Should only the ultra-continent travel by train in bad weather?

[royaloak]

Carry an empty plastic milk carton with you in your duty rucksack.

 

Once used, it will also double as a hand warmer for a reasonable amount of time!

 

Also useful to have one in the car if you get stuck in a jam, especially in bad weather.

Oasis bottles are also useful, nice wide neck so you dont have to worry about your 'aim' so much.

[APOLLO]

Well this would fill your trousers !!. Apparently happened last night. Watch the vid.

 

http://bayview-news.com/2018/03/kingston-man-shoots-video-of-train-derailment-as-it-occurs.html/

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/delays-caused-by-freight-train-derailment-near-kingston-ont-have-subsided-1.3827988

 

Lucky guy.

 

Brit15

Edited March 4, 2018 by APOLLO

[Reorte]

Personally I think the main question is, why was it there for 3 hours and nothing done.

At a guess - and no more than that, for all that some seem to hate speculation - because when things go wrong less often you have less in place that can deal with things going wrong (which isn't unreasonable - that's why the railways doesn't have loco sheds all over the place nowdays that can deal with breakdowns for example - these days you'd be spending a lot of money for things that are needed once a decade). I'm sure just general trends about responsibilities and passing the buck come in to play, but there are valid practical reasons.

[caradoc]

In which case, you should take up your case with the European Court of Human Rights. 

 

The least you could do would be to know the law. https://www.gov.uk/rest-breaks-work

 

No need to quote the law at me jonny777; Believe me, we tried for many, many years to get proper, relieved breaks for Control Office staff, but management's response was always that the workload was varied and unpredictable, so staff should take their breaks as circumstances allowed (and the Trade Unions got nowhere with the situation either). Sometimes this method worked OK, although it did mean that someone had to deal with issues on an adjacent desk, as well as their own, which is workable if things stay quiet. However, the nature of Control work is such that you are always the next phone call away from a disaster.

[Oldddudders]

However, the nature of Control work is such that you are always the next phone call away from a disaster.

Quite. No-one rings Control to pass the time of day. And an otherwise trivial event - e.g. one pair of wheels off in a siding - can indeed spell disaster if the entire peak service is trapped inside!

[Dunsignalling]

Whilst I sympathise with the sentiments expressed, I would add the following:

 

"rag-tag mob" is an unfortunate way of describing the fare-paying passengers, and might betray a less than respectful attitude.

 

Toilet-less trains have been present on the railways since railways were invented. It was the trains with toilets that were the innovation.

 

Running a train service is and has always been always fraught with unquantifiable hazards. What has changed is the railway's ability to deal with those hazards. If current trends continue, travelling by train in anything other than the mildest of weather will be an act of the greatest optimism if, indeed, the rail companies are willing to run trains when it is snowing, raining heavily or hot and sunny.

 

After all, the safest railway is one where no trains are running!

They don't become a rag-tag mob until they move from the bit of the railway they are competent to occupy to the bit filled with hazards which they are not prepared or equipped to deal with safely. 

 

Yes, toilet-less trains used to be the norm, but the design of non-corridor coaches was such that, in extremis it was possible to take a leak out of the window.

 

You won't find many rail staff who were around in BR days (or even the much-maligned Railtrack period) who will argue against your description of the fragility of the privatised structure or its inability to deal with contingencies that we used to take in our stride before funding the "under-utilised" resources that allowed it was deemed too expensive. These days, almost anything that doesn't get used at least once a week gets the chop. None of it our idea, none of it our fault.

 

Devising procedures to deal with such situations is the easy bit. Getting the money out of the DfT, NR and the TOCs to pay for enough trained staff to implement them, a different matter altogether. 

 

Sorry, but nobody in their right minds will deliberately flout the provisions of the rule book. The whole point of having it is to quantify the hazards, provide methods of dealing with them and ensure that individuals know what they and everyone else should be doing.

 

Disregard it and the BEST that can happen is you lose your job, the WORST is that you stand to lose your liberty. 

 

John

Edited March 4, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

Its obviously not the drivers fault but the procedure is wrong if people are trapped in those conditions for that long right next to the station.

 

I'm sure the ballast was slippy but its snowing,  everywhere is slippy.  I imagine that any sane passengers were wearing sensible footware.

How do you stop the ones that aren't from hopping off along with the rest?  In any event, "sensible" for ballast walking means heavy-treaded work shoes or proper walking boots. How many passengers do you see wearing Doc Martens? Trainers would last 200 yards on a good day, a lot less in soaking snow.

 

The issue at the root of all this is "somebody" deciding not to fund the resources required to deal with such infrequent occurrences. Same reason we only have 10% of the snowploughs we'd need to keep most of our road network from grinding to a halt.

 

John

Edited March 4, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Bernard Lamb]

The railway industry has long expected certain grades to be available for work continuously during a paid shift. Traincrew have traditionally had paid meal-breaks away from the track, but signalmen, booking clerks etc often work alone and simply cannot be relieved for meals or personal needs breaks. Controllers - I was one 1968-73 - tend to work in groups, so someone may answer your phones while you are in the loo, but your meal will be taken on the hoof, as it were, and if there is a situation ongoing then tough. Taking your sandwiches home again was not unknown in my day.

 

Not only in the railway industry.

Not just for you paid shift either.

"We have a problem at xxx get there ASAP and come back when the problem is sorted".

If you are involved in construction or installation jobs with hefty penalty clauses there are times when meal breaks are a very minor consideration.

Other occupation and industries are also subject to similar situations in case our friend in the forces or emergency services etc feel left out.

Bernard

[Dunsignalling]

Maybe so, but signalmen working alone know when the quiet times are going to be. I'm sure a couple of minutes in the toilet, or 5 minutes sat in a chair eating sandwiches will not bring the rail system crashing down around anyones ears. 

 

I used to work lone 12 hour shifts, not for the railway but in an aviation context - and if the phone rang while I was in the toilet, then tough. One soon learns that the ring of the phone is not the red alert some people might lead you to believe. 

 

In my day it was called common sense and everyone was supposed to use it. 

One slight qualification: signalmen working alone know when the quiet times are supposed to be.  Nowadays, whenever you haven't any trains about, there will be half-a-dozen people trying to get line blockages.

 

Absolutely correct re. phones ringing. If it's important they keep trying.

 

Common sense unfortunately seems to be something that largely went out of use at around the same time Secondary Moderns disappeared.

 

John

Edited March 4, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Rugd1022]

Really?

 

I know exactly what I would have done and I would not have waited 14 minutes; let alone 14 hours. If there is no communication then there is no one to know what you are doing. It would only have been a couple of minutes, what is the worst that could happen?

 

I threw in the 'desperate for a number two' bit as a dollop of humour Johnny, although I have been in that particular situation more than once! The rest of it stands though - the part about no communication with the signalman lasted several hours and I didn't have a mobile phone at the time.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Rugd1022

[Pandora]

I know that section of track pretty well, there's virtually no cess on that side of the train, about the width of troughing plus a foot if that, at the top of a very steep bank.

Lewisham Electrical Control and sub station are at the bottom of the bank.

Also at the bottom of the bank ,   the NR MOM office ( Mobile Operations Managers)

[Mike Storey]

Some interesting comments in this thread. I just wonder how many of them are valid.

 

See this set of contemporaneous tweets - https://twitter.com/bbctomedwards?lang=en

 

In summary:

 

• SET had already issued warnings not to travel because the situation had become so bad
• Several trains were already being evacuated in the area by TOC and NR teams, they just had not got to this one yet.
• The impromptu evacuation by these passengers apparently caused even greater delays to a far larger number of people.
• It appears that passengers left four trains on their own, not just the one highlighted.

 

 

I excuse neither the passengers nor the rail industry teams for the decisions taken, and the delays and discomfort experienced, let alone the safety issues. But it makes me laugh when so many people claim that BR (or something similar) would have done better. Been there, done that, many many times. We never had enough staff, nor did we have enough people trained (or competent) to do what needed to be done (despite appearances on paper), not in that level of weather disruption involving that number of trains. On many occasions, passengers got fed up and walked (not just in snow, but after suicides, derailments, signal failures and so on), after much shorter times than this, but such was the lower intensity of media, the lack of internal railway electronic communications and the greater tolerance in those days that sh1t happens, that few of these incidents ever were reported outside the railway, or widely known about, certainly nationally. Additionally, trains such as this would have had no toilets (4SUBs, EPBs), or if they did (2HAPs, 4VEPs, 4CEPs. etc), they would almost certainly have been frozen out of use. You could pee out of the window or door (unless on a later Networker etc), as has been mentioned, but quite how most women would manage this has never been demonstrated to me....thank goodness.

 

So in answer to the poster's question, yes but in extreme weather, not simply bad, and it has largely always been the case on suburban/semi services. That does not make it right, but I do not see how the resources needed to handle a problem of this scale, in these conditions, could ever be justified unless long range weather forecasting demonstrably proves a much higher probability of such instances becoming much more common in the UK. So far, "extreme weather" probability increase predictions have been too vague, but perhaps that may change. If that does emerge, what additional cost is justifiable, and who will pay it? Some outfit suggested that £1 billion a day was lost to UK GDP during the worst of the weather, but it remains to be seen whether rail travel formed a significant, partial cause of that, and thus whether it would be a significant recipient of any additional investment that may be thought justified.

[The Stationmaster]

Some interesting comments in this thread. I just wonder how many of them are valid.

 

See this set of contemporaneous tweets - https://twitter.com/bbctomedwards?lang=en

 

In summary:

 

• SET had already issued warnings not to travel because the situation had become so bad
• Several trains were already being evacuated in the area by TOC and NR teams, they just had not got to this one yet.
• The impromptu evacuation by these passengers apparently caused even greater delays to a far larger number of people.
• It appears that passengers left four trains on their own, not just the one highlighted.

 

 

I excuse neither the passengers nor the rail industry teams for the decisions taken, and the delays and discomfort experienced, let alone the safety issues. But it makes me laugh when so many people claim that BR (or something similar) would have done better. Been there, done that, many many times. We never had enough staff, nor did we have enough people trained (or competent) to do what needed to be done (despite appearances on paper), not in that level of weather disruption involving that number of trains. On many occasions, passengers got fed up and walked (not just in snow, but after suicides, derailments, signal failures and so on), after much shorter times than this, but such was the lower intensity of media, the lack of internal railway electronic communications and the greater tolerance in those days that sh1t happens, that few of these incidents ever were reported outside the railway, or widely known about, certainly nationally. Additionally, trains such as this would have had no toilets (4SUBs, EPBs), or if they did (2HAPs, 4VEPs, 4CEPs. etc), they would almost certainly have been frozen out of use. You could pee out of the window or door (unless on a later Networker etc), as has been mentioned, but quite how most women would manage this has never been demonstrated to me....thank goodness.

 

So in answer to the poster's question, yes but in extreme weather, not simply bad, and it has largely always been the case on suburban/semi services. That does not make it right, but I do not see how the resources needed to handle a problem of this scale, in these conditions, could ever be justified unless long range weather forecasting demonstrably proves a much higher probability of such instances becoming much more common in the UK. So far, "extreme weather" probability increase predictions have been too vague, but perhaps that may change. If that does emerge, what additional cost is justifiable, and who will pay it? Some outfit suggested that £1 billion a day was lost to UK GDP during the worst of the weather, but it remains to be seen whether rail travel formed a significant, partial cause of that, and thus whether it would be a significant recipient of any additional investment that may be thought justified.

 

Best post in this thread to date - says it all like it really was (and is).   And coming to the very pertinent final paragraph I wonder how many motorists have had a full set of winter tyres put on their cars - same difference when you think about it?

[Dunsignalling]

Also at the bottom of the bank ,   the NR MOM office ( Mobile Operations Managers)

The likelihood of there being one "at home" given the circumstances of the day, is pretty small - almost certainly out dealing with the most recent of several earlier incidents, (assuming the one before that wasn't still ongoing) - and with more messages from Control backing up on his phone all the time.....

 

John

 

.

[Captain Kernow]

I make no comment on the unofficial evacuations or the level of NR/TOC resourcing to deal with such incidents, but it does put me in mind of a couple of incidents I was directly managing a few years ago, albeit from the comfort of Exeter Panel.

 

Both occasions involved Voyager trains becoming completely disabled by sea water on the Dawlish Sea Wall. The first was in October 2004 and the Down train came to a stand at Sprey Point, between Parsons Tunnel and Teignmouth station. Fortunately no one was tempted to detrain, as they would probably have been swept out to sea and quickly drowned if they had done so, such was the ferocity of the storm and high tide at the time.

 

The Voyager lost all engine power and without the ability to maintain air, the seals on the plug doors gradually deflated and after a while, sea water was coming in through the cracks as the train was being buffeted.

 

Both incidents were fairly early on in the operational life of Voyagers and no modifications had been done to the units with regard to the 'Dawlish effect'.

 

In October 2004, there was no locomotive with a compatible coupling to hand and, of course, trying to assist with another Voyager would have been even more foolhardy.

 

Everyone concerned with trying to manage the incident and get the train off the Sea Wall worked tirelessly and in accordance with the Rules & Regulations, but there was just no way to get the Voyager unit running again on site, despite the efforts of the fitters sent there. The on-train staff, plus those railway staff travelling 'on the cushions' did their very best to look after the passengers. It helped that my boss was on the train, but unfortunately his mobile had very low battery power and he couldn't re-charge it. Sod's Law!

 

It became clear that the only way to extricate the passengers was to draw another train alongside on the Up (Reversible) line, so we called the Fire Brigade out, terminated an Up HST service at Newton Abbot and ran the set empty to Sprey Point, where the passengers from the Voyager were carefully detrained one at a time under the supervision of the Fire Brigade, using the disabled ramp from one of the trains to cross the 'six foot'.

 

This incident, of course, resulted in a number of Inquiries and associated recommendations but before any changes to Voyagers could be made, a further incident happened in December 2005, when another Voyager failed on the Down line about 400 yards short of Dawlish station.

 

This time we had a Class 57 'Thunderbird' loco on hand at Exeter and this was immediately despatched to site. We had also rehearsed the scenario a few months before on a quiet night, as the new procedure required the Thunderbird loco to first run past the failed train on the adjoining line, so that the two crews could directly liaise on what would happen next.

 

The class 57 then went on to Teignmouth, where it crossed from the Up (Reversible) line to the Down line, and then, with signaller's permission, approached the site of the failure over the Down line, in the Up direction, with extreme caution.

 

PW staff and at least one Operations MOM (Mobile Operations Manager) were accompanying the class 57. The section from Kennaway Tunnel, next to the Dawlish Collonades, was extremely exposed and the sea was starting to shift ballast and the presence of the PW staff was invaluable in determining that it remained safe for the loco to continue, at sub-walking pace at times, forward towards the failure. At least one member of NR staff, if not more than one, got knocked off their feet by waves crashing over as they performed their duties. None of them went home dry that night.

 

Despite our having rehearsed this scenario and despite the Up Reversible line being available to run the class 57 past the failure, one of the things that struck me about this and similar incidents was the sheer amount of time that everything took. If your mind somehow imagines things happening on a 'model railway timescale' before the actual event, you are well and truly disabused of this notion when it's happening out there for real. Each and every movement, procedure etc. has to be done so carefully and with all required caution. Messages have to be given, understood, repeated back and (in the signalbox) noted down. In many instances, the signalman has to act as a kind of 'information node' as well. Everything takes time, yet it must have been incredibly distressing for the passengers on the two trains involved.

 

In the end, in the 2005 incident, the class 57 was attached to the front of the disabled Voyager and then the fun and games getting the brakes off began. Eventually, after a lot of faffing about (technical speak for fitters doing their best under awful conditions) the train was dragged into the relative safety of the Down platform at Dawlish. We had the Fire Brigade on standby that time as well, although we didn't need to use them.

 

The Inquiry following the second incident effectively flowed directly from the first one and the TOC ended up doing two significant things:

 

i) a software modification was done, to allow the drivers to re-set the on-board computer, to give them three goes at getting the engines running

 

ii) We (NR) got the Virgin to agree that when conditions reached a certain level of severity, no Voyager train would be allowed on the Sea Wall without a Class 57 hauling it

 

Subsequently, XC took over those cross country services from Virgin and their business plan/franchise bid had no provision to pay for the hire of a Class 57 'Thunderbird' loco from Virgin, so XC pretty quickly took the decision to completely suspend all Voyager-operated trains between Exeter and Newton Abbot during 'high seas', which is the situation that still applies today.

[scouser]

There seems to be an answer. Apparently some company called NASA, makes some suits that could be the commuters dream!

[D9020 Nimbus]

Seems to me BR was capable of doing more in the past in similar (worse) conditions. In 1987 a reduced service was kept going in the south-east with EMUs hauled by class 56s. Not practical to do the modern equivalent due to the fragmented railway.

[royaloak]

How about train fails, driver radios control,

 

Control can't get a fitter out so tries to get it pushed into station,

 

After 15 minutes it becomes clear that that won't happen,  in this time as many staff as possible have been sent to the station with other stations in the area left short.

 

Between the staff on the ground (admittedly about 6) control and the driver a rescue is quickly organised.

 

The driver announces over the PA that the power will soon go off,  when it does he will manually open the door closest to the station but first issues instructions,

 

The passengers are welcome to stay on the train but if they would like to walk (at own risk) they should form into groups of 5 and head to the front of the train (or back, if the station is nearer the back the driver walks through first).groups are expected to stick together with younger passengers helping less able.  Some passengers would probably have to stay on the train but it would be a lot easier to look after a dozen elderly and disabled passengers than 700 cross commuters with a dozen more vulnerable people mixed in

 

If staff are available they will help passengers down to the track, volunteers asked for if not.

 

Driver makes a note of how many passengers are walking

 

Passengers walk down the 4' to the station, followed by the nice people who helped them down

 

Staff at station count passengers onto platform,

 

When train is empty driver radios number of passengers that station should expect,  trained personnel such as firemen could evacuate the remaining vulnerable passengers with stretchers.

 

It would involve some risk assessments and probably some training but I can't see why it couldn't be done.  A railway line that has no trains running and the 3rd rail isolated is not an intrinsically unsafe thing to walk on (assuming there aren't any girder bridges that you can fall through).  Most people carry smartphones now and most of them have torches which would be helpful if they haven't been stuck so long that they all have flat batteries.

Meanwhile in the real world!

 

You make it sound so easy, maybe you should apply for a control position when one is advertised!

 

What if one of those group of 5 you have allowed on the track (forget the 'own risk' rubbish because it wont stand up in Court) gets injured or killed?

Ultimately you are responsible for their safety and allowing/encouraging them to leave the train leaves you open to prosecution.

 

You dont know how duty of care and responsibility actually works do you?

[royaloak]

Seems to me BR was capable of doing more in the past in similar (worse) conditions. In 1987 a reduced service was kept going in the south-east with EMUs hauled by class 56s. Not practical to do the modern equivalent due to the fragmented railway.

Back in 1987 practically everything could couple to practically everything else because they all had hooks,  shackles and buffers, try it now and see how far you get, it has nothing to do with the fragmented railway as BR were already going down the '20 different couplers' route.

[Bernard Lamb]

Meanwhile in the real world!

 

You make it sound so easy, maybe you should apply for a control position when one is advertised!

 

What if one of those group of 5 you have allowed on the track (forget the 'own risk' rubbish because it wont stand up in Court) gets injured or killed?

Ultimately you are responsible for their safety and allowing/encouraging them to leave the train leaves you open to prosecution.

 

You dont know how duty of care and responsibility actually works do you?

 

It's you that need to join the real world.

You can't go round abusing the people who pay your wages.

You need to negotiated an understanding with your management at a very high level that when you are working you are representing the company and that any decision you take will be backed, even at the highest level in a court.

If your boss can't trust you then that is not my problem. It just adds to my opinion that you should not be in a job where you have to face customers and make decisions about what should be done for their safety and comfort.

On what has emerged it is clear that in this situation the concern over safety overrode concern with comfort. Your first duty is looking after your customers. Your second duty is observance of the rules. If you can't do that then the comment of jobsworth would seem to be valid.

If your union can't get an undertaking from management that they will protect and support any worker in any circumstance then things have reached a pretty sorry state.

God help us all if another conflict breaks out and the likes of you are making decisions.

We soon tore up the rule book when there was a spot of bother in the South Atlantic. Funny how there was almost universal praise for what a lot of people did at that time. 

Bernard

[Mike Storey]

Seems to me BR was capable of doing more in the past in similar (worse) conditions. In 1987 a reduced service was kept going in the south-east with EMUs hauled by class 56s. Not practical to do the modern equivalent due to the fragmented railway.

 

Interesting. I did not know that, although by 87 I had moved, from the SED, to work out of Brighton. I did not know that the Class 56's had 27 way jumpers? We had previously only ever used Class 33's or 73's to loco haul EMU's, and on buck-eyes, not on screw-links, whilst I was there. Where did they get the Class 56's from? There were only ever two rostered at any one time to/from anywhere on the South Eastern at the best of times (one on the Ridham MGR, and one for the Kent coal trains which were about to cease by then).

 

Incidentally, such operations did not cease with privatisation. We regularly diesel-hauled 225 sets when I was with GNER and later when I was with RT on the East Coast, on planned and unplanned situations. EWS always had surplus locos. It was finding the spare crews or pilotmen that was the problem - a situation not unknown in BR days.

 

I had to act as pilotman on several occasions on the SED in peturbation, despite not being strictly "passed out" for the route knowledge. If we had been caught, either by the grown-ups or by ASLEF, there would have been not inconsiderable kerfuffle. Don't tell OldDudders for goodness sake......

[royaloak]

So because we have railstaff saying the passengers should stay on the train because its safest and passengers/rail enthusiasts are saying they would bale out whenever the will took them I think it is best not to run any trains during bad weather, no trains=nobody stuck on the trains so everyone is a winner!

 

Problem solved.

 

One thing is certain, next time there is disruption I wont e volunteering to take a trainload of passengers 100 miles away from my home depot with no way of getting back, as I did last Thursday when the weather was at its worst!

 

What has my boss not trusting me got to do with passengers self evacuating?

I am confused by that statement of yours!

 

I am merely a driver and it is not for me to make decisions on that scale (I can offer suggestions if I can get through on the phone but that is about it), as for allowing/encouraging passengers to self evacuate, no chance, as I have previously explained I am not standing up in Court explaining my actions when somebody has gone base over apex down the banking or got electrocuted because they have stood on a 750v cable buried in the snow, you do realise it isnt just the 3rd rail which is live dont you, there are also 1000v signalling cables and various other high voltage cables scattered around the railway.

 

Edit-

Of course if people took notice of the 'do not travel unless it is vital' broadcasts it wouldnt be such a problem would it!

The number of people having to make such important life or death journeys during such bad weather never ceases to amaze me!

 

Further edit-

Well done on getting the 'pay your wages' line in there, if I had seen it earlier I wouldnt have bothered replying.

 

in the real world there arent the staff available to get to the scene to carry out a controlled evacuation (please explain how they get to the train when the railway and roads are all closed) so the rest of your post is in la la land.

Edited March 5, 2018 by royaloak

[royaloak]

Interesting. I did not know that, although by 87 I had moved, from the SED, to work out of Brighton. I did not know that the Class 56's had 27 way jumpers? We had previously only ever used Class 33's or 73's to loco haul EMU's, and on buck-eyes, not on screw-links, whilst I was there. Where did they get the Class 56's from? There were only ever two rostered at any one time to/from anywhere on the South Eastern at the best of times (one on the Ridham MGR, and one for the Kent coal trains which were about to cease by then).

The 56s hauled the EMUs as conventional coaches, to (compatible) 27 way on the 56.

[jjb1970]

I remember my induction course in electricity generation. The head of safety for the company danced around in front of us (he was an extrovert character, what would once have been called camp, and became a very dear friend), pointing at the safety rules, which when supported by local management instructions and plant standard operating procedures formed the company safe system of work. He made it very clear that as authorised and senior authorised persons and then control persons (people familiar with the electricity industry will be aware what those roles are) we were legally responsible for our decisions and actions. If we stayed within the safe system of work and there was an incident then the company legal team and their appointed barristers etc would be in court to defend us as it would be the corporate safe system of work which was on triel. If we went outside that the same legal bods would be in court to tell the court that the company had a robust safe system of work, they'd given us all the necessary training built on top of core skills (i.e. people had HND's, degrees etc to get the job in the first place) and we'd signed our authorisation certificates to state we understood and accepted our responsibilities therefore if we ignored rules and procedures we would be hung out to dry. A message reinforced by a board level member of management. Some may not like that, but personally I did like it as it made clear where we stood and there was no pretence about it. In a safety critical industry you need tight control of work to prevent people getting hurt. People point back to the good old days but tend not to point back to industrial safety of bye gone eras and bemoan the fact we don't kill and maim as many people as we once did.

[Mike Storey]

The 56s hauled the EMUs as conventional coaches, to (compatible) 27 way on the 56.

 

Thanks for that. O/T sorry, but -  I wonder why the 27 way was fitted to the 56, which was supposed to be a freight only loco? What would that have been needed for other than hauling or rescuing passenger trains? (A very fortunate decision as it turned out....) I ask in ignorance, not because I have any agenda!