Class 800 - Updates

[Gwiwer]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

Not only more prevalent but seemingly more incompatible. From what contact I had with these systems during the course of various platform lengthening projects, it seems that every train builder has their own solution to the problem and none of them are compatible with each other. Not only that, but when it comes to updates, the train operator is at the mercy of the carbuilder when it comes to doing and paying for the update.

in a sensible world, you would have thought that the railway industry, led by the infrastructure operator, could have come up with, if not a standard system, at least a common communications protocol that would allow any trainborne equipment to communicate with any trackside equipment.

 

Jim

That is precisely why RCH standards were maintained. I gather those have been thrown out with the bath-water and are as redundant as many knowledgable and seasoned former staff.

 

Which, thanks to the interference of DfT, is why we have the shambolic mess nationwide that we do. 

 

Hands up those who preferred a simple buckeye-and-two-hoses to couple almost anything anywhere. 

[billbedford]

6 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Hands up those who preferred a simple buckeye-and-two-hoses to couple almost anything anywhere. 

 

Hands up all those who would prefer to use the penny post rather than e-mail

[Joseph_Pestell]

14 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Hands up all those who would prefer to use the penny post rather than e-mail

 

Not me. Even if it did cost a penny rather than 13 bob. It just takes too long to get there - if it does.

[jim.snowdon]

17 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

That is precisely why RCH standards were maintained. I gather those have been thrown out with the bath-water and are as redundant as many knowledgable and seasoned former staff.

 

Which, thanks to the interference of DfT, is why we have the shambolic mess nationwide that we do. 

 

Hands up those who preferred a simple buckeye-and-two-hoses to couple almost anything anywhere. 

Whether it is down to the DfT or not, remembering that the moves away from standard drawgear started before privatisation, is probably a debateable point.

 

What it is donw to is a singular failure on the railway industry, including the RSSB, to demonstrate leadership and understanding that the railway is a system, not a collection of trains running independently. Trains do fail, however much effort the engineers put into their reliability, and it is the extended delays that occur because the failed train cannot easily be rescued that make the headlines in the Press and give the railways a bad name. The fact that the nearest train to effect a rescue may belong to another operator does not help by introducing commercial constraints.

 

Jim

[Godfrey Glyn]

In this week's edition of Railway Herald there is a nice photograph of 802101 leaving Honiton and travelling eastwards.

 

all the best

 

Godfrey

[Afroal05]

22 hours ago, Zomboid said:

With the current diversions in place on the Exeter route, how do they handle stations that they won't usually call at like Yeovil Junction & Honiton? Those won't have 10 x 26m platforms, so are they entirely manual SDO, or does the train have those in its database?

 

According to the briefing document about the diversions there are SDO patterns in the 80X database for stations on the route with the exception of St. James' Park, Feniton and Yeovil Pen Mill and special stop orders may be issued as required for all other stations. However GWR are dissuaded from doing so due to the reactionary delays this will cause!

 

There are a variety of specific instructions for stations/loops along the route as well, no surprise there.

 

As a result, and partly because the unit diagrammers are quite keen on their HSTs, during the week the first and last services are planned 80X but the rest are HST and 10 car formations are kept to a minimum.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Afroal05
Sleep deprived typos.

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

That is precisely why RCH standards were maintained. I gather those have been thrown out with the bath-water and are as redundant as many knowledgable and seasoned former staff.

 

Which, thanks to the interference of DfT, is why we have the shambolic mess nationwide that we do. 

 

Hands up those who preferred a simple buckeye-and-two-hoses to couple almost anything anywhere. 

I don't know about buckeye and two hoses to couple but screw coupling shackle and two hoses was not fun - dirty and heavy work with some dangers to those carrying it out.   And as long as the hoses were still there to be manually coupled using a buckeye might have saved a bit of work but the dirty and dangerous part was still there - and it needed to be done away with if at all possible.  Incidentally the Railway Clearing House ceased to exist over 50 years ago and in any case in a number of areas not all Companies complied at all times with all RCH standards although coupling compatibility was not in that category even if brake incompatibility was).

 

As for incompatible coupling systems I don't think privy-tisation has made much difference apart from taking advantage of better technology becoming available as new designs emerge.  BR was well into incompatible couplings on passenger vehicles long before privatisation landed on our plates - it was hardly 'fun' trying to couple an HST (or rather the majority of them) to a loco but if you didn't like that just try coupling an HST to a 15X series unit.  

 

Regrettably coupling incompatibility is likely to happen as new, and hopefully better, technologies and equipment emerge while the old stuff is still in use.  But at least - thanks to Group Standards and various adaptors - a degree of 'rescue' compatibility is possible in many cases.

Edited February 22, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Didn't the GWR (different as ever.....) not have the "Pullman"-style gangways of the other Big Four companies? And did they also have a different vacuum pressure?

[The Stationmaster]

17 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Didn't the GWR (different as ever.....) not have the "Pullman"-style gangways of the other Big Four companies? And did they also have a different vacuum pressure?

The LMS didn't use Pullman gangways either but it did use the 'normal' level of vacuum.  The GWR devised the Instanter coupling to avoid the need for staff to go in between vehicles to shorten couplings - it was adopted nationwide eventually.  Numerous examples existed of differences in Rules & Regulations between the Big Four (even more so in Pre-Group days) not withstanding the fact that officially all Rules and Regulations were standardised by the RCH - generally the differences in, for example, Signalling Regulations were finally eliminated in 1972 but one GWR Signalling Regulation, never used by anybody else, was I believe still in use last year albeit nowadays it is only found in certain Signalbox Special Instructions.

[Steadfast]

Buckeyes without buffers are a dream. Quick in and out to pipe up, only awkward thing is reaching over the buckeye for the tap on the main Res pipe on the far side for those of us on the shorter end of the spectrum. 

Buckeyes and buffers are a pain. Very constricted space to work in.

Still, at least our locos and wagons don't have white spatter all over the couplings!

 

Jo

[Oldddudders]

3 minutes ago, Steadfast said:

Buckeyes and buffers are a pain. Very constricted space to work in.

Now add in corridor connectors and you have a very unholy trinity! If the pipes between units are on the platform side, all well and good, but otherwise the shunter will have to be in the 6’ way to separate the pipes, which is less than fun on a live railway, let alone one that has conductor rail there - after all, it wouldn’t normally be platform side. 

 

As far as “better than buckeye” couplers are concerned, I think the Southern’s PEP units were among the first, using Scharfenburg kit. [Anecdotal trivia, not supported by any facts here : These units should have been PER, having electro-rheostatic braking, rather than PEP, implying electro-pneumatic. The story goes that the bullish GM of the day called them PEP at the press launch, and the whole manual had to be reprinted!]

 

I think it was an early Cl 455 test-run where some failure occurred, and one unit ran round the other to continue. On arrival back at Waterloo a Rules Section jobsworth was on the platform hopping up and down, and waving the special instruction booklet to my colleague, who was in charge of the trip. “It says in here you must not run round - have you read this?” “Yes”, replied Colin “I wrote it!”

[Mark Saunders]

13 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

 

I think it was an early Cl 455 test-run where some failure occurred, and one unit ran round the other to continue. On arrival back at Waterloo a Rules Section jobsworth was on the platform hopping up and down, and waving the special instruction booklet to my colleague, who was in charge of the trip. “It says in here you must not run round - have you read this?” “Yes”, replied Colin “I wrote it!”

 

That has always been a problem with Practical Railwaymen, if the book says no or makes no reference  then it can't be done!

[Oldddudders]

5 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

That has always been a problem with Practical Railwaymen, if the book says no or makes no reference  then it can't be done!

I think my last boss - younger than me but I think already deceased - had in his yoof taken unilateral action to overcome grim weather somewhere in Anglia, running a light loco, maybe w snowplough, up a line closed on Sundays. He was lauded at senior level for his initiative and efforts, and the gleeful individual who had produced an impressive list of rules and regs that Richard had flouted or broken was quietly told to shove it.   

[Mark Saunders]

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

I think my last boss - younger than me but I think already deceased - had in his yoof taken unilateral action to overcome grim weather somewhere in Anglia, running a light loco, maybe w snowplough, up a line closed on Sundays. He was lauded at senior level for his initiative and efforts, and the gleeful individual who had produced an impressive list of rules and regs that Richard had flouted or broken was quietly told to shove it.   

 

You can always tell when you are right as after the event there is a deafening silence!

[nightstar.train]

12 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Regrettably coupling incompatibility is likely to happen as new, and hopefully better, technologies and equipment emerge while the old stuff is still in use.  But at least - thanks to Group Standards and various adaptors - a degree of 'rescue' compatibility is possible in many cases.

 

But it could have been so easily be standardised, if that was a requirement laid out in regulations. Nearly all new stock in the UK uses Dellner couplings, BUT they’re at six (!!) different heights. If there was a regulation specifying that all  Dellner couplings had to be at the same height then all trains would be able to couple together. Okay they maybe couldn’t multi together, that’s a step to far, but they could at least mechanically couple and work the brakes to rescue each other. Too late now though, the horse has bolted and is two counties over. 

 

Intrestingly the new class 93 on order for ROG will have drop down Dellner couplings with automatic height adjustment, so it can easily couple to anything. 

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, nightstar.train said:

 

But it could have been so easily be standardised, if that was a requirement laid out in regulations. Nearly all new stock in the UK uses Dellner couplings, BUT they’re at six (!!) different heights. If there was a regulation specifying that all  Dellner couplings had to be at the same height then all trains would be able to couple together. Okay they maybe couldn’t multi together, that’s a step to far, but they could at least mechanically couple and work the brakes to rescue each other. Too late now though, the horse has bolted and is two counties over. 

 

Intrestingly the new class 93 on order for ROG will have drop down Dellner couplings with automatic height adjustment, so it can easily couple to anything. 

The TSI requires that all trains have to have or be capable of having (but not necessarily carrying) and adaptor for rescue purposes.  This immediately refers to 'a rescue loco' but the critical point is that an adaptor has to be available for rescue. 

[Coryton]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

The TSI requires that all trains have to have or be capable of having (but not necessarily carrying) and adaptor for rescue purposes.  This immediately refers to 'a rescue loco' but the critical point is that an adaptor has to be available for rescue. 

 

I'd be interested in an informed view as to how good a reason there is for having different coupler heights. And, I suppose, whether putting all the Dellners at the same height would actually achieve anything.

[Gwiwer]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The TSI requires that all trains have to have or be capable of having (but not necessarily carrying) and adaptor for rescue purposes.  This immediately refers to 'a rescue loco' but the critical point is that an adaptor has to be available for rescue. 

Locomotive?  What is this thing you call a locomotive?  

 

Time was when they could be found singly or collectively at any major location and a good many minor ones too. Not only that but with stand-by crews who signed class and road. Rescue was seldom more than an hour or two away. 

 

Today you can travel the length of the country and not find a locomotive.  Nothing near Paddington for example, maybe a 57 at Reading shunting the sleeper stock and nothing then for 309 miles until the 57s classmate is reached at Long Rock. True there might be a 66 here or there but usually working a train or, in the case of Freighiner, parked at Taunton for the week between engineering jobs with no driver in sight. 

 

The railway is apparently more efficient and profitable than it was when there were loco depots and spare crews. But if something sits down on the main line it can disrupt the greater part of (in this case) GWRs service for the remainder of the day. 

 

On a brighter note I shall be making a round trip to Penzance this coming Friday (down) and Saturday (up) hopefully on HSTs  all the way as this is intended to be my personal farewell to the type on GWR main line service. I scored a lucky trip up from Cardiff to Paddington recently quite by chance which served as a farewell on the South Wales and Billiard Table route. Fingers crossed that at least one of my two trains produces its booked HST to / from Cornwall. 

[caradoc]

There are normally some class 66 locos, and the odd 59, hanging around at Acton Yard.

 

[The Stationmaster]

18 hours ago, Coryton said:

 

I'd be interested in an informed view as to how good a reason there is for having different coupler heights. And, I suppose, whether putting all the Dellners at the same height would actually achieve anything.

The possible standardisation of couplers was examined a couple of years ago and there is a copy of the paper that resulted lurking somewhere on the 'net.

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

Locomotive?  What is this thing you call a locomotive?  

 

Time was when they could be found singly or collectively at any major location and a good many minor ones too. Not only that but with stand-by crews who signed class and road. Rescue was seldom more than an hour or two away. 

 

Today you can travel the length of the country and not find a locomotive.  Nothing near Paddington for example, maybe a 57 at Reading shunting the sleeper stock and nothing then for 309 miles until the 57s classmate is reached at Long Rock. True there might be a 66 here or there but usually working a train or, in the case of Freighiner, parked at Taunton for the week between engineering jobs with no driver in sight. 

 

The railway is apparently more efficient and profitable than it was when there were loco depots and spare crews. But if something sits down on the main line it can disrupt the greater part of (in this case) GWRs service for the remainder of the day. 

 

On a brighter note I shall be making a round trip to Penzance this coming Friday (down) and Saturday (up) hopefully on HSTs  all the way as this is intended to be my personal farewell to the type on GWR main line service. I scored a lucky trip up from Cardiff to Paddington recently quite by chance which served as a farewell on the South Wales and Billiard Table route. Fingers crossed that at least one of my two trains produces its booked HST to / from Cornwall. 

There are at least two 57s at Reading during the day, various locos at Acton in varying numbers during the day, similarly various locos in varying numbers at Westbury during the day and night and again at Exeter depending on infrastructure work.  But very definitely far fewer than there used to be - back in my time there we could normally reckon on at least half a dozen Type 4s at Westbury during the day and over a dozen on Saturdays.

 

As for spare men at depots yes - most operators have either cut them out completely or reduced them to a bare minimum - but that is really d no more than we were already doing on BR back in the late 1980s/'90s because of the huge cost of keeping them.  equally we also moved work to concentrate freight and infrastructure work at particular depots so loco knowledge was effectively concentrated as well as concentrating the locos.  Simple reason - it really was far more efficient and as far as the freight business was concerned it undoubtedly helped save some traffic flows which would otherwise have been dumped accompanied by real redundancies and people thrown out of work.  One reason spares were cut back post privatisation was that the savings were shared with the Drivers who remained in terms of better salaries and conditions of employment while those who left under redundancy were those who wanted to go - the changes worked two ways and ASLE&F did a generally good job for its members in the process. 

 

I suspect the TSI refers to locos because they are considered a most likely source of providing assistance but trains could of course also be used when couplings are absolutely compatible.

[Afroal05]

On 23/02/2019 at 16:51, The Stationmaster said:

The TSI requires that all trains have to have or be capable of having (but not necessarily carrying) and adaptor for rescue purposes.  This immediately refers to 'a rescue loco' but the critical point is that an adaptor has to be available for rescue. 

 

Each 80X has two adaptors on board, one in a cubicle in the DPTS and another in a cubicle in the DPTF, so you know you always have one in the leading vehicle of your train. 

[caradoc]

As Stationmaster says, as well as a loco (to rescue a stranded train) a Driver with suitable time left in their shift, and hopefully the necessary route knowledge, is of course required. The latter can be a problem when, for example, an EMU becomes dewired on a route with few or no freight trains. In addition an adapter coupling will usually be required, sometimes this is best fitted, or indeed can only be fitted, at a depot. So a loco, Driver, route conductor for the affected line, and possibly also the depot (this may or may not be the same person), an adapter coupling (and staff to fit same) have to be arranged. On one occasion, having done all this, the TOC providing the rescue loco then changed their minds and refused to allow it to be used because their Driver was not passed out in 'Traction Handling' ! So back to square one.

[Mallard60022]

On ‎23‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 23:46, Gwiwer said:

Locomotive?  What is this thing you call a locomotive?  

 

Time was when they could be found singly or collectively at any major location and a good many minor ones too. Not only that but with stand-by crews who signed class and road. Rescue was seldom more than an hour or two away. 

 

Today you can travel the length of the country and not find a locomotive.  Nothing near Paddington for example, maybe a 57 at Reading shunting the sleeper stock and nothing then for 309 miles until the 57s classmate is reached at Long Rock. True there might be a 66 here or there but usually working a train or, in the case of Freighiner, parked at Taunton for the week between engineering jobs with no driver in sight. 

 

The railway is apparently more efficient and profitable than it was when there were loco depots and spare crews. But if something sits down on the main line it can disrupt the greater part of (in this case) GWRs service for the remainder of the day. 

 

On a brighter note I shall be making a round trip to Penzance this coming Friday (down) and Saturday (up) hopefully on HSTs  all the way as this is intended to be my personal farewell to the type on GWR main line service. I scored a lucky trip up from Cardiff to Paddington recently quite by chance which served as a farewell on the South Wales and Billiard Table route. Fingers crossed that at least one of my two trains produces its booked HST to / from Cornwall. 

I understand we are talking the WR here however there are locomotives scattered about the ECML and districts; quite a collection around Peterborough, Donny and York. I think that is about it though other than Leeds?

[AMJ]

Leeds for the rescue locos might be either covered by the one at Donny but I'd probably think that Freightliner might be able to rescue trains fairly quickly.

 

The last time I was in both Newcastle and Edinburgh there were locos possibly  on standby.