Some thoughts about the railway

[royaloak]

4 hours ago, Trog said:

 

New track using CEN60 rail on G44 sleepers is now 1438mm gauge.

Wosat in English? 

[royaloak]

1 hour ago, RRU said:

How to avoid the lengthy driver training that goes on with each new locomotive or train.

 

Have a standard set of driving controls for all powered rail vehicles. Then, when any new train is introduced, it will be able to go straight into service.

 

After my 21st birthday I was able to road test any of our vehicles because the driving controls were and still are the same. We had the same chassis with different bodies and the same bodies on different chassis, it didn't matter. They were all the same to drive. If you buy a new car, do you have to be re-trained as to how to drive it? No, you get in it and go. Why not have a set of standard controls for the railway?

 

Peter

Proving the point you know very little about driving trains!

 

It isnt just about pushing the buttons and pulling the levers, its about the physical dynamics of the trains acceleration and braking curves, fault finding and rectification plus many other things, just because passing a driving test in a Ford Fiesta allows you drive a Ferrari etc doesnt mean its the same on the railway, probably one of the reasons why the railways are so much safer than the roads!

 

Edit-

I had a freightliner driver out route learning with me the other day and we were discussing the differences from him driving his 4400 Tonne, 45mph stone train and me driving my 530 Tonne, 125mph sHitachi, not much carried over from one to the other, but in your world you want to standardise that, um good luck but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your viewpoint) the railways are very different from the roads and a lot of the railways problems are where they interact with the roads, level crossings, bridges etc.

Edited August 24, 2019 by royaloak
more information.

[101]

13 minutes ago, RRU said:

So the driving controls are basicly the same. That was my main point. I know each vehicle has it`s own feel to it which you usually get into after the first hour or so. Remember I am looking at this from a road transport viewpoint.

Here a driver was given a vehicle to drive and told to get on with it.

 

Peter

 

 

But you dont get into a lorry and drive it flat out until the last second you can brake for a traffic light and then slam the brakes on! Which is basically how many trains have to be driven to keep to time (although in saying that a lot of schedules are getting slacker nowadays).

 I'm sure most train drivers could manage with being given anything and told to get on with it if they were able to just dawdle around.

I'm afraid you just can't compare driving a road vehicle with a train.

 

[RRU]

33 minutes ago, royaloak said:

Proving the point you know very little about driving trains!

 

I

 

22 minutes ago, 101 said:

 

But you dont get into a lorry and drive it flat out until the last second you can brake for a traffic light and then slam the brakes on! Which is basically how many trains have to be driven to keep to time (although in saying that a lot of schedules are getting slacker nowadays).

 I'm sure most train drivers could manage with being given anything and told to get on with it if they were able to just dawdle around.

I'm afraid you just can't compare driving a road vehicle with a train.

 

 

That's more like it. A healthy debate.

You are right, I don't know anything about driving trains but I do know about driving a 14 metre, six wheel, double decker coach.

 

I would like your opinion on the design of new rolling stock. I see massive blind spots which may be less important for a railway vehicle.

 

Peter

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, RRU said:

So the driving controls are basicly the same. That was my main point. I know each vehicle has it`s own feel to it which you usually get into after the first hour or so. Remember I am looking at this from a road transport viewpoint.

Here a driver was given a vehicle to drive and told to get on with it.

 

Peter

 

However in a road vehicle a driver going at 125 mph (or even much lower speeds) doesn't have to bring his train to a stand exactly in the correct spot at numerous different stations some of which he can't even see when he applies the brakes. 

[The Johnster]

Trains are unlike large road vehicles in the sense that the driver only needs to look ahead of himself, unlike a coach or lorry driver who needs to continually check wing mirrors.  There are no blind spots in the road vehicle sense; cars and bicycles cannot get into trouble out of sight behind the vehicle because they aren't there, and nor can cyclists attempt to pass on the blind side and get squished when you turn left on top of them.

 

Shunting movements are controlled by staff on the ground by handsignal, as they are in most cases where large lorries have to back in to loading platforms.  

 

There would be no harm in having a standard layout for controls (this is pretty much what the situation was in steam days, when crews were expected to get on board any loco that turned up and get on with it even if they'd never seen one before), but because each loco and unit's control systems are unique to that class, and there are fundamental differences between diesel electric, diesel hydraulic, overhead electric, and third rail electric traction.  So it would be difficult to standardise controls, and the 'standard' control panel would have to cope with all eventualities.

 

In any case, as has been pointed out, drivers would still need to learn each individual class and require traction pilots if they have not.  They are expected to deal with basic fault finding out on the road, and preparation/disposal routines will be different for each class as well.  In fact, you might argue that a standard control panel would in fact be more confusing, with drivers more likely under stress to forget what actual class they are driving.

 

Back in the 70s when I was a Canton freight guard, one of my regular jobs was 7M49, the 03.15 Cardiff (Long Dyke)-Carlisle.  This was booked for a class 47 which we took off shed, but one morning we were told that there was no loco available but one had been left on the train at Long Dyke by Hereford men who had worked down with it and left it to travel home on the cushions.  We were taken to Long Dyke in the Workabus, and there was the loco sitting waiting for us; a class 40.  'Do you sign the 40s' I asked my driver, whose response was the slightly alarming 'what you on about, that's a 37, just make sure we're not overloaded for it'.  OK, the demarcation line between the loco department had been clearly drawn and that was that!  

 

Now, if you sit in the driver's seat, there is very little difference between a 37 and 40, and the control layout is identical.  He climbed aboard the loco and started it up; they sound much the same in the cab away from the distinctive 40 whistle as well.  I went and prepped the train and lit the van fire and lamps, and came back to present him with the driver's slip, which I'd made out for the 40 ensuring we had sufficient brake force and were not overloaded.  When I climbed into the cab to give it to him, I decided it was time for Traffic to testify, and remarked 'that's something you don't see every day on a diesel loco, a water pickup wheel'.  Some early 40s were delivered to the LMR with pickup scoops for non stop work on the WCML to replenish the steam heating boiler supply.

 

'That's the handbrake wheel', he says.  'No it isn't, the handbrake wheel's alongside it, this is a Class 40 not a 37'.  'Well, don't worry about it' he says, 'the controls are the same'.  Which signified the end of that conversation.  He blew up for the road, I climbed aboard the van, gave him the 'tip' which he returned with a blast on the rear horn which must have been popular amongst the neighbours at 03.15, and we were right away Hereford.  The run was completely uneventful and we were relieved by Hereford men in the centre roads there; I don't know if they made any remark!

 

I tell the story because it shows that a) not all drivers are always as observant as they would like you to think they are, and b) standardised controls do lead to confusion.

[royaloak]

1 hour ago, RRU said:

 

 

That's more like it. A healthy debate.

You are right, I don't know anything about driving trains but I do know about driving a 14 metre, six wheel, double decker coach.

 

I would like your opinion on the design of new rolling stock. I see massive blind spots which may be less important for a railway vehicle.

 

Peter

Lets just say that due to my future employment I wont be getting into that debate on an open forum, I have however made my feelings known at work as have several other drivers, but the standard answer we get is crash protection, ie eff off and dont bother us again.

 

I think that answers your question. 

[Rugd1022]

3 hours ago, RRU said:

 

 

That's more like it. A healthy debate.

You are right, I don't know anything about driving trains but I do know about driving a 14 metre, six wheel, double decker coach.

 

I would like your opinion on the design of new rolling stock. I see massive blind spots which may be less important for a railway vehicle.

 

Peter

 

With all due respect Peter there's a world of difference between driving, handling and stopping a half a mile long 3,300 freight train which needs a mile and a half to come to a stand (on a dry level piece of track, which isn't actually that widespread on my route card) and a double decker coach. There's much, much more to train driving than just driving the train. Even if control desks across all types of traction were standardised the way you actually use the controls would differ due to the gearing involved, some traction requires notchless power application, some require individual notches, there's a massive difference between passenger and freight handling for starters (I've done both, air and vacuum braked too). The freight locos I drive have two brake handles in each cab, passenger unit cabs don't, so standardisation goers out the window there.

 

If you drive the same bus everyday on the same roads in the same conditions does it feel the same every time you drive it? I ask because I can assure you from experience that if I had the same loco, the same wagons with the same load on the same route in the same conditions and applied the brake in exactly the same place each day the 'feel', the response from those controls and the weight behind me would be different every time I did so. There have been times when I've had to bring such a train to a stand at a specific spot at night in thick fog with forward visibility down to about ten feet, which is where the train driver's number one asset comes - a completely intimate knowledge of every inch of that route in all conditions, day or night.

Edited August 24, 2019 by Rugd1022

[royaloak]

3 minutes ago, Rugd1022 said:

There have been times when I've had to bring such a train to a stand at a specific spot at night in thick fog with forward visibility down to about ten feet, which is where the train driver's number one asset comes - a completely intimate knowledge of every inch of that route in all conditions, day or night.

I love driving in those conditions, until I lose my bearings then it is bloomin horrible, but the feeling you get when you apply the brakes from 100 or so mph, and as the speedo gets towards 30mph you see the platform ramp rise out of the mist about 10ft in front of the train is wonderful.

[RRU]

1 hour ago, Rugd1022 said:

If you drive the same bus everyday on the same roads in the same conditions does it feel the same every time you drive it?

 

Yes it does. If it does not then it means something is not right and needs investigating.

 

I drove a regular Saturday route for many years with the same bus and got to know it inside out.

Being in Huddersfield meant plenty hill-climbing and descents. On the steepest hill I used to engage third gear at the top and then hold it on the retarder, not needing the brakes unless I had to stop.

If the retarder would not hold it then I knew there was a stage not working so I would check it on the next inspection.

 

Peter

[RRU]

3 hours ago, royaloak said:

 but the standard answer we get is crash protection,

 

The 68`s and 88`s look as if they have had a crash already.

 

Peter

 

[caradoc]

I think RRU does have a valid point, certainly regarding the proliferation of different train designs in the same areas. In Scotland for example, after the initial Class 303 EMU, the next fleet was the compatible Class 311. However since then, we have had:

Class 314 - Incompatible with 303/311

Class 318 - Compatible with 314 but only for ECS working due to different door controls

Class 320 - Compatible with 318 (being essentially the same design)

Class 334 - Compatible with nothing else

Class 380 - Ditto

Class 365 - Ditto (although only here for a short time)

Class 385 - Ditto

 

Within the small (16 sets) Class 314 fleet there were even two different types of traction motor, which must have pleased the maintenance staff !

 

It simplifies operations considerably if all the units working over the same route, or group of routes, are of the same, or at least similar design, as well as of course staff training, diagramming, fleet utilisation and maintenance.

 

 

 

 

[RRU]

Right then, I think we have put that subject to bed. On to the next one, time keeping, or the lack of it.

 

Last year all arrivals at Huddersfield were on average eight minutes late, After a few weeks of seeing this I thought to myself that if this is happening to all the trains it must be the timetable that is eight minutes fast.

If that time was added to the timetable then the trains would be on time.

 

This year things are much better, but this is what I have noticed.

For years the practice at Scarborough was for the train to arrive and then go straight out again. This meant that if it was five or more minutes late then it was late leaving. This year trains are laying over until the next trip. This means no matter how late they arrive they always depart on time. This is an excellent idea and shows somebody at TPE is thinking.

 

Great, I thought, now we are going to be on time. We were until we arrived at York. This is where it started to go wrong and shows where Trans Pennine Express is in the pecking order at Network Rail. At the bottom. Another factor to add in is the track layout at York which has crippled the station since it was re-modelled.

 

The train arrives at platform four with time in hand. This is the first problem. The only exit southbound is along platform three which the passengers have just walked along to get to platform four. At precisely our departure time a train arrives in platform three from the main line which means the TPE is now trapped and must wait for the other train to depart. The train is now five minutes late and is sent down the Normanton line which means it has to do the Conga over the zig zags at Church Fenton to reach the Leeds line. Arrival at Leeds is ten minutes late. We are now on the core section and the driver is doing his best but guess what, we have to slow at Dewsbury because a stopping train is ahead of us. Just another example of TPE being at the bottom. Arrival at Huddersfield is 15 minutes late caused entirely by Network Rail.

 

Trains in the opposite direction are treated just the same. Many times I have heard the guard say “The reason for the delay was that we had to follow a slower train out of Manchester”.

 

I'm sorry this post is a bit long.

 

Peter

 

[PaulRhB]

Duplicated 

Edited August 25, 2019 by PaulRhB

[sir douglas]

i walk by my local station (Sandal & Agbrigg) nearly every morning lately and the same train is nearly always 5-10 minutes late. sometimes with the caption "delayed due to failure on this train". there has been some interesting notices on the digital board in the past few months; once has been due to overhead damage, once due to lightning striking a signal and once "delayed due to train being late leaving the depot". also a cancellation "due to more trains being repaired than usual"

[RRU]

My favourite reason given for being late was “Too many trains in Manchester”.

 

Peter

[caradoc]

7 hours ago, RRU said:

Right then, I think we have put that subject to bed. On to the next one, time keeping, or the lack of it.

 

The train arrives at platform four with time in hand. This is the first problem. The only exit southbound is along platform three which the passengers have just walked along to get to platform four. At precisely our departure time a train arrives in platform three from the main line which means the TPE is now trapped and must wait for the other train to depart. The train is now five minutes late and is sent down the Normanton line which means it has to do the Conga over the zig zags at Church Fenton to reach the Leeds line. Arrival at Leeds is ten minutes late. We are now on the core section and the driver is doing his best but guess what, we have to slow at Dewsbury because a stopping train is ahead of us. Just another example of TPE being at the bottom. Arrival at Huddersfield is 15 minutes late caused entirely by Network Rail.

Trains in the opposite direction are treated just the same. Many times I have heard the guard say “The reason for the delay was that we had to follow a slower train out of Manchester”.

 

I'm sorry this post is a bit long.

Peter

 

 

Presumably the train that arrived in Platform three was late - Do you know why this was ? It could be a Network Rail issue, or a Train operator issue, or an external cause. Why was it regulated in front of the TPE train ? There may well have been a good reason for this, eg further congestion caused en route if it was delayed further, another train right behind at York, short turnround at destination, etc.

 

When trains are running out of course and one has to be delayed by another, there is rarely a simple answer It is of course frustrating to be on an on-time service which is held for a late runner, but there are often unseen reasons behind how Signallers, and sometimes Controllers, make regulating decisions.

 

[Edwin_m]

5 hours ago, sir douglas said:

i walk by my local station (Sandal & Agbrigg) nearly every morning lately and the same train is nearly always 5-10 minutes late. sometimes with the caption "delayed due to failure on this train". there has been some interesting notices on the digital board in the past few months; once has been due to overhead damage, once due to lightning striking a signal and once "delayed due to train being late leaving the depot". also a cancellation "due to more trains being repaired than usual"

Sounds like Reggie Perrin who was always 11 minutes late for a variety of reasons such as a badger eating a junction box. 

[RRU]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

Presumably the train that arrived in Platform three was late - Do you know why this was ? It could be a Network Rail issue, or a Train operator issue, or an external cause. Why was it regulated in front of the TPE train ? There may well have been a good reason for this, eg further congestion caused en route if it was delayed further, another train right behind at York, short turnround at destination, etc.

 

 

Yes, it was late but only the ROC knows why. Someone there decided to not just have one late train but two. I have seen it happen too many times to be a coincidence. If there is a conflict anywhere the Trans Pennine has to give way.

York platform four only makes sense for trains travelling to Scarborough. In the other direction it means passengers walking from the main entrance along platform three only to be taken back there by the train when it leaves. It would be far more useful if the centre through line was re-instated. Then anything in platform three could be overtaken.

 

Peter

[RRU]

Now onto a more technical point.

 

The class 185.

 

I have noticed on a few occasions when the train is stationary an engine has been stopped. I am sure it has been stopped by the driver because the train has not been stationary long enough for an automatic shutdown. Is this to save fuel?

 

But then the train can travel quite a long way with one engine stopped. Whilst travelling like this two things occurred to me

 

First, how long can the batteries run all the lights and the AC and still start the engine.

Second, the transmission. When we had to tow in a vehicle with an automatic gearbox, we had to remove a drive shaft to avoid causing damage to the transmission due to the oil pump being driven from the input shaft.

So either the transmissions have been designed to allow the train to run with an engine stopped, or the drivers are risking damaging the gearboxes.

 

I'm sure there is someone out there who knows the answer.

 

Peter

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, RRU said:

Yes, it was late but only the ROC knows why. Someone there decided to not just have one late train but two. I have seen it happen too many times to be a coincidence. If there is a conflict anywhere the Trans Pennine has to give way.

York platform four only makes sense for trains travelling to Scarborough. In the other direction it means passengers walking from the main entrance along platform three only to be taken back there by the train when it leaves. It would be far more useful if the centre through line was re-instated. Then anything in platform three could be overtaken.

 

Peter

However if you think back to the position of the crossover between the centre line and Platform 8S (as was) it would restrict the length of a train which could be accommodated in 8S.  Judging by photos I suspect the standard Class 91 hauled formation would have been just foul of the crossovers and I wouldn't be at all surprised that a full length IET might not fit at all.

 

The situation at York is no different from that on many parts of the network where BTR had b no choice at all but to make infrastructure changes within what could be afforded.  The centre lines through basically had no real justification with the number of trains likely to use them being considerably reduced and the extra costs involved in retaining and modernising them being way out of any justifiable sort of expenditure.  Equally the connection off the Scarborough branch to the centre bays and other through platforms would have been equally unjustifiable in the light of the enormous costs - both initial and ongoing - in duplicating them when, again, there was little or no justification for them.

 

As for your view that Trans Pennine always get the rough end of the regulating stick I must to admit to being rather dubious that they have actually agreed to such a situation and that they are not challenging such things if they happen regularly.  As 'Caradoc' has already said regulating decisions in the event of out of course running are rarely simple matters and teh factors involved can, and do, spread well beyond what we see in front of our faces at any location. 

[D9020 Nimbus]

I remember reading that the software on the 185s was changed quite some time ago so that one engine would be shut down when not needed in order to reduce fuel consumption — which had been on the high side before the change was made. So I suspect the shutdown is automatic.

[Edwin_m]

Yes the 185s have an "eco mode" that shuts down each engine in rotation (to even up the wear on the engines).  They have cross-feeding so the air-conditioning, lighting and other auxiliaries on the affected coach are supplied from the next one.  The driver can select full power if needed to make up time. 

[Talltim]

On 24/08/2019 at 12:06, royaloak said:

Wosat in English? 

713/100000 of a furlong 

 

[RRU]

Thanks for the replies. So if the shutdowns are planned the designers must have taken the transmission into account before they wrote the software.

 

Peter