BR Tail Lamps

[Dagworth]

29 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Earlier, a Deltic hauled train o near Darlington (Feb 77) where a lump of rail had been left in the four-foot by vandals, knocked a traction motor cover off the underside of the loco, which then bounced up and knocked the valve on the train pipe closed.

Something doesn’t ring right here, brake pipe cocks are self-venting so if one was closed it would either vent the train and apply the train brake or vent the loco and apply the loco brake and interrupt the Control Circuit Governor and so cut the power. (Or was the self venting a feature added after this incident?) 

 

Andi

[Miserable]

1 minute ago, The Stationmaster said:

And why do you demand an RAIB Report for an item which was not reportable to the RAIB - apart from the minor fact that the RAIB did not even exist at that time?   Are you suggesting that I am not telling the truth because that is certainly what your words suggest to me so I look forward to a very early apology from you in this thread.

The RAIB, formerly known as the Railway Accident Investigation Branch, has existed since 1840. Any rail accident or event is investigated, though 'routine' errors may not generate any report and/or investigation if those involved 'hold their hands up' and there are no unusual circumstances. From your posts I'm pretty convinced you are confusing anecdote as evidence, and my evidence for that is that you never quote date and or location, so no apology is required or offered.

[Wheatley]

You are confusing RAIB with HMRI, now part of the ORR.

 

What else are you confusing or half-remembering ?

[Miserable]

5 minutes ago, Dagworth said:

Something doesn’t ring right here, brake pipe cocks are self-venting so if one was closed it would either vent the train and apply the train brake or vent the loco and apply the loco brake and interrupt the Control Circuit Governor and so cut the power. (Or was the self venting a feature added after this incident?) 

 

Andi

I'm pretty sure that was not the case back in the 80s, just on empirical evidence. But I am, however, rather surprised the driver didn't notice any change in the braking characteristics of the train.

[Nick C]

11 minutes ago, Dagworth said:

Something doesn’t ring right here, brake pipe cocks are self-venting so if one was closed it would either vent the train and apply the train brake or vent the loco and apply the loco brake and interrupt the Control Circuit Governor and so cut the power. (Or was the self venting a feature added after this incident?) 

 

Andi

 

1 minute ago, Miserable said:

I'm pretty sure that was not the case back in the 80s, just on empirical evidence. But I am, however, rather surprised the driver didn't notice any change in the braking characteristics of the train.

 

Here's the accident report: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=808

[LMS2968]

8 minutes ago, Miserable said:

The RAIB, formerly known as the Railway Accident Investigation Branch, has existed since 1840. Any rail accident or event is investigated, though 'routine' errors may not generate any report and/or investigation if those involved 'hold their hands up' and there are no unusual circumstances. From your posts I'm pretty convinced you are confusing anecdote as evidence, and my evidence for that is that you never quote date and or location, so no apology is required or offered.

I have to say you're taking a chance going head to head against Mike like that. What he posts on here is always (i) based on vast knowledge and practical experience; and (ii) meticulously researched. If you believe he's wrong, you'll have a hard job convincing many of us that that's the case.

[Miserable]

2 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

You are confusing RAIB with HMRI, now part of the ORR.

Nope, no confusion. The names have evolved, that's all. Their function remains the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty's_Railway_Inspectorate

[The Stationmaster]

53 minutes ago, Miserable said:

I was a guard 1979 to 1984 (I moved to the box before the the rush,to avoid ending up on the p-way). Those were the rules then. End of story. Guards had to undergo 16 weeks in the class room (14 in our case since we didn't do ticket training) under instruction form an Inspector (ours was a guy called Martin), followed by an exam at Division (Bristol), then being piloted by an established guard during route learning until such time as you felt confident to sign the route.

Actually they weren't the Rules then although they were in the Regulations.  That meant checking the brakes were working on the last two vehicles of an air braked train where the rear vehicle was not a brakevan and ensuring the brakes had applied on the rear two vehicles when carrying out a vacuum brake Continuity Test. (the later requirement was introduced sometime between 1972 and 1974 while the air  brake requirement had existed since at least 1972).

 

Incidentally a Brake Continuity Test was not required when detaching an assistant loco from the rear of a train.

[LMS2968]

For the record, there were problems with vacuum braked trains and breakaways in the late 1930s. Two Black Fives were heading a fully fitted goods when the rear end disappeared. The train kept going. At the time, new LMS engines were fitted with vacuum pumps, although drivers tended to leave the small ejector open anyway. Two vacuum pumps and two working ejectors were able to overcome the vacuum loss due to the parted vacuum bags, and neither driver would necessarily see a drop on their gauges.

[Miserable]

4 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Actually they weren't the Rules then although they were in the Regulations.  That meant checking the brakes were working on the last two vehicles of an air braked train where the rear vehicle was not a brakevan and ensuring the brakes had applied on the rear two vehicles when carrying out a vacuum brake Continuity Test. (the later requirement was introduced sometime between 1972 and 1974 while the air  brake requirement had existed since at least 1972).

 

Incidentally a Brake Continuity Test was not required when detaching an assistant loco from the rear of a train.

There was no difference between air or vacuum tests 79 to 84. Sorry. Indeed there was no requirement to perform a brake test when detaching a banker - it was built in in the process of uncoupling the assisting engine. The Rule book was The Rules, it referred to itself as such.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Miserable

[Miserable]

8 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

I have to say you're taking a chance going head to head against Mike like that. What he posts on here is always (i) based on vast knowledge and practical experience; and (ii) meticulously researched. If you believe he's wrong, you'll have a hard job convincing many of us that that's the case.

Then it's about time someone did, he's just posted more inaccurate information.

[Miserable]

4 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

For the record, there were problems with vacuum braked trains and breakaways in the late 1930s. Two Black Fives were heading a fully fitted goods when the rear end disappeared. The train kept going. At the time, new LMS engines were fitted with vacuum pumps, although drivers tended to leave the small ejector open anyway. Two vacuum pumps and two working ejectors were able to overcome the vacuum loss due to the parted vacuum bags, and neither driver would necessarily see a drop on their gauges.

Indeed, and I'm pretty sure that concern would have led to changes in the rules to prevent re-occurence.

[Wheatley]

Time to put you back on ignore I think. 

[Miserable]

1 minute ago, Wheatley said:

Time to put you back on ignore I think.

Please do, it doesn't change the facts though. I would rather read posts from people who actually know stuff, there have been a few replies here form people who clearly do actually know, than speculation based on hearsay.

[The Stationmaster]

13 minutes ago, Miserable said:

Nope, no confusion. The names have evolved, that's all. Their function remains the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty's_Railway_Inspectorate

Actually - for the record - their functions have been very different.  They changed during the privatisation process, had changed when HMRI was moved from the DoT to the HSE, and were changed again when the RAIB was introduced along with the concept of Notified Bodies and various revisions to safety assessment processes.   Thus I could - when I was covered by suitable insurance -  act as a 'Qualified Person' under the meaning of 21st century legislation which enabled me to do various things which in the early 1990s would have required to be proposed to,  agreed by,  and signed off by an HMRI in order for them to have proper legal force.  I could in fact still act as 'Qualified Person' today in respect of various things (e.g. preparation of  Rules and Regulations).

 

13 minutes ago, Miserable said:

Then it's about time someone did, he's just posted more inaccurate information.

Are you from Norway by some chance?  It's about time you stopped spouting invented nonsense especially when I have actually date checked information and you say it's inaccurate.  Here's bit more of that sort of nonsense from you I'm sorry to say -

18 minutes ago, Miserable said:

There was no difference between air or vacuum tests 79 to 84. Sorry. Indeed there was no requirement to perform a brake test when detaching a banker - it was built in in the process of uncoupling the assisting engine. The Rule book was The Rules, it referred to itself as such.

I've  got the 1983 reissued pages immediately to hand as well as all the Supplements to the 1972 GA.  As they were different from each other throughout the life of the 1972 GA including the final 1978 Supplement No.3 to that GA and were, again, different from each other in the 1983 reissued pages of the 1981 General Appendix.  there's no evidence at all to suggest they were the same as each other at any time during the period you mention.

 

Quite why you go on about the Rule Book in respect of something which was in the General Appendix I'm not at all sure?

[Miserable]

36 minutes ago, Nick C said:

 

 

Here's the accident report: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=808

Well that was certainly unlucky. In theory the reservoir pipe should have been on it's dummy though, but that was a universally ignored rule, I don't think anyone would have suspected that could happen! But nothing to do with brake test efficacy though.

[Miserable]

12 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Actually - for the record - their functions have been very different.  They changed during the privatisation process, had changed when HMRI was moved from the DoT to the HSE, and were changed again when the RAIB was introduced along with the concept of Notified Bodies and various revisions to safety assessment processes.   Thus I could - when I was covered by suitable insurance -  act as a 'Qualified Person' under the meaning of 21st century legislation which enabled me to do various things which in the early 1990s would have required to be proposed to,  agreed by,  and signed off by an HMRI in order for them to have proper legal force.  I could in fact still act as 'Qualified Person' today in respect of various things (e.g. preparation of  Rules and Regulations).

 

Are you from Norway by some chance?  It's about time you stopped spouting invented nonsense especially when I have actually date checked information and you say it's inaccurate.  Here's bit more of that sort of nonsense from you I'm sorry to say -

I've  got the 1983 reissued pages immediately to hand as well as all the Supplements to the 1972 GA.  As they were different from each other throughout the life of the 1972 GA including the final 1978 Supplement No.3 to that GA and were, again, different from each other in the 1983 reissued pages of the 1981 General Appendix.  there's no evidence at all to suggest they were the same as each other at any time during the period you mention.

 

Quite why you go on about the Rule Book in respect of something which was in the General Appendix I'm not at all sure?

Temper temper. Did you ever actually undergo guards training? I think you are confusing yourself with a paper trail. For once and all - there was no difference between a brake test for air or vacuum in the period 79 to 84 - I'm pretty certain of that because explaining how to do a brake test was about the only guaranteed question in the guards exam, or more accurately viva-voce, and I passed. The GA was/is and expansion of the rule book. i.e how to apply the rules, an annex of it.

[The Stationmaster]

16 minutes ago, Miserable said:

Please do, it doesn't change the facts though. I would rather read posts from people who actually know stuff, there have been a few replies here form people who clearly do actually know, than speculation based on hearsay.

I do seriously wonder what you actually did  during your time on the railway especially as you - rather worryingly - don't appear to know the difference between the Rule Book and the General Appendix.

 

Those of us who spent many years working in the front line at various levels and involved with all sorts of traffic in every sort of weather tend to have a pretty good idea of how things were in reality and even havea very good idea of what the various books said as well.   But whenever I quote dates on here - as did above in respect of Brake Continuity Tests - I check them first and don't just shoot from the hip

 

15 minutes ago, Miserable said:

Well that was certainly unlucky. In theory the reservoir pipe should have been on it's dummy though, but that was a universally ignored rule, I don't think anyone would have suspected that could happen! But nothing to do with brake test efficacy though.

Why on earth would the Reservoir Pipe be 'on its dummy'?. (Apart from the fact that it didn't have a dummy anyway).  The Report indicates  - as you would expect - that the Reservoir Pipes had been coupled because it says they had been parted at some time during the incident.   What 'universally ignored Rule are you on about?- the Regulation required that they should be coupled.

[101]

7 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I do seriously wonder what you actually did  during your time on the railway especially as you - rather worryingly - don't appear to know the difference between the Rule Book and the General Appendix.

 

Those of us who spent many years working in the front line at various levels and involved with all sorts of traffic in every sort of weather tend to have a pretty good idea of how things were in reality and even havea very good idea of what the various books said as well.   But whenever I quote dates on here - as did above in respect of Brake Continuity Tests - I check them first and don't just shoot from the hip

 

Why on earth would the Reservoir Pipe be 'on its dummy'?. (Apart from the fact that it didn't have a dummy anyway).  The Report indicates  - as you would expect - that the Reservoir Pipes had been coupled because it says they had been parted at some time during the incident.   What 'universally ignored Rule are you on about?- the Regulation required that they should be coupled.

 

I wouldn't waste your time with him Mike - he's clearly just a troll

[The Stationmaster]

7 minutes ago, Miserable said:

Temper temper. Did you ever actually undergo guards training? I think you are confusing yourself with a paper trail. For once and all - there was no difference between a brake test for air or vacuum in the period 79 to 84 - I'm pretty certain of that because explaining how to do a brake test was about the only guaranteed question in the guards exam, or more accurately viva-voce, and I passed. The GA was/is and expansion of the rule book. i.e how to apply the rules, an annex of it.

Right, no more. I'm reporting that post right now because I've had enough of your rudeness and the innacurate & naive nonsense you have spouted in this thread,   and you've just done it again1  The Brake Regulations, including Continuity Test procedures, were in the GA not in the Rule Book.  And just for the record over the years I've examined far more Guards (and others)  in Rules and Regs than you ever had Rules exams in your entire railway career (unless your railway career happened to span well over 400 years).