LNER empty trains collided, service disruptions expected

[royaloak]

1 hour ago, Ken.W said:

 

Well, in replying to the post asking what couplers they are, I recall from our training course back in May that's how they were described. We didn't look at them much as we've nothing to do with them.

 

Looking up on-line, they're both the same thing!

Inter vehicle Dellners are just the coupler part without the electrical head which is very different from a bolted bar, I have heard that EC are calling the inter vehicle couplers Dellners so they may be different from ours although I find it unlikely.

[37038]

The picture of the 80x gangway shows the body of a coupler made by Dellner, onto which can be fitted a coupling head (maybe a 10 or 12) or even a bar.

[Ken.W]

3 hours ago, royaloak said:

Inter vehicle Dellners are just the coupler part without the electrical head which is very different from a bolted bar, I have heard that EC are calling the inter vehicle couplers Dellners so they may be different from ours although I find it unlikely.

 

Yes, the inter-vehicle couplings on LNER's are described as a "Semi-permanent Dellner"

 

Looking them up online though, Dellner's simply a manufacturer who makes, among other items, various types of coupling, including an auto-coupler which is available with or without the electrical connections as required. Also, a 'semi-permanent coupling' which is, a bar type coupling, and no doubt the same as on your sets.

 

It's also even possible that the gangway connection could be a 'Dellner'

Edited November 16, 2019 by Ken.W

[lmsforever]

The way of working in and out of Neville Hill  the 800 should not have got that close to the HST should it?

[russ p]

1 minute ago, lmsforever said:

The way of working in and out of Neville Hill  the 800 should not have got that close to the HST should it?

 

Permissive working,  perfectly normal.  15mph at that point 

[lmsforever]

Thanks still think it a bit dangerous  way of running a railway.

[royaloak]

Dellner (the company also make Tightlock style couplers so shall we start calling them Dellners as well?

 

Voith make a compatible Scharfenberg coupler (again various heads are available) so maybe some of the 'Dellner' equipped fleet is actually fitted with Voith Scharfenberg couplers, either way on an IET a Dellner intermediate coupler (a bolted bar) wont couple to a Dellner outer coupler (Dellner 12 I think it is but am probably wrong) no matter how hard you try and its that ability to couple which is important.

 

You can go as far as you want with it, but on the railway its the head which is being described no matter who built it, but then pedants cant understand such trivialities can they, I will leave this thread to all the experts (yes I know I said that before but this time I will ignore the thread) as they seem to know so much more about them than I do, oh and I do appreciate some people will knows many times more about them me, a mere driver, so you can all go back to the important stuff like arguing about what couplers should be called rather than what they are called and why they are called it!

 

I can just imagine controls reaction when I ring them up to report a problem with the Dellner between the second and third coaches when I actually mean the gangway bellows, but as Dellner built it according to some on here I should call it the Dellner!

[russ p]

4 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

Thanks still think it a bit dangerous  way of running a railway.

 

 

All depots are like it as are a lot of station platforms and goods lines. 

Been worked like it for well over a hundred years 

[russ p]

1 minute ago, royaloak said:

Um, I wouldnt say getting that close was perfectly normal.

But yes you are correct, on a permissive line it is the drivers responsibility to stop his, her, their, non binary* individuals responsibility to stop short.

 

* delete as applicable, complying with the latest inclusive bolleaux.

 

Well no the collision caused the derailment,  but literally hundreds of times a day multiple trains are on permissive lines up and down the country without colliding. 

What needs to be established is why these two collided and find the root cause of the incident 

[lmsforever]

Good to hear a drivers view after all they are up front and making decisions.

[adb968008]

No one seems to have mentioned yet the return to service...

 

LNER has jacked the cabs of 43313 (Oct 31st), followed a few days later by 43299 (Nov 7th) , followed by 43300 all in just under 3 weeks... yet by swapping the power cars on the former, the sets Could have returned to service.

 

the Azuma.. you have to take the whole set out of use until, its fixed... regardless whether the coaches derailed or not... replacing vehicles isn't an option....

 

A PretendAzuma I can imagine being a need on the horizon for events like this in the future.

 

[Ken.W]

1 hour ago, royaloak said:

Voith make a compatible Scharfenberg coupler (again various heads are available) so maybe some of the 'Dellner' equipped fleet is actually fitted with Voith Scharfenberg couplers, either way on an IET a Dellner intermediate coupler (a bolted bar) wont couple to a Dellner outer coupler (Dellner 12 I think it is but am probably wrong) no matter how hard you try and its that ability to couple which is important.

 

No one ever suggested the intermediate coupling is in any way compatible with the outer ones!

 

However, as I've said, it's LNER and, looking them up online, Dellner themselves, that describe the intermediate coupling on an 800 as a, quote, "semi- permanent Dellner"

If you still have an issue with this then go and take it up with them !!!

Edited November 17, 2019 by Ken.W

[royaloak]

22 minutes ago, Ken.W said:

 

No one ever suggested the intermediate coupling is in any way compatible with the outer ones!

 

However, as I've said, it's LNER and, looking them up online, Dellner themselves, that describe the intermediate coupling on an 800 as a, quote, "semi- permanent Dellner"

If you still have an issue with this then go and take up up with them

And as I have posted, Dellner also make a 'Tightlock' coupler so should we start calling them Dellners as well?

[woodenhead]

56 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

A PretendAzuma I can imagine being a need on the horizon for events like this in the future.

 

Maybe some CAF Mk5s - will be familiar to drivers/crews as they too appear to have a tendency not to stop when you want

[keefer]

In the interest of a slight thread diversion, what is the difference between Scharfenberg and Dellner couplings (automatic end-of-unit ones)?

Is it simply the manufacturer or are there detail differences?

ISTR the first example on BR was on a couple of Driving vehicles of the prototype PEP stock (noted as Scharfenberg) i.e. in the '70s.

I'm also aware that some overseas railways adopted these for MU stock in the '70s.

Has there been any statement/analysis as to why BR did not adopt this existing technology, the nearest equivalent being the Tightlock + Drum connector for the production PEP (i.e. 313 etc.) and later mk3-based (210, 317 etc.) stock.

Then, for some reason BR(SR) went with Tightlock + separate jumper cables/air pipes on the 455s

Then, again, BR went for a new 'standard' BSI coupler especially for the 'Sprinter' DMUs onwards

(add into the mix that mainly EMUs had bolted-bar inter-car couplings but the DMUs had 'manual' BSI couplers)

 

It's all a bit of a mish-mash really!

Edited November 17, 2019 by keefer

[Titan]

9 hours ago, royaloak said:

Dellner (the company also make Tightlock style couplers so shall we start calling them Dellners as well?

 

Voith make a compatible Scharfenberg coupler (again various heads are available) so maybe some of the 'Dellner' equipped fleet is actually fitted with Voith Scharfenberg couplers, either way on an IET a Dellner intermediate coupler (a bolted bar) wont couple to a Dellner outer coupler (Dellner 12 I think it is but am probably wrong) no matter how hard you try and its that ability to couple which is important.

 

You can go as far as you want with it, but on the railway its the head which is being described no matter who built it, but then pedants cant understand such trivialities can they, I will leave this thread to all the experts (yes I know I said that before but this time I will ignore the thread) as they seem to know so much more about them than I do, oh and I do appreciate some people will knows many times more about them me, a mere driver, so you can all go back to the important stuff like arguing about what couplers should be called rather than what they are called and why they are called it!

 

I can just imagine controls reaction when I ring them up to report a problem with the Dellner between the second and third coaches when I actually mean the gangway bellows, but as Dellner built it according to some on here I should call it the Dellner!

 

As usual, when you overstep your knowledge and get called out you have a huff. Nothing to stop you calling them bar couplers, just don't assume other people with different knowledge to you don't know what they are talking about and then go around accusing them of being "very wrong".

Edited November 17, 2019 by Titan

[Titan]

19 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Quite probably yes - because it would not have entered my head that a non-divisable bar coupler could ever be described as anything but bar coupler!

 

 

 

Exactly. It clearly did not enter @royaloak s head either, but that did not stop him, from making unfair accusations, hence my response.

[Mallard60022]

17 hours ago, royaloak said:

Um, I wouldnt say getting that close was perfectly normal.

But yes you are correct, on a permissive line it is the drivers responsibility to stop his, her, their, non binary* individuals responsibility to stop short.

 

* delete as applicable, complying with the latest inclusive bolleaux.

T o avoid any 'problems' that you might foresee, one can refer to the driver in this case and grammatical context, quite simply as 'their' the driver. I would suggest that is a good compromise in these more accepting and open minded days.

Thank you,

Phil

Edited November 17, 2019 by Mallard60022
Thanks to the English Language Police for the useful tip.

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, adb968008 said:

No one seems to have mentioned yet the return to service...

 

LNER has jacked the cabs of 43313 (Oct 31st), followed a few days later by 43299 (Nov 7th) , followed by 43300 all in just under 3 weeks... yet by swapping the power cars on the former, the sets Could have returned to service.

 

the Azuma.. you have to take the whole set out of use until, its fixed... regardless whether the coaches derailed or not... replacing vehicles isn't an option....

 

A PretendAzuma I can imagine being a need on the horizon for events like this in the future.

 

After a collision like that, and one at even lower speed, the entire train should be taken out of service for a complete examination.  In the case of the HST it is likely that all the vehicles will have to be lifted to check for damage because the train has been involved in a hard collision.   That is certainly what BR did and they did it for HST stock involved collisions at far lower speed, and with much less immediately obvious damage, than that one.   And of course even in an HST you can only replace vehicles if you have the right spares, if not then you have to alter or shorten the formation - and it all depends on how many vehicles end up needing repairs and how long those repairs will take.

[corneliuslundie]

Sorry, Mallard but this is the English Language police here. "Their" is plural in a sentence like the one above and should not be used as a substitute for a singular pronoun, regardless of what the thought police may say.

Of course in many other languages this kind of thing would just not be possible as everything is either masculine or feminine as far as grammar is concerned, and no-one gets uptight about it. For example in Welsh dogs are one gender and cats the other!

Pedant's hat off and return to (relative) sanity.

The discussion above illustrates just what can happen when one does not use words precisely.

And is precisely why when  the Channel Tunnel opened there was a specif clearly defined vocabulary to use for train management.

Anyway, about those two trains - presumably LNER will lose its no claims bonus! Or the question I really want to ask but I don't suppose anyone knows, who will have to pay for the repairs? LNER I assume. 

Jonathan

[The Stationmaster]

5 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Sorry, Mallard but this is the English Language police here. "Their" is plural in a sentence like the one above and should not be used as a substitute for a singular pronoun, regardless of what the thought police may say.

Of course in many other languages this kind of thing would just not be possible as everything is either masculine or feminine as far as grammar is concerned, and no-one gets uptight about it. For example in Welsh dogs are one gender and cats the other!

Pedant's hat off and return to (relative) sanity.

The discussion above illustrates just what can happen when one does not use words precisely.

And is precisely why when  the Channel Tunnel opened there was a specif clearly defined vocabulary to use for train management.

Anyway, about those two trains - presumably LNER will lose its no claims bonus! Or the question I really want to ask but I don't suppose anyone knows, who will have to pay for the repairs? LNER I assume. 

Jonathan

Clearly defined vocabularies for all sorts of things on the railway - and their long has been.   As far as as defined vocabulary for Eurostar Train Managers is concerned that isn't exactly the case as all the announcements are to predefined texts and of course Eurostar works in two languages so linguistic equivalents had to be agreed.   I'm not sure how Eurotunnel works now by ut no doubt Brian ('Fat Controller') can tell us.

 

As for the costs of this Leeds incident - they will be down to whoever/whatever is found, by joint (if necessary) investigation, to be responsible and that has probably already been decided unless there is some feature which isn't immediately obvious to us observing from outside the fence.

[Fat Controller]

Using 'their' like that is no different to the French using 'vous' for both singular and plural third party. 

I'd be interested to hear more of this 'specific, clearly-defined vocabulary for use in 'train management'  at the Channel Tunnel. I can't say I've encountered a copy after 28 years involvement, and 25 years actually working there.  There is, however, a requirement that all Control Centre staff who work in safety critical roles should be able to communicate with the other party in that party's native language

[corneliuslundie]

Sorry, I do not know where to find it but I do remember when the tunnel opened there being statements about the need for a specific vocabulary because a word on one language could be have a different meaning in the other, and several examples were given of words related to safety critical issues. But it is a long time ago and I cannot remember the details. The Stationmaster may know.

I have realised my choice of words may have misled. I think it was vocabulary for use by drivers and others involved in operating rather than passenger-facing traincrew.

Jonathan

Edited November 17, 2019 by corneliuslundie
Clarify

[Fat Controller]

There was a lexicon, but it doesn't seem to have been  maintained since my wife (who was one of the people with editing rights) left 22 years ago,

[31A]

I’m currently travelling from Edinburgh to York on 1E15 0947 Aberdeen-King’s Cross, and surprised to find it is an HST with original seats!  Perhaps a thread about HSTs would be a better place for this, but I wondered whether it had been returned to traffic as a result of the Neville Hill derailment?