RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted April 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 3, 2016 I did wonder about the HST's nose being that damaged at such a low speed. Poor sods involved, even if it is an accident it still will be on someone's watch. The main thing is that no body lost their life. Kind regards, Nick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 The HST nose is just fibreglass with very little structural steelwork behind it so will crumple quite easily. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted April 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 3, 2016 I did wonder about the HST's nose being that damaged at such a low speed. It's only there to shove the air out of the way at high speed - the structural strength/crumple zone starts several inches inside. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted April 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 3, 2016 I'm sure SWT Could however send another 158 along, they need to find something for them to do... The one they hire IS the spare they aren't exactly lots sitting doing nothing. When we step up a unit when another fails it means speeding up a depot circuit or short forming another service to get another one out to replace it. The only ones you see in the depot at Salisbury during the day are the exam units and overnight outberthed ones back in for fuel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted April 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 3, 2016 Detrain? What happened to "alight"? Martin. Or even get off. Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Endacott Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Or even get off. Mike. Too rude. Geoff Endacott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted April 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 3, 2016 Yeah, but just remember while it's easy to go a bit off topic and joke. Someone has potentially messed up here and maybe watching this topic. It's seems on here that information is gladly taken from professional railwaymen but don't appreciate that they also maybe interested in the railway. I would suggest a protocol where incidents can be reported but then locked until the outcome of enquiries have been released. I'm not holding my breath though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Endacott Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Fair point. Geoff Endacott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Yeah, but just remember while it's easy to go a bit off topic and joke. Someone has potentially messed up here and maybe watching this topic. It's seems on here that information is gladly taken from professional railwaymen but don't appreciate that they also maybe interested in the railway. I would suggest a protocol where incidents can be reported but then locked until the outcome of enquiries have been released. I'm not holding my breath though I know the drivers (there were 2 on the 150), it is very unlikely they will be reading this thread! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted April 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 3, 2016 Well even so, other incidents that have been debated on here weren't so Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 3, 2016 I would suggest a protocol where incidents can be reported but then locked until the outcome of enquiries have been released. There is always someone who wants to make a post, and then prevent anyone else from doing so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted April 3, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 3, 2016 Low speed collisions can create a lot of damage considering the mass involved. Is permissive working allowed in that platform? I'm looking at it in relation to previous low speed collision damage to HST nose ends - one that collided with a Class 47 at Landore years ago hardly had the paint scratched - the diesel had to have a complete new cab, while one I saw hit a very solid (set in stone) stop block at very low speed suffered no visible damage at all although - as was standard procedure - the entire set had to be lifted. Overall the reinforced fibreglass nose ends on HSTs are very tough pieces of construction and will absorb a fair amount of low speed collision punishment with little to show for it. I wonder if the gangways on the other unit it caught it in a manner that hit weaker parts of the structure, or if it is just old age that has weakened it? (or maybe the impact was harder than 'low speed' suggests?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supaned Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 A bit naughty that the Realtime Trains screen grab shows 2E68 (Sprinter) as being cancelled with the delay code "TG" - which is a driver issue. Surely this should have been coded as an operating incident or joint enquiry? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 There is always someone who wants to make a post, and then prevent anyone else from doing so. Depends if they are providing factual information, or just posting to express unsupported speculation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted April 4, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 4, 2016 A bit naughty that the Realtime Trains screen grab shows 2E68 (Sprinter) as being cancelled with the delay code "TG" - which is a driver issue. Surely this should have been coded as an operating incident or joint enquiry? AFAIK the info on Realtime Trains derives directly from TRUST so what's in it won't be under their control. I no longer have access to TRUST but would think the incident is still "open" so it may be subject to amendment. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted April 4, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 4, 2016 Local newspaper report, with bosses saying it's extremely unusual. A very strange way to put it (and what the context was before the newspaper writer got hold of it, who knows), but something that the rail industry should be proud of, certainly would not want this to be the norm. http://www.cornishman.co.uk/Plymouth-train-crash-extremely-unusual/story-29047164-detail/story.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Depends if they are providing factual information, or just posting to express unsupported speculation. I don't think anyone here has expressed any unsupported speculation, and if they did it's likely to be "called out" as such pretty quickly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted April 4, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 4, 2016 AFAIK the info on Realtime Trains derives directly from TRUST so what's in it won't be under their control. I no longer have access to TRUST but would think the incident is still "open" so it may be subject to amendment. John Correct. On a similar system to RTT. 03/04/2016 11:39 Train Activated Train ID - 852E68MN03 03/04/2016 16:04 Cancelled at PLYMOUTH (15:50) due to DRIVER (Driver) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted April 4, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 4, 2016 I don't think anyone here has expressed any unsupported speculation, and if they did it's likely to be "called out" as such pretty quickly. I think LMS was making a general comment - we do have some who seem more interested in the term used to get off/detrain/exit/leave/evacuate/egress/jump off/step off/alight/aheavy a train though which is hardly relevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted April 4, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 4, 2016 Correct. On a similar system to RTT. 03/04/2016 11:39 Train Activated Train ID - 852E68MN03 03/04/2016 16:04 Cancelled at PLYMOUTH (15:50) due to DRIVER (Driver) From an operational viewpoint, the driver would immediately be relieved of duty following such an incident, so that is, strictly speaking, accurate. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted April 4, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 4, 2016 Worth remembering that there will have been an initial report made to the Signalbox which may influence the coding, also worth noting that it depends what info was initially given to the TDA Clerk and how they interpreted that. It may have been coded before TDA knew it was a collision. As with all these things the final report will take it all into account, including confusing initial reports, and be the only definitive answer. No one seriously hurt is the best news. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 I think LMS was making a general comment If threads here were in the habit of running off into unchecked speculation here I'd agree with Russ's suggestion - my observations are that the members of this forum are mostly bright enough not to do that, or where somebody does it gets denounced as being non-factual pretty quickly, hence this place is probably not so much of a problem on that front as other parts of t'internet may be*. I'm not especially bothered, personally, by folk going off on tangents**. Ref the front end damage on the HST - it looks pretty comparable to the 158 vs HST at Newton Abbot back in 1994. *For example - I've read two Facebook posts so far for instance that state different "definite" causes from each other - neither came from somebody I regard as particularly credible, and neither "cause" sounds particularly likely to me either, in fact one of those is downright impossible. Without telling you about them I can confirm that neither of these unlikely "facts" has been relayed here... **Personally I think it's always nice when passengers don't leave a train alight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted April 4, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 4, 2016 Regarding the damaged Sprinter - can they use the good car to make another unit up to 3 cars temporarily? If so then the resulting unit could potentially replace a 150 + 153 combo somewhere else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted April 4, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 4, 2016 More likely another temporary 2-car 150+153 combination. Two-car sets are more flexible than three-car and are the GWR standard for most secondary routes. The set would be numbered as a 153 as those vehicles are more restricted than the 150s and this avoids any confusion or problems of type recognition on computer systems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Regarding the damaged Sprinter - can they use the good car to make another unit up to 3 cars temporarily? If so then the resulting unit could potentially replace a 150 + 153 combo somewhere else. Possible. A previous poster referred to a 150/153 hybrid 2 car unit that was used a few years back, which would be another way. Or depending on which car is the damaged one, they have a pair of "150/9" 3 car sets with a 150/2 (57xxx) centre car, if the undamaged car is the 52xxx (toilet fitted) one they could reconfigure them to a standard 150/1 and 150/2 pair temporarily. Whichever way they handle it, it should only be the equivalent of a single car out of action (assuming there isn't unseen damage to the second car, which I'm sure they will be checking out.) (Sorry, crossed with Gwiwer's post) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.