RMweb Premium newbryford Posted February 18, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 18, 2011 Thanks to Staffs oatcake for the photo 57010 I thought that nukes always ran with two locos in case of failure. I know that this isn't power station spent fuel, but ex-submarine, so if anything, is of an even more sensitive nature Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 18, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 18, 2011 Thanks to Staffs oatcake for the photo I thought that nukes always ran with two locos in case of failure. Cheers, Mick Where did you get that idea from? I realise that DRS have run round a lot of the time with a couple of locos on flask trains but that was their idea of getting a few wheel turning miles on their traction and having their own 'Thunderbird' on hand in case they suffered a failure thus saving themselves a thousand quid or so, but that was all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted February 18, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 18, 2011 I thought that nukes always ran with two locos in case of failure. I know that this isn't power station spent fuel, but ex-submarine, so if anything, is of an even more sensitive nature Hi Mick Nope, it was only DRS that decided to use two locos. Pre-DRS it was normally one loco. The fuel for subs is no more sensitive than for a power station, but anyway they have two "support" coaches for the escort. Cheers, Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steadfast Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 As well as the ability to get the train home without a hire in or 1Z99 move, didn't the two loco operation coincide with the abolition of barriers? I'm sure I've read in the past that the driver needs to be a certain distance from the flask, and the second loco provides that in place of the barrier wagons. Though saying that, someone rides in the second loco, which would be within this distance, so maybe not? Anyway, if it is true, the longer length of the MoD flasks potentially gives the needed distance cheers jo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted February 19, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 19, 2011 These DRS locos seem to have extra equipment....lokks for all the world as if 57010 has a steering wheel B) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardiff Bluebird Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 DRS to indeed have to operate loaded flask trains with two locomotives to provide a safegaurd in case of failure etc. The brake and barrier was taken away when the train was uprated from class 7 to class 6 service. The Trainman will ride in the rear cab of the 2nd loco to watch the train, in the above case with a brake he would ride in there. Blubird. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevpeo Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 In pre DRS days the Barrow Docks export traffic was always a single 31. The power station traffic usually a pair. Although not always. I once got pushed into Barrow by a 31 on a flask train after a failure. Formation - Dead 31/4, 5x vac braked mk1's, Working 31/0, barrier, 3xflasks, barrier, brake van.(All air braked!)nice. Mind you I also got pushed from Dalton to Carnforth at high speed, stopping at all shacks, by 31 200 after yet another 31/4 burst. They used the dead one as a sort of makeshift DVT. Those were the days ! kev Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted February 19, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 19, 2011 There's also the possibility that the flasks were empty and it was a positioning move, hence the two support coaches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted February 19, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 19, 2011 As well as the ability to get the train home without a hire in or 1Z99 move, didn't the two loco operation coincide with the abolition of barriers? I'm sure I've read in the past that the driver needs to be a certain distance from the flask, and the second loco provides that in place of the barrier wagons. Though saying that, someone rides in the second loco, which would be within this distance, so maybe not? Anyway, if it is true, the longer length of the MoD flasks potentially gives the needed distance cheers jo Heysham flask trains are regularly top n tailed to make the reversals easy, so that puts the "minimum distance" requirement out - maybe it was a union thing in the early days of nuke transport. I guess the primary reason of two locos is one of "saving face" - it would be embarrassing to have a nuke train failed and sat holding up the rest of the network. What would the knee-jerk nedia make of that? There are also some large formations of locos and flasks on the Sellafield-Crewe "trunk" service. Four locos and four flasks for example Sellafield-Crewe, becoming 2 sets of 2 locos/flasks, onward from Crewe. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted February 19, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 19, 2011 I thought that nukes always ran with two locos in case of failure. having their own 'Thunderbird' on hand in case they suffered a failure My point exactly - two locos in case of failure.......... Maybe the first quote should be "often", instead of "always" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steadfast Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Heysham flask trains are regularly top n tailed to make the reversals easy, so that puts the "minimum distance" requirement out - maybe it was a union thing in the early days of nuke transport. I guess the primary reason of two locos is one of "saving face" - it would be embarrassing to have a nuke train failed and sat holding up the rest of the network. What would the knee-jerk nedia make of that? Cheers, Mick Ah - I'd been forgetting the Heysham! Interesting what you say about unions - I'd not thought of that - stranger things have happened. Certainly the Bridgwater run has benefitted from two locos recently - somewhen last year the 66s had to run round each other, so the working loco could lead back. It was something small like an AWS fault if I remember rightly. Imagine the time it'd take to send a rescue from Crewe (or in the early days, Carlisle) to the south west. I recall once a Freightliner 66 dragged a flask from Bridgwater - interesting combo to model cheers jo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsOatcake Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Thanks to Staffs oatcake for the photo 57010 I thought that nukes always ran with two locos in case of failure. I know that this isn't power station spent fuel, but ex-submarine, so if anything, is of an even more sensitive nature Cheers, Mick Thanks for viewing my site The train you see had a compliment of armed guards carried in the two Mark 2 coaches at the rear, who scowled at me as they went by (hair standing up on the back of your neck moment). One gentleman was pretty obviously armed with a variety of small arms/assault rifles as you could see his weaponry slung around his body. I waved and they waved back which I was not expecting. With the number of armed men on that train it was possibly not just spent fuel that was been carried. Also a little while before the train arrived there was an Apache AH64-D helicopter flying approx 100 yards to the west of the line and another approx 5 minutes behind the train and maybe a mile to the east. whether this was co-incidence or not I do not know, but I'm pretty sure the train would have been secure with just the guard on board I must admit I was expecting to see two Ronnie's upfront not one, as it is a flask working. If you check out the rest of the fotopic site there are numerous images of flasks with two loco's up front but only this one with one loco. However I do recall seeing various flasks along the north wales coast when I was younger and these were hauled by a single 24/25/31/40/or 47 occasionally a pair of 24/25, but all of these had a barrier wagons either side of the flask wagons. It was once DRS (part of BNFL) took over that I recall the use of two loco's and the barrier wagons disappeared. When I catch up with the driver I'll ask him if the steering wheel was deliberate. ROFL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsOatcake Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 DRS outing to Plymouth Next Week so we'll see if its one or two locos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted February 20, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 20, 2011 DRS outing to Plymouth Next Week so we'll see if its one or two locos Looks like the sub flasks are already on their way south. Note - no "escort" vehicles, so I would presume they're empty.Southbound flasks at Preston. Although why the photo caption says bound for Rosyth escapes me........ Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsOatcake Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Pick up the escort coaches at CLS and head down on Monday. but yes they must be empty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob D2 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 All that support for some nuclear stuff, but when *** run ammo trains from ******* there doesn't appear to any back up at all, certainly no support coaches. 200 + tons of ammunition ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsOatcake Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 All that support for some nuclear stuff, but when *** run ammo trains from ******* there doesn't appear to any back up at all, certainly no support coaches. 200 + tons of ammunition ! Ammunition has always been carried by the railways and has never had any special consideration, as ammo isn't seen as dangerous weapons grade nuclear fuel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted February 20, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 20, 2011 as ammo isn't seen as dangerous weapons grade nuclear fuel. Spent nuclear fuel is absolutely not weapons grade! As I said earlier I am not entirely sure why MOD spent fuel deserves an escort but power station spent fuel doesn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 20, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 20, 2011 I don't think these trains are any of our business and what goes in them and with them is certainly none of our business. And it is - I suggest - pointless to speculate as to why a job is done in a particular way as that might draw attention to the subject from those who are looking around the internet with things a long way from railway modelling on their mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsOatcake Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Completely agree Stationmaster so back to the topic. Its booked for double spoons, but we'll see what happens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 I don't think these trains are any of our business and what goes in them and with them is certainly none of our business. Hmmm... Yes, let's bury our heads in the sand and let our government get on with "looking after" us... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mod2 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Hmmm... Yes, let's bury our heads in the sand and let our government get on with "looking after" us... Or alternatively: let's not get silly and political, and then we can still have a nice chat about railways, and not have to lock the thread. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted February 21, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 21, 2011 Spent nuclear fuel is absolutely not weapons grade! As I said earlier I am not entirely sure why MOD spent fuel deserves an escort but power station spent fuel doesn't. The enrichment level for power stations is different to weapons/propulsion - I worked with the stuff for 10 years, beyond that I'm not prepared to say. As mod2 says, back to the trains, not the contents Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon_Eng Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Ammunition has always been carried by the railways and has never had any special consideration, as ammo isn't seen as dangerous weapons grade nuclear fuel. Ammo is a lot less dangerous than nuclear material. After all, ammo needs specialised equipment - i.e. guns - to be of any use; also nuclear material can be misused in two ways (nuclear bomb or "dirty bomb"(conventional used to scatter radioactive material)). Ammo doesn't come close in comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
corax67 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 That "steering wheel" is almost certainly the handbrake wheel on the rear bulkhead. Neat angle to give that view though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.