Level crossing stupidity...

[railsquid]

On 21/08/2019 at 22:15, Hobby said:

http://www.ukroads.org/webfiles/highway_legislation_for_tramcars_technical_guidance_note4.pdf

 

Love the fact they've used a picture of a Continental tram as the header photo! (Somewhere in Germany by the look of it)

 

A bit late to the party but that's a Berlin tram (refurbished Tatra) on the former east Berlin network.

 

https://moovitapp.com/index/de/ÖPNV-line-62-BerlinBrandenburg-1663-852203-581778-0

[Wickham Green]

On 26/10/2019 at 04:57, PatB said:

D*£&#ead on a Chinese mini bike by the looks of it. Lots of them over here too. Very common immediately after Christmas, then steadily reducing in numbers over the year as the machinery succumbs to poor build quality, 14 year old mechanical sympathy, lack of maintenance and dodgy "performance" modifications. 

................. and getting crushed under Javelins I'd guess.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Wickham Green

[Colin_McLeod]

 

[Fat Controller]

27 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

A friend's father used to work on the Swansea Dock system. He got fed up of people stopping the job by parking too close to the track, and decided to teach them a lesson. He saw a 'Gane' bogie bolster, probably the longest wagon in daily use, and coupled it into the train he was transferring from one end of the system to the other. The overhang on the many curves caused the Gane to swipe many vehicles, hopefully deterring them from careless parking in the future.

[melmerby]

Now I know what WTF in Russian is

[PhilJ W]

Alas no more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raptWPQbkMg

But only by 8".

 

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

Alas no more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raptWPQbkMg

But only by 8".

 

Did they just make the bridge support structure 8” higher or actually raise the bridge?

 

Cannot believe they’d raise a bridge rather than dig the road slightly deeper.......surely less “engineering” involved.

 

Edit : oops, now watched the video  yes just made the bridge “more compatible” with road traffic.......now we can have the videos titled 12’4” bridge collapses ’

Edited October 30, 2019 by boxbrownie

[TheQ]

probably mains water sewers etc under the road..

[boxbrownie]

38 minutes ago, TheQ said:

probably mains water sewers etc under the road..

Harder than raising the track maybe a half mile each side (or maybe just a quarter mile) each side of the bridge?

 

Railways hate inclines.....

[admiles]

I'd imagine the US builders of commercial vehicle bodies are not going to be happy....

[talisman56]

The commentary on one video said they are raising the 11'8" bridge to the 'same grade' as the neighbouring level crossing, so presumably it means they are levelling out the rail line, with a slightly steeper bit the other side. They've got some scope for doing some road resurfacing now...

Edited October 30, 2019 by talisman56

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

Railways hate inclines.....

Modern railways rather less so than old ones. HS1 has gradients that would've been ridiculously severe for a main line a century ago (quite a few bits of 1:40).

Edited October 30, 2019 by Reorte

[talisman56]

6 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Modern railways rather less so than old ones. HS1 has gradients that would've been ridiculously severe for a main line a century ago (quite a few bits of 1:40).

 

The trains are going a bit faster so they have more momentum to get to the top of the steeper bits...

[Mark Saunders]

7 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Modern railways rather less so than old ones. HS1 has gradients that would've been ridiculously severe for a main line a century ago (quite a few bits of 1:40).

 

HS1 is a purpose built passenger railway, not for heavy freight. In comparison any freight that is on HS1 is high speed and low train weight!

[melmerby]

27 minutes ago, talisman56 said:

 

The trains are going a bit faster so they have more momentum to get to the top of the steeper bits...

And a lot more power e.g. the 16 car class 374s are no less than 21000hp.

Compare that to 7980hp for 11 car 390 or a 6480hp for a class 91 + 9 coaches

Edited October 30, 2019 by melmerby

[kevinlms]

16 minutes ago, melmerby said:

And a lot more power e.g. the 16 car class 374s are no less than 21000hp.

Compare that to 7980hp for 11 car 390 or a 6480hp for a class 91 + 9 coaches

Or 2580bhp for a bog standard, derated Class 47.

[Mark Saunders]

The horsepower thing does not was with me, timing loads are more important.

 

Then there is the difference between a class 33 & 37 both type 3 power designation but from memory totally different in the loads book.

 

Mark Saunders

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

 

 

Railways hate inclines.....

Sorry but I still stand by my statement, ANY railway construction would love to have a level grade from A to B......regardless of train weight, power, grip etc etc.

 

But then this is RMWeb 

[JDW]

36 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Sorry but I still stand by my statement, ANY railway construction would love to have a level grade from A to B......regardless of train weight, power, grip etc etc.

 

But then this is RMWeb 

 

Are you suggesting that people here are inclined to go down the slippery slope of spurious arguments which give rise to all sorts of theories and wibble?

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Mark Saunders said:

The horsepower thing does not was with me, timing loads are more important.

 

Then there is the difference between a class 33 & 37 both type 3 power designation but from memory totally different in the loads book.

 

Mark Saunders

So you are sayingthe 21000hp for the 374 doesn't mean anything. Codswallop.

[Reorte]

OK everyone, point taken!

[big jim]

On 26/10/2019 at 18:01, Mark Saunders said:

 

The colour of the bridge number plate shows ownership!

 

White Railway

Red Private

Blue Motorways

 

Mark Saunders

you learn something everyday!

 

I now have an answer for my trainees when they ask why the new footbridge east of Tamworth high level has a red plate (the only one I’ve ever seen!) 

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, JDW said:

 

Are you suggesting that people here are inclined to go down the slippery slope of spurious arguments which give rise to all sorts of theories and wibble?

I would have said that but prefer not to use rude words like wibble 

[JDW]

[SHMD]

(Early) Railways don't like inclines.

 

The incline out of Manchester Victoria, heading east, is 1 in 49 AND IS steep.

If you use this gradient as a minimum and that bridge is raised only 1 foot then you would need just 49 feet either side as minimum banks up and down to the new height. Ok, add a few more feet so that the transitions are smooth and avoid any "grounding" of vehicle underslung equipment, (and some more for smooth riding of the fastest trains), but you are not looking at half a mile each side of the bridge of banking rework.

 

 

Kev.