Steve O. Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Unrelated to the original incident but... That photograph has the content and coloring of a Hornby advert. I expect to see a green class 29 pushing a single Consett hopper up an incline, then a 125 zooming past a crimson Fowler 2-6-4T with private owner wagons and a bogie oil tanker. Cheers, Steve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted May 14, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 14, 2014 Both are correct and Boris summed it up nicely Dr Purnell my physics teacher would have me remind you Gravity = potential energy Momentum = kinetic energy O level physics - MxGxH=1/2 x M x V x V M = mass G = Gravity H = Height V = velocity Energy losses due to friction and air resistance apply of course. And have to echo JeffPs sentiments too Phil Very good Phil, but you've omitted inertia. Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mallard60022 Posted May 14, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 14, 2014 9/10 then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted May 14, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 14, 2014 9/10 then? No, he's 10/10 because of his layout! Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold pheaton Posted May 14, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 14, 2014 Very good Phil, but you've omitted inertia. Mike. That and leaving the master switch in the "off" position Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted May 14, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 14, 2014 Hi, In theory no great loss, but it could be indirectly. I believe the loco is used as a source of spare parts for the 97/3's for Network Rail. If some parts are damaged or the whole thing scrapped, it could mean the issue of finding 37 spares could become even more pressing, which could result in Network Rail being tight for locos fitted with ERTMS to work engineering trains over the Cambrian, thus effecting the line. Small accidents like this can have bigger consequences down the line in the future... Simon IIRC there was an article recently regarding how engineers have over the years (as is the case with much in electronics) been able to successfully slim down the ERTMS kit from something the size of a full height double width filing cabinet to something resembling a smallish two draw single width unit - and results on making the thing even smaller are promising. The upshot of all this being that within the industry people are beginning to see that a "portable" ERTMS unit is not as imposable as was once thought, which means that in a couple of years time we could well see the need for dedicated "ERTMS fitted" diesel end. It also holds out the possibility that steam could also return, although there may still be a power supply issue - however small it gets ERTMS is going to need a higher capacity and significantly more advanced power supply than the old battery powered RETB kit and with a diesel loco you are carting round a pretty robust source of electrical power. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Flashheart Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 No loss - its only a 37 - plenty more to go. (still, glad no one was hurt) Regarding the first line of the above post, what a totally stupid thing to say weather you like 37s or not it along with the TPO is still someone's property and is now seriously damaged. I also find it incredible that various people have clicked funny and like to it, I fail to see what's funny or likeable about comments like that at a situation that could have been much worse, thankfully it wasn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 what a totally stupid thing to say weather you like 37sAh well, a bit of a storm in a teacup, or so it seems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I thought it was momentum I said that because at the time there was uncertainty about whether it was a runaway or a shunting move gone wrong, either way momentum would cover it I've not actually seen it confirmed either way, but I'm getting the impression runaway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted May 15, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 15, 2014 Regarding the first line of the above post, what a totally stupid thing to say weather you like 37s or not it along with the TPO is still someone's property and is now seriously damaged. I also find it incredible that various people have clicked funny and like to it, I fail to see what's funny or likeable about comments like that at a situation that could have been much worse, thankfully it wasn't. Because it was tongue in cheek Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Ah well, a bit of a storm in a teacup, or so it seems. Wormsmithing elegantly done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Wormsmithing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Wormsmithing? wormsmithing, verb. To make an ironic retort at the expense of another's speeling error. See also 'as any fule kno' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiderHead Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 wormsmithing, verb. To make an ironic retort at the expense of another's speeling error. Outstanding! I now have a new word of the month Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classsix T Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I echo Mike's sentiments that this is exactly what is not needed right now and am additionally incredulous that this incident comes so soon on the same railway already under scrutiny for past incidents. I HAVE to believe though that a modicum of common sense exists and the loco was scotched so my thoughts are perhaps the scotches were removed, which doesn't avoid the fact that perhaps the safest place to stable said loco would have been buffered up to the stock it collided with in the first place, with screw link chucked over to boot. Benefit of hindsight and all that... C6T. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 From memory the working instructions for EE locos was apply the handbrake at both ends on a 37 and Deltic; the class 40 also needed scotches. I pseak from personal experience that a class 40 handbrake applied one end only will NOT hold the loco on a slight grade whereas a Deltic one will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
avonside1563 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I echo Mike's sentiments that this is exactly what is not needed right now and am additionally incredulous that this incident comes so soon on the same railway already under scrutiny for past incidents. I HAVE to believe though that a modicum of common sense exists and the loco was scotched so my thoughts are perhaps the scotches were removed, which doesn't avoid the fact that perhaps the safest place to stable said loco would have been buffered up to the stock it collided with in the first place, with screw link chucked over to boot. Benefit of hindsight and all that... C6T. The loco was stabled at Quorn and the stock just outside Loughborough so that would have to be one hell of a long screw link to couple those together! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Hello all, it has now been reported (below) that the indecent was during a shunting move. http://www.westernthunder.co.uk/index.php?threads/another-incident-at-the-great-central.3559/page-2#post-93780 OzzyO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 It doesn't quite say that, it says The locomotive (which had been involved in shunting) The shunt may have been finished, the shunt may have been in Quorn, there's just not enough information to say it was actually during a shunting move, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 That is the latest that I have and I will agree that the wording is ambiguous. So looking at that, that is all we are likely to get for the moment. If the shunt move was at Quorn and the indecent at Loughborough how far apart are they? I did ask this before but I don't think that I got an answer to it. OzzyO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
avonside1563 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Quoted elsewhere the distance between Quorn station and Loughborough station is 2 miles 3 chains. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catkins Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 If it was a runaway - pure speculation on my part by the way - that is a heck of a long way to roll without anybody noticing, or being able to do anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted May 16, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 16, 2014 If it was a runaway - pure speculation on my part by the way - that is a heck of a long way to roll without anybody noticing, or being able to do anything. Not sure you can do a lot if the thing starts rolling...I'm not going to volunteer to try and jump on it.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 If it rolled that distance, it could end up at quite a speed. Who on earth would be daft enough to try to run to stop it? To give you some idea of inertia, on the Portsmouth Direct line, leave Haslemere on the up with a 8VEP/etc., shut off at 45mph by the overbridge about a mile from the station (just at the top of the bank). Do not apply power at all. The train will roll at up to 90mph beyond Witley, brake for the 60 at Godalming and Farncombe, and the train will still roll into Guildford. That is a lot of inertia. I know, I've done it and was shown that by one the older generation of drivers back in 1981. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 16, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 16, 2014 There is informed comment that the Class 37 involved was known 'to have brake defects' although it is not yet entirely clear what that means. Incidentally we never had any trouble at all with Class 37 handbrakes when i was in South Wales or in the West of England, we did however have a number of incidents where they encountered 'braking difficulties' when running (and supposedly stopping) although in most cases they were down to 'finger trouble'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.