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Except that EN15227, the crashworthiness standard that is mandatory under the TSIs, hasn't been updated since 2010 and was mandatory under the TSI from 2012. It's now 2019 and rather a few Electrostars have been built in that time. 

And neither the TSI nor EN15227 would have been foisted on us by the EU as our authorities would have been party to the development of both. I presume you would be entirely in favour of crashworthiness standards?

 

Jim

I believe the later batches of 387 electro stars were to the older spec as were options on other orders so the TSI didn’t apply. The GWR & C2C units being the last quantity possible.

 

BT then switching the production lines to the Aventra which incorporates many design updates & refinements over the now quite old Electrostar design and is now the standard product family.

[royaloak]

8 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

It is never a good idea to blame "them" for foisting European standards  on "us" as the UK has long been one of the biggest initiators of ENs. And will still be in CEN and CENELEC - just as well as many ENs go on to become international standards which we are committed to adopting, so we need to continue to have input.

When i was involved in standardisation the biggest complaint was the UK Civil Service using implementation of ENs as a way if insinuating their pet ideas into legislation. I don't know if it still happens.

Anyway, good to hear of progress on the "Goblin" line units.

Jonathan

I actually meant the DaFT, not the EU. 

[corneliuslundie]

Bu there is little DaFT input into standards. The representatives on the BSI committees are almost all from the industry. True the government provides plenty of microregulation and management but it would be very surprising if the current European standards were not mandated as they are what the industry has decided is appropriate. By the way neither British nor European standards have any legal status unless they are called up in legislation.

But back to trains, I assume that there were reasons for the tightening of the crashworthiness standard, probably based on unfortunate incidents.

And at least the new trains are now arriving. A bit of an advance on the Mk 1 style non-corridor suburban type electric multiple units I remember using not that many years ago - even if not so may seats.

Jonathan

Now well away from London!

[phil-b259]

On 24/05/2019 at 00:18, mdvle said:

 

The first 2 710s have now entered service - https://www.londonreconnections.com/2019/in-pictures-overground-class-710s-enter-service/

 

All but with a load of restrictions like only on OLE (so the Watford DC lines stopping service has a big hole in the timetable) and no multiple working (essential for use on the West Anglia services out of Liverpool St)

 

As such it will be a while yet before they can be rolled out 'on mass' as it were like TfL want to happen.

[royaloak]

23 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Bu there is little DaFT input into standards. The representatives on the BSI committees are almost all from the industry. True the government provides plenty of microregulation and management but it would be very surprising if the current European standards were not mandated as they are what the industry has decided is appropriate. By the way neither British nor European standards have any legal status unless they are called up in legislation.

But back to trains, I assume that there were reasons for the tightening of the crashworthiness standard, probably based on unfortunate incidents.

And at least the new trains are now arriving. A bit of an advance on the Mk 1 style non-corridor suburban type electric multiple units I remember using not that many years ago - even if not so may seats.

Jonathan

Now well away from London!

Its just a shame that the 1 in a billion chance of a crash over-rides giving the drivers the ability to see out of the side windows when they need to line up exactly with the stop markers at sometimes over 100 stations a day, oh I do mean exactly, there are locations where there is 1 metre leeway.

[royaloak]

5 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

All but with a load of restrictions like only on OLE (so the Watford DC lines stopping service has a big hole in the timetable) and no multiple working (essential for use on the West Anglia services out of Liverpool St)

 

As such it will be a while yet before they can be rolled out 'on mass' as it were like TfL want to happen.

But they can tick the box to say they have entered service.

[Christopher125]

7 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

But back to trains, I assume that there were reasons for the tightening of the crashworthiness standard, probably based on unfortunate incidents.

 

Happy to be corrected but I was under the impression that the driver has been given more protection, hence the new cab designs.

[royaloak]

11 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

 

Happy to be corrected but I was under the impression that the driver has been given more protection, hence the new cab designs.

The cab IS the crumple zone so it is to deform gradually so it absorbs the impact in a controlled manner protecting the passenger saloon, which has also pretty much removed our ability to see out of the cab side windows, something we need top do at most stations to line up with the stop car marks, we have one location where we have just 1 metre tolerance while stopping a 400 tonne train (9 coach IET) on a downhill approach. 

 

I would rather have decent sized side windows (which I need to use every day at nearly every station) instead of the 20 tonne of steel (or aluminium) there to protect the passengers in the highly unlikely event that the train will be involved in a massive collision.

 

We have spent billions and billions on technology to prevent trains colliding in the first place, and while I obviously dont want the front end made out wallpaper, I am quite happy that any train built after privatisation (and quite a few built under BR) would provide adequate protection in a massive collision while also allowing the driver a view out of the decent sized side windows, I now believe we are so hell bent on making things as safe as possible we are making the day to day operation of said equipment more difficult (and so increasing the risks).

 

We now have locations where we cant actually see the stop car mark out of the side windows from the drivers seat because the post they are mounted on is too short so the marker is too low down (or the window is too high ) so we have to stand up while trying to control and stop the train, a bloody stupid situation which wasnt an issue when people who designed the trains actually listened to those who have to operate the trains, now of course 'they' know best and ignore anything we say.

 

Ah that feels better! 

Edited May 26, 2019 by royaloak
finishing the rant.

[phil-b259]

On 25/05/2019 at 17:20, royaloak said:

I actually meant the DaFT, not the EU. 

 

In these, how shall I put it, politically unstable times it is important to make sure blame is apportioned correctly. Far too many people based their votes back in 2016 on lies by Westminster (or wanna-be Westminster) Politicians about the EU and we should be careful not to repeat the same mistake.

 

As you say the body responsible for actually turning EU ideas into railway legislation is the DfT. A body (by which I include the Polticans who 'lead' it) that has proven itself many times over manifestly unfit to run a bath let alone the UK railway system.

[royaloak]

7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

As you say the body responsible for actually turning EU ideas into railway legislation is the DfT. A body (by which I include the Politicians who 'lead' it) that has proven itself many times over manifestly unfit to run a bath let alone the UK railway system.

That is far more politely written than I could manage about the DaFT, I congratulate you. 

[DY444]

I also blame the ORR.  It seems to me that as an organisation it gets very little criticism despite the enormous impact of its pious pronouncements and the "I art holier than thou" attitude of Mr Prosser (I always find it hard to resist the obvious joke) every time he opens his mouth.  Let us not forget that one of the Rs in ORR is Roads and it effectively condones thousands of deaths and serious injuries annually on the roads whilst at the same time imposing OTT standards on the railway for diminishing returns thus increasing costs and stymieing schemes that are for the common good.  They seem to be going after every conceivable risk rather than properly evaluating the probability. 

 

The nonsense about selfie sticks, balloons and scaffolding poles wrt to ole clearances makes my blood boil.  In the 1960s every platform from Bletchley south was, in wet weather, lined with blokes holding large metal framed umbrellas in the air.  As was every Clacton Line station, and Colchester, and other stations as far as the 6.25KV boundary, and stations west of Glasgow, and south of Manchester and Liverpool.  Many of these individuals were taller than the current average height and exactly none got electrocuted.  Yes there is a risk from selfie sticks if a tall person on the edge of a platform sticks it in the air right next to the pan but how great is that risk in reality and is it really worth spending billions to alleviate?  I say no it isn't.  The ORR need to learn the meaning of ALARP before they continue to be allowed to force the spending of tax payers money with impunity.

 

PS.  What makes it even more ridiculous is that by the standards of the ORR every station on an ole line electrified before the current standard is a death trap (although there is no obvious evidence of this).  So why are they allowed to continue to operate if they are so dangerous?  Because it is politically unacceptable to do anything just like it is to do something about road casualties.  That makes the ORR hypocritical in my view.  See also third rail.

Edited May 27, 2019 by DY444

[DY444]

Duplicate somehow. 

Edited May 27, 2019 by DY444

[jim.snowdon]

Apropos the above, what is the minimum safe clearance to energised 25kV equipment? It's not asked as a trick question, but I suspect a lot of any answers will be a reflection not of reality, but what has incorrectly been drummed into a lot of railway personnel heads by bad training. 25kV is never to be played with, it demands respect (so does 750V DC), but a lot of what trainers teach about it is ill informed.

 

Jim

[John M Upton]

1.25 metres minimum safe distance from OHLE if I recall correctly. 

 

Mind you that was from my Rules training nigh on twelve years ago and I am a third rail man...

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, DY444 said:

I also blame the ORR.  It seems to me that as an organisation it gets very little criticism despite the enormous impact of its pious pronouncements and the "I art holier than thou" attitude of Mr Prosser (I always find it hard to resist the obvious joke) every time he opens his mouth.  Let us not forget that one of the Rs in ORR is Roads and it effectively condones thousands of deaths and serious injuries annually on the roads whilst at the same time imposing OTT standards on the railway for diminishing returns thus increasing costs and stymieing schemes that are for the common good.  They seem to be going after every conceivable risk rather than properly evaluating the probability. .

 

Its worth remembering that in spite of all the official blurb about the ORR being 'independent' it hasn't really been that way since Tom Windsor got booted out by Politicians annoyed he was making things awkward for them.

 

Its the DfT who rearranged the minister al furniture to make it the Roads regulator as well as part of a grand plan to try and divest themselves from as much political responsibility as possible.

 

So as with all other deficiencies in the railway setup, you can trace them all back to the DfT and the idiots in charge.

 

 

[phil-b259]

6 hours ago, royaloak said:

That is far more politely written than I could manage about the DaFT, I congratulate you. 

 

Thats only because Andy and the other forum moderators like to try and keep things civil on these boards

 

[adb968008]

On 25/05/2019 at 18:59, phil-b259 said:

 

All but with a load of restrictions like only on OLE (so the Watford DC lines stopping service has a big hole in the timetable) and no multiple working (essential for use on the West Anglia services out of Liverpool St)

 

As such it will be a while yet before they can be rolled out 'on mass' as it were like TfL want to happen.

Class 710 service hasn’t last long..

 

i went ant for a goblin on Saturday and found the 378 running,

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, adb968008 said:

Class 710 service hasn’t last long..

 

i went ant for a goblin on Saturday and found the 378 running,

 

Erm.... the 710s have NOT replaced the shortened 378s TfL have been using to try and keep some sort of service going since the 172s left for the West Midlands.

 

The officially timetabled service uses 378s and will continue to do so for a while yet.

 

The 710s which have been running so far are forming ADDITIONAL services put on to fill some (note thats 'some' - not 'all') of the gaps in the timetable and are not guaranteed to run. Anything from a driver shortage (only a relatively small number of drivers have been passed out on them so far) or a unit having a problem (there arn't many which have been accepted yet) means they might be cancelled.

 

 

[EddieB]

Similar situation today with the usual three 4-car 378s (206, 209 and 232) working in conjunction with two 710s (261 and 262).  As it would require six train sets to work a full service (fifteen minute intervals), there was still one gap of a half-hour where a third 710 "ought" to have been.  I think it more down to a shortage of trained drivers as 710 264/5/6 have been observed test running on previous occasions.

 

Open Train Times seems to suggest that a Thunderbird 37 was parked in the goods loop at Upper Holloway - but I didn't venture that far West to confirm (OTT has been known to have ghost entries in the Upper Holloway/Crouch Hill area).