RMweb Gold russ p Posted April 6, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 6, 2016 How a big a job is it to swap a BSI for a bar coupler? When central trains had a couple of 156s smashed up each time a 153 was substituted for the damaged 156 vehicle the formations took the 156 number. This was odd as not all depots signed 153s and 153s also have more restrictive gauge clearance. With regards to mixed types within a set I remember there been a bit of an uproar when a Leeds driver was done for speeding 90mph in a 158.... He claimed he didn't know the rear car of the unit was a 156! I had a mate on central who was working a Norwich job which was a 3 car 170 ,so down the East coast at 100... When he changed ends at Ely there was a 156 attached to the rear, no one told him a Nottingham that it was on! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted April 6, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 6, 2016 Yes I know, in fact I think I may have posted that picture on the thread about the Knaresborough accident, but I thought it may have been of interest to people who hadn't read that one, in view of the discussion about hybrid units on this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modfather Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 How a big a job is it to swap a BSI for a bar coupler? Call it an hour to drop the gangway to coupler flexitors off, take off the earth lead, lift the floor plate in the gangway to lift the tail pin up and pull it out with a forklift. Assembly to quote Haynes is the opposite of disassembly. The hard bit would be reinstating the micro switch wiring. If expect to have it swapped and coupled/tested comfortably within a ten hour shift with two technicians, allowing for GSM-r configuring and any arising issues plus a brake test. Thinking further you may end up dropping the snow plough off one end of the 153 and may need to reinstate the receptacle since many have appeared back from works without one. The amount they are used vs the brake traction and brake negative system issues out weight the down time taken to fit a new one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted April 6, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 6, 2016 I love the often quoted Haynes manual phrase, normally it's read when something has just exploded all over the floor! And to quote an unwritten law ' anything you don't fully understand is ALWAYS full of springs!' Seems of with the sprinters that it's taken 30years to realise they didn't need the flexibility. I think a 153 can only jumper multi from the number one 'big' end as the cable fouls the plough at the other. Well thats was CTs excuse when we moaned about driving from the dogbox for 3hrs! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted April 6, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 6, 2016 With regards to mixed types within a set I remember there been a bit of an uproar when a Leeds driver was done for speeding 90mph in a 158.... He claimed he didn't know the rear car of the unit was a 156! I had a mate on central who was working a Norwich job which was a 3 car 170 ,so down the East coast at 100... When he changed ends at Ely there was a 156 attached to the rear, no one told him a Nottingham that it was on! 310s were de-rated to 75mph on West Coast. Played havoc when someone did the original 85mph with a 304 on the back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 As a non train driver, the idea that you can be driving a train and not even know what type of unit may or may not be attached to the back seems a bit absurd. Presumably it's actually a very rare occurrence? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 As a non train driver, the idea that you can be driving a train and not even know what type of unit may or may not be attached to the back seems a bit absurd. Presumably it's actually a very rare occurrence?I know of one driver who forgot to check if the train was actually coupled to the loco; it wasn't, but he didn't notice until arriving at the work-site. Happens with road vehicles as well; I've seen someone forget to engage the fifth-wheel coupling. The 'Suzies' snapped after they'd extended to about 30'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted April 6, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 6, 2016 I know of one driver who forgot to check if the train was actually coupled to the loco; it wasn't, but he didn't notice until arriving at the work-site. Happens with road vehicles as well; I've seen someone forget to engage the fifth-wheel coupling. The 'Suzies' snapped after they'd extended to about 30'. Conversely I was on a train at Euston which still had the ETH jumpers connected to the incoming loco when it pulled out. Bit of a bang. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 18, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 18, 2016 RAIB now investigating, see today's press release: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/collision-at-plymouth-station Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Depot Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Does not get any better reading the units would not have fitted behind the HST does it. All this down to the lifts... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted April 18, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 18, 2016 One cannot blame the lifts. While we must not presume guilt there will surely be an element of human error here somewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Depot Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 I´m not blaming the lifts but had they been working the platform changes would never have taken place and this incident would not have happened. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted April 18, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 18, 2016 While we might - in our own way - draw conclusions from the information in the RAIB interim report now is hardly the time to start presenting them in public as the investigation is still very much underway. (And there are still quite a few pertinent questions, in respect of information not included or made clear in that report, i would ask before I draw even tentative conclusions.) Probably sensible to lock the thread at this point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.