Impact of Running Brake Test on running times

[rodent279]

21 minutes ago, Dutch-Traindriver said:

In the Netherlands I know of only one such incident where a train did not brake, 30 years ago. The air hose between the pulling locomotive and the carriages was not connected. The braking system was empty and the brakes were therefore released. This would have come to light with a stationary braking test...

Similar thing happened in the US back in the 50/60s. Brake pipes between a Pennsy GG1 and the train were connected, but one of the cocks got shut en route. Off went the train, the driver didn't notice much until he tried to brake from 80mph for the terminus (Baltimore Union), only had the loco brake to stop. He managed to get speed down to s about 35 mph before it went though the stops and onto the concourse, which then collapsed.

Amazingly, no one was killed.

 

[Edwin_m]

11 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Similar thing happened in the US back in the 50/60s. Brake pipes between a Pennsy GG1 and the train were connected, but one of the cocks got shut en route. Off went the train, the driver didn't notice much until he tried to brake from 80mph for the terminus (Baltimore Union), only had the loco brake to stop. He managed to get speed down to s about 35 mph before it went though the stops and onto the concourse, which then collapsed.

Amazingly, no one was killed.

 

Pretty much the same with a Deltic-hauled express at Darlington in the 70s.  The train ran over an object on the track dislodging a traction motor casing, which then bounced back down the train closing the brake cock behind the locomotive.  It ran right through the station and overturned a DMU before being stopped by the buffet steward pulling the communication cord.  

[Dagworth]

5 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

Pretty much the same with a Deltic-hauled express at Darlington in the 70s.  The train ran over an object on the track dislodging a traction motor casing, which then bounced back down the train closing the brake cock behind the locomotive.  It ran right through the station and overturned a DMU before being stopped by the buffet steward pulling the communication cord.  

Red brake cocks are now self venting so if one is closed it will vent the pipe connected to it. It won't vent the vehicle it is on or you wouldn't be able to create brake pipe pressure anywhere but in the instance quoted it would now vent either the front half of the train or the rear depending which cock was closed.

 

Andi 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

Pretty much the same with a Deltic-hauled express at Darlington in the 70s.  The train ran over an object on the track dislodging a traction motor casing, which then bounced back down the train closing the brake cock behind the locomotive.  It ran right through the station and overturned a DMU before being stopped by the buffet steward pulling the communication cord.  

 

The report is here:

 

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=808

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

It ran right through the station and overturned a DMU before being stopped by the buffet steward pulling the communication cord.  

 

By rights that should have been done by the Guard.  It was never easy for the Guard to decide when a train was out of control, and they were perhaps unfairly criticised after some accidents.  However it must have been fairly clear in this case if the Buffet Car staff noticed the speed was far too high and took emergency action.

[Edwin_m]

9 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

By rights that should have been done by the Guard.  It was never easy for the Guard to decide when a train was out of control, and they were perhaps unfairly criticised after some accidents.  However it must have been fairly clear in this case if the Buffet Car staff noticed the speed was far too high and took emergency action.

Indeed, this is one of quite a few reports that say, with a slight air of disbelief, that the guard was just reaching for the brake valve when flung to the floor by the sudden movement of the train.  

[Jeremy Cumberland]

17 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

Indeed, this is one of quite a few reports that say, with a slight air of disbelief, that the guard was just reaching for the brake valve when flung to the floor by the sudden movement of the train.  

That's rather unfair, I think. Although the guard was criticised by the inspector for insufficient awareness of the train's location on the approach to Darlington, the guard was occupied in the luggage area sorting parcels to be dropped off at the station, as well as being distracted by a barking dog that was also in the luggage area. In the guard's statement, he realised before the crossover to the platform that the train wasn't braking as it should, but before he could get to the brake valve he was knocked off his feet as the train went over the crossover at speed. He says he made two further attempts to get to the brake valve but was knocked down each time. Whatever the guard's awareness of the train's location before the crossover, he could have been in no doubt that something was very awry afterwards, and it is inconceivable that he wouldn't have tried to reach the brake valve if he could.

[ejstubbs]

18 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

Pretty much the same with a Deltic-hauled express at Darlington in the 70s.

 

Not dissimilar to the Lowland Caledondian Sleeper incident in 2019, then?  The isolating cock somehow got closed during the shunt at Carstairs after the brake continuity test had been carried out.  The driver did do a running brake test in the usual location en route to Edinburgh, but apparently failed to appreciate that he'd had to apply more service brake than normal to reduce the train's speed.  Rheostatic braking on the approach to Edinburgh was likely compromised due to the pantograph dropping "unintendedly" as the train passed a neutral section at Curriehill, and it ended up running through Waverley at between 30mph and 20mph before it was finally brought to a stand 650m beyond its intended stopping point, apparently assisted by an intervention by the train manager.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ece325b86650c76a551df1a/R052020_200528_Edinburgh.pdf

[Dutch-Traindriver]

But for the sake of imaging, which is an interesting subject after all, is a stationary braking test also taken before departure? Or is the driving brake test the only one?

[Ken.W]

Yes definitely similarities to the Calidonian Sleeper incident, in the a brake cock being accidentally closed resulted in the train brakes being unable to be applied from the loco.

 

As was mentioned previously, following the Darlington incident the brake pipe isolating cocks were changed to make the coupling pipe side self venting if the cock's closed. In addition to this though, the cock handles were fitted with latching handles which need to be squeezed (similar in maner to a traditional signal lever) in order to operate them.

Both modifications which were seemingly forgotten in privatisation

Edited January 10 by Ken.W
Typo

[Edwin_m]

23 minutes ago, Dutch-Traindriver said:

But for the sake of imaging, which is an interesting subject after all, is a stationary braking test also taken before departure? Or is the driving brake test the only one?

The brake continuity test is still required after coupling up hauled stock (coaches as well as wagons).  I think it's not used with modern multiple units but others may know better.  By confirming that air pressure exists at the furthest vehicle from the locomotive, it establishes that brake pipes have been connected correctly and are not blocked.

[PM47079]

Running brake tests are compulsory on our company and every download from the data recorder it is checked if it has been carried out. The same applies to Brake tests when a train is put together or has been stabled as a train in a yard and then the loco shut down, a brake test will be recorded by the data recorder

[Ken.W]

On 08/01/2024 at 17:35, Dutch-Traindriver said:

But for the sake of imaging, which is an interesting subject after all, is a stationary braking test also taken before departure? Or is the driving brake test the only one?

 

There's been two different 'brake tests' for different purposes which have been discussed here, so yes, both are required.

 

A ' brake continuity test', before starting a journey or after alteration to train formation, simply confirms that continuity of the brake throughout the train, or fitted portion when there were partially- fitted trains.

 

A 'running brake test' is to confirm the effectiveness of the brake.

 

The running brake test is perhaps more noticeable these days, as with on train monitoring recording this is something which is monitored.  Also some operating company's seem to mandate a more severe application that was traditionally used.

 

Mention was made previously of DOO operation, this doesn't affect the need, or ability to perform a continuity test. On LNER, and during several previous operators, although they do still have 'guards'  it's the driver who's done this from the leading cab

The HSTs and Cl.91/Mk4s both have E70 type electrical brake pipe pressure controllers which applies the brake from both ends of the train, so a brake test on HSTs was done by...

Driver realises brake to an initial or step 2 application to hold the train.

Then isolate the E70 on leading power car

A full service brake application is then made and brake pipe pressure observed to fall, which now can only be applied by the E70 of  the rear power car.

Controller then brought back to release, observing brake does not rise, only the (now isolated ) leading E70 can release the brake.

Brake controller now returned to step 2, front E70 de-isolated, and brake pipe pressure obsrvered to now rise.

 

The principles the same with Cl.91/ Mk4, but done with a test switch which performs the same isolation at front and applying from rear functions

Edited January 10 by Ken.W
Typos

[roythebus1]

There used to be no such thing as a static brake test. It was a brake continuity test which proved that the air or vacuum pipe was "continuous" from the loco or leading driving cab to the rearmost vehicle. That was done by the guard opening the air brake valve or pulling the vac pipe off the dummy. A rush of air out or air in would prove the continuity from the front vehicle. The guard would then have to look at the brake shoes on the rearmost vehicle to make sure they were toughing the wheels.

 

With the advent of the Westcode brake that put paid to the air brake pipe, continuity is now proved by a wire running from front to back and back to the front. Having left the railway industry in 1988 I don't know what the present arrangements are, but do know that there's been a number of "incidents" including some where a train has been prepared with loco on train and left overnight as "fully prepared" and "somebody" has been along during the night and interfered with brake cocks between wagons. 

[Ken.W]

25 minutes ago, roythebus1 said:

With the advent of the Westcode brake that put paid to the air brake pipe, continuity is now proved by a wire running from front to back and back to the front. Having left the railway industry in 1988 I don't know what the present arrangements are, but do know that there's been a number of "incidents" including some where a train has been prepared with loco on train and left overnight as "fully prepared" and "somebody" has been along during the night and interfered with brake cocks between wagons. 

 

Still plenty of trains around which use a train brake pipe and therefore require a brake continuity test.

Few remaining HSTs and Mk4 sets, plus other loco hauled trains such as TPE Mk5s, Calley Sleepers, charters etc, not forgetting of course, all freight trains.

 

Yes, I've heard of incidents of brake pipe cocks being shut after a trains been left "fully prepared"

BUT, when "Mobilising"  a train that's been left already " Prepared", one of the main requirements is...

A Brake Continuity Test.

 

Even when Mobilising a train stabled in a station platform after terminating a previous journey, such as at Kings X,  a Continuty Test is still required, and monitored on any OTMR checks.

 

On the Azumas where the brake cylinder pressure on each coach is directly controlled electronically, this function is still observed by thr driver sequence testing the brake while observing the brake function page on the TMS, which displays the brake pressure on each coach. On one occasion, while Mobilising a set for a training run, l found the brake to be non-functional on one of the coaches, it turned out to be due to a tripped circuit breaker.

[roythebus1]

On that matter, I had an 8-car 455 several times where the brake left something to be desired shall we say. One unit was poor. I kept reporting it but no action was ever taken until one morning I'd worked the train from Waterloo to Guildford via the New Line. I had a bit of time to spare so looked through the unit with it shut down. One of the coaches had one bar of brake when shut down, it should have 3 bar. I phoned the inspector at Waterloo and he told me to take it back to Waterloo empty and he would meet me there. He had a look and agreed it was defective. But I was labelled a trouble maker for reporting such things.

Edited January 8 by roythebus1

[big jim]

A running brake test is of upmost importance, to determine how the train is reacting ‘in real time’ compared to how you would expect it to

 

there are times when you can’t do a running brake test for a while, heading south from crewe with a 2000 ton stone train example you have to wait until Madeley (about 8 miles out) before carrying it out as it’s up hill until there and you’ll only be doing 20-30mph max if that and a brake test will bring you almost to a stop by the time the brakes have fully released to enable you to power up, doing it just before or at the summit means you will be just about at the down hill bit when you take power

 

i had a stone train last year that had a number of isolated wagons due to defects, so much so that I questioned its ability to run before I left the yard as I felt it didn’t have enough brake force, the actual force compared to the required was only 20 brake forces more, i was told it was ok, tops said it was ok, train list accepted etc, I set off and did my running brake test and had a squeaky bum moment as it didn’t seem to want to slow down at all, even at 30mph, really had to throw the brake in way beyond the pressure i normally would to get it to grip, ended up phoning the box and telling them I’d be running 10mph below train speed in areas where the signals were close together or limited sighting as I didn’t want to sight them at 60mph then be unable to stop in time!l at a red 

 

actually quite scary

[PM47079]

Which is exactly why we do running brake tests. To get the feel of the train. Do the brakes bite well. ?

Is the speed coming down as you anticipate it?

If it isn't you can then take action, reduce your speed brake earlier and warn the relief driver that the train is not braking how your experience says it should 

Edited January 8 by PM47079
Typo

[roythebus1]

Which reminds me of another incident with a 455 IIRC, maybe a 508, leaving Waterloo on the down main local, approaching Vauxhall on yellows, doing about 20, the signal approaching Vauxhall was red, i put the brake in step 3 before the AWS magnet and sailed 3 cars past the signal! A quick word and all was covered up which was a pity as the union were looking for reasons to "black" these units until the brake problems were sorted. You had to be doing well over 20 to get any sort of brake to work on those units

[8K77]

On 08/01/2024 at 20:55, big jim said:

A running brake test is of upmost importance, to determine how the train is reacting ‘in real time’ compared to how you would expect it to

 

there are times when you can’t do a running brake test for a while, heading south from crewe with a 2000 ton stone train example you have to wait until Madeley (about 8 miles out) before carrying it out as it’s up hill until there and you’ll only be doing 20-30mph max if that and a brake test will bring you almost to a stop by the time the brakes have fully released to enable you to power up, doing it just before or at the summit means you will be just about at the down hill bit when you take power

 

i had a stone train last year that had a number of isolated wagons due to defects, so much so that I questioned its ability to run before I left the yard as I felt it didn’t have enough brake force, the actual force compared to the required was only 20 brake forces more, i was told it was ok, tops said it was ok, train list accepted etc, I set off and did my running brake test and had a squeaky bum moment as it didn’t seem to want to slow down at all, even at 30mph, really had to throw the brake in way beyond the pressure i normally would to get it to grip, ended up phoning the box and telling them I’d be running 10mph below train speed in areas where the signals were close together or limited sighting as I didn’t want to sight them at 60mph then be unable to stop in time!l at a red 

 

actually quite scary

 

It's quite poor that your company had let the set of wagons get in such a state that it had so many cripple "E"' Wagons in the set by the sounds even running 10mph below the maximum permitted speed for the train might not had been enough to stop the train in a controlled manner when being detained at signals or slowing for Permeant & Temporary  Speed Restrictions.

 

8K77 

[hexagon789]

38 minutes ago, 8K77 said:

 

It's quite poor that your company had let the set of wagons get in such a state that it had so many cripple "E"' Wagons in the set by the sounds even running 10mph below the maximum permitted speed for the train might not had been enough to stop the train in a controlled manner when being detained at signals or slowing for Permeant & Temporary  Speed Restrictions.

 

8K77 

Happens with passenger trains too

- had a 225 set a few years ago with brakes isolated on both bogies on one coach, so we were restricted to 5mph under the permissible for all speed restrictions exceeding 35mph.

 

Less common with multiple units, but can still happen.

Edited January 9 by hexagon789

[Titan]

Reminds me of my time changing brake blocks on 309's at Clacton.  You never let two units out together that had just had their blocks changed, as it took a little while for the new blocks to bed in. So a freshly changed unit always went out with a part worn so the reduction in brake power on the first couple of applications was not too significant. Wonder if the drivers ever noticed that the brakes could often be a bit less strong until you got past Thorpe-le-Soken? There was mind you an incentive to do it right as often my train home was the one I had just re-blocked!

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, 8K77 said:

 

It's quite poor that your company had let the set of wagons get in such a state that it had so many cripple "E"' Wagons in the set by the sounds even running 10mph below the maximum permitted speed for the train might not had been enough to stop the train in a controlled manner when being detained at signals or slowing for Permeant & Temporary  Speed Restrictions.

 

8K77 

What was worse than poor was someone allowing the train to go with inadequate Brake Force and putting the Driver in an invidious (and potentially dangerous) situation..

 

26 minutes ago, Titan said:

Reminds me of my time changing brake blocks on 309's at Clacton.  You never let two units out together that had just had their blocks changed, as it took a little while for the new blocks to bed in. So a freshly changed unit always went out with a part worn so the reduction in brake power on the first couple of applications was not too significant. Wonder if the drivers ever noticed that the brakes could often be a bit less strong until you got past Thorpe-le-Soken? There was mind you an incentive to do it right as often my train home was the one I had just re-blocked!

Always the same with niew blocks.  The Old  Oak loco hauled commuter used to normally be re-blocked when the set was stopped for a bigger exam.  Normally the entire set was done together.  That made one heck of a difference on braking and it was a good idea to keep the blocks rubbing if there e was an opportunity to do so.  And if you had a double yellow on the Up Main at Burnham on a train with new blocks you actually made sure you got the brake rubbing instead of the normal action of shutting the controller and watching closely for the next signal as speed fell off.

[Steadfast]

Another thing to consider with a freight train (not sure if that also applies to EP braked passenger stuff) is that you could have the same loco and wagons all week, and every day the brake will handle slightly differently. Loading of the wagons, moisture on the wheels, wagons remarhsalled in a different order, ambient temperature and so on will all have an effect on the brake the driver is working with. It was particularly noticeable on route I drive where we had a 5 mph TSR for many many months as you left the quarry, same loco and wagons several days running and you'd need a slightly different amount of brake coming down the steep first couple of miles to hold it to 5. We might be talking 4.4 bar today, 4.3 tomorrow, so it's small variations, but hopefully that illustrates a point.

 

The purpose of the running brake test is to allow the driver to be familiar with how the brake is performing.

 

Jo

[big jim]

10 hours ago, 8K77 said:

 

It's quite poor that your company had let the set of wagons get in such a state that it had so many cripple "E"' Wagons in the set by the sounds even running 10mph below the maximum permitted speed for the train might not had been enough to stop the train in a controlled manner when being detained at signals or slowing for Permeant & Temporary  Speed Restrictions.

 

8K77 

the circuit the wagons was on is intense, 6 days a week, 3 trips a day, the set gets maintenance at the weekend but sometimes blocks can be changed midweek if needed, don’t know why that particular set got into that state, I suspect it was probably made up of wagons removed from other trains to be moved as one to the maintenance hub, I was running empty with it so I hope it wasn’t loaded afterwards!