CAF to build new LHCS for Caledonian Sleeper

[The Stationmaster]

16 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

Similar arguments apply to Governments and Political Parties!

 

The number of people who attend branch meetings allow minorities to hold sway!

 

Mark Saunders

You should try an annual conference - you ain't seen nothing until you go to one of them!

[87023Velocity]

On 25/06/2019 at 20:58, 298 said:

 

There's "teething troubles", then there's stock that has been designed with a switch to tell it which way it is going but can't handle an ABS situation where all axles are locked up....

The wheel slide protection system WSP (ABS) could not work because the train had become powered down (i.e. electrically dead), so no wsp or anything for that matter. 

 

The wsp control system on the mk5 sleeper and mk5a is a proven system, its in use on the class 390 for example along with lots of other applications (retrofitted to half the class 153 fleet, some of the class 156 fleet and now being fitted to class 150/2). 

 

 

 

 

Simon

[phil-b259]

12 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

I'm 100% in favour of union protection where necessary or useful, but I do not believe that TU's need to be attached to, or be associated with left, right or any wing of political dogma.

 

It's only right that the union takes up the concerns of the front line staff, but it's pretty obvious that this particular union leadership are more driven by their political motives and are using staff concerns and issues as a convenient vehicle to further their personal causes.

Think Mick Cash is bad?

There appear to be more radical candidates pitching to replace him in the coming re-elections.

 

 

.

 

Indeed, ever since the late Bob Crow died in office then the election of RMT General secretary all candidates have basically been campaigning on the basis that they are even more militant / awkward / socialist than Bob was.

 

10 hours ago, caradoc said:

I would be surprised if every member of the RMT agrees with Rule 1 Section 4 part (b) (or indeed even knows it exists). 

 

 

Let me state quite publicly on here I am both (i) a member of the  RMT union and (ii) I totally disagree with that entry in the RMT rulebook.

 

A trade union is NOT A POLITICAL PARTY and neither should it have the arrogance to claim it should be directing Government policy.

 

The business of Government is decided by the wider population through General elections - the job of the trade union is to work with the framework the Government set up  (however sub optimal it may be to the Union) to protect the interests of members and nothing else.

Edited June 26, 2019 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

You should try an annual conference - you ain't seen nothing until you go to one of them!

 

What and listen to a room full of Bob Crow wannabes prattle on about how to achieve a socialist utopia? - No way!

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

What and listen to a room full of Bob Crow wannabes prattle on about how to achieve a socialist utopia? - No way!

It didn't used to be quite that bad in teh TSSA - but it was still a load of political wannabes - very depressing.   I did have a bit if fun one occasion at a branch meeting discussing 'motions for conference' when I suggested we should put forward one condemning a then upcoming NUM strike for the negative impact it would have on employment in the railway industry.  For some peculiar reason it was not adopted - none but the blind when behaving like lemmings.

[Wild Boar Fell]

13 hours ago, 87023Velocity said:

The wheel slide protection system WSP (ABS) could not work because the train had become powered down (i.e. electrically dead), so no wsp or anything for that matter. 

 

The wsp control system on the mk5 sleeper and mk5a is a proven system, its in use on the class 390 for example along with lots of other applications (retrofitted to half the class 153 fleet, some of the class 156 fleet and now being fitted to class 150/2). 

 

 

 

 

Simon

 

WSP is fitted to a lot of fleets, especially all new builds. But the system fitted to the Mk5/ Mk5as is not the same as that fitted to the 390s, they are several (engineering) generations apart. But a proven system nonetheless.

 

HTH

[87023Velocity]

10 hours ago, Wild Boar Fell said:

 

WSP is fitted to a lot of fleets, especially all new builds. But the system fitted to the Mk5/ Mk5as is not the same as that fitted to the 390s, they are several (engineering) generations apart. But a proven system nonetheless.

 

HTH

Hi Wild Boar Fell,

 

The particular type of wsp used in the Mk5/5a, class 390, class 156 amongst others, is from the same engineering design/generation. Granted depending on project (battery voltage of vehicle, communication with Train Management systems), some systems may have different cards fitted but that is related to project not a new generation of  system . The class 15x fitments for example don't have a card to communicate with TMS as there is none on a class 156. Hence my comment about a proven system on those fleets quoted.

 

Cheers

 

Simon

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by 87023Velocity

[keefer]

More woes: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48812707

[SouthernMafia]

Quite a serious incident this morning as 1B26 had a brake failure on the approach to Haymarket and could not stop, despite Driver and Guards best efforts. Signaller routed train through Waverley and train eventually came to a stand in tunnel outside Waverley. 

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, SouthernMafia said:

Quite a serious incident this morning as 1B26 had a brake failure on the approach to Haymarket and could not stop, despite Driver and Guards best efforts. Signaller routed train through Waverley and train eventually came to a stand in tunnel outside Waverley. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-49191029

[caradoc]

The BBC report states 'The train's operator, Serco, said early indications were that there were no technical problems', this however is disputed by the TSSA. Either way, this is absolutely the last thing the already-troubled stock replacement programme requires.

 

 

[Bucoops]

How in this day and age can a train have a failure mode that results in no braking

[caradoc]

Presumably the brakes did apply eventually to stop the train, as the gradient out of the east end of the Waverley is downhill; There have been (at least) two light locos run away from Waverley east end, one of which collided with a Down HST.

[Talltim]

I’ve read that it stopped purely on the loco brake

[Davexoc]

Looks like something went amiss at Carstairs when it split. According to RTT it arrived early and the Glasgow portion went on to arrive just 1 late.

The Edinburgh portion was 19 late leaving Carstairs, and arrived 9 late into Edinburgh, or was it 9 lat passing through?

 

[jim.snowdon]

4 hours ago, Bucoops said:

How in this day and age can a train have a failure mode that results in no braking

A question to which I suspect the RAIB will be wanting to find an answer.

 

Jim

[Ian Hargrave]

The report in The Scotsman quotes a source that the incident was caused by failure to reset the system after the sleeper divided at Carstairs....i.e.in as many words human error.

 

Whichever way.....design/construction/equipment failure or the human factor...….it leaves an uneasy feeling.One question needs addressing and that is...is this equipment too complex perhaps for the human factor at this particular moment in time ?

[Bucoops]

If part of the procedure was missed, the system should not allow movement until it is done, surely? Agreed, it's not good.

[Zomboid]

It probably took more than just one thing to go awry for this kind of situation to occur. I'm sure the RAIB will get to the bottom of it, and if anything needs to change then that'll happen.

[Ken.W]

2 hours ago, Bucoops said:

If part of the procedure was missed, the system should not allow movement until it is done, surely? Agreed, it's not good.

 

Exactly

 

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

It probably took more than just one thing to go awry for this kind of situation to occur. I'm sure the RAIB will get to the bottom of it, and if anything needs to change then that'll happen.

 

IIUI, it's been a legal requirement, since the Armagh tragidy of 1889 that passenger train braking systems must be fail safe. Therefore any failure in the system should have left the brakes applied, not the train with no brakes. How are these things allowed on the system with such equipment?

[Ken.W]

Hmm, where to start here.

Well yesterday with a group of 3 friends, I was traveling on the 'Aberdonian' railtour from Edinburgh - Aberdeen and back hauled by Tornado. Due to lack of a connection back home afterwards, I'd driven to Tweedbank to get a train in from there.

 

Approaching Waverley, we were stopped briefly at Abbeyhill Jnc (the other end of Calton tunnels), before getting the road in and crossing from the Down, over the Up, and. through the North tunnel into platform 2. We'd just alighted onto the platform when we saw the 92 hauled sleepers going out through platform 7 and through the South tunnel.

Thought it was the ecs going out at the time, but one of my friends thought there was passengers on board.

 

After going for breakfast we returned and the sleeper was still standing in the South tunnel with the rear just visible outside, and we the heard what had happened, it running away through the station unable to stop. As it had all movements at the east end stopped it must have been far enough through to block Abbeyhill Jnc.

So, our 170 from Tweedbank had been within about 2 or 3 minutes of having been crossing over Abeyhill Jnc to the North tunnel in front of the 92 of the sleeper coming through the South tunnel.

#*@$*^# scary!!!

 

[DY444]

56 minutes ago, Ken.W said:

 

Exactly

 

 

IIUI, it's been a legal requirement, since the Armagh tragidy of 1889 that passenger train braking systems must be fail safe. Therefore any failure in the system should have left the brakes applied, not the train with no brakes. How are these things allowed on the system with such equipment?

 

No such thing as a train brake which is 100% fail safe.  I can think of plenty of incidents where the auto brake didn't work properly whether through staff errors, brake pipe cocks closing by being struck by things whilst a train is moving, air depletion, icing of brake pipes, electrical faults etc.  The equipment and rule book evolved accordingly as it always has after incidents but any system which in part relies on humans following rules cannot be 100% fail safe as sooner or later someone is going to make a mistake.   

[TravisM]

When I was on the railways, we were taught that the braking system was designed to “fail safe” in normal operating conditions.  There are obvious exceptions to this, the Penzance-Paddington sleeper in 1983 comes to mind where nature, human error or just bad luck can cause serious repercussions.

[The Stationmaster]

7 hours ago, Bucoops said:

If part of the procedure was missed, the system should not allow movement until it is done, surely? Agreed, it's not good.

I can see exactly how it could happen BUT it needs at least two people, and probably a third, not doing what they are supposed to do for that to happen.  There might be another explanation but whatever occurred I trust that the RAIB will get to the bottom of it and if we hear of some sort of urgent advisory to all operators from them it might give a clue - one way or the other - about what they are investigating more deeply.

 

Incidentally i remain concerned about low level placement of what apperas to be valves on air pipes on this stock as discussed earlier in this thread.  (I am not implying a connection, just a concern about the way certain components are arranged).

Edited August 2, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[jim.snowdon]

6 hours ago, Ken.W said:

 

Exactly

 

 

IIUI, it's been a legal requirement, since the Armagh tragidy of 1889 that passenger train braking systems must be fail safe. Therefore any failure in the system should have left the brakes applied, not the train with no brakes. How are these things allowed on the system with such equipment?

The actual requirements of the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act in respect of brakes are:-

 

and use on all their trains carrying passengers continuous brakes complying with the following requirements, namely:—

(i)The brake must be instantaneous in action, and capable of being applied by the engine-driver and guards;

(ii)The brake must be self-applying in the event of any failure in the continuity of its action;

(iii)The brake must be capable of being applied to every vehicle of the train, whether carrying passengers or not;

(iv)The brake must be in regular use in daily working;

(v)The materials of the brake must be of a durable character, and easily maintained and kept in order.

 

 The key requirement is that the brake must self applying in the event of a failure of the continuity of its action, ie in the event of the train becoming divided. The automatic air brake is not fail safe at a detail level but it does satisfy the requirements of the Act as a system provided that it is used as designed.

 

Jim