Class 800 - Updates

[jamie92208]

I have found a short film on YouTube of the locomotive change at Rickmansworth which clearly shows that there was no break in the conductor rail.

 

 

I hope the above link works and is allowed.

 

Thanks for that, it does seem that there were walking boards either side of the centre rail and at the same level, for the shunter to stand on so they had at least tried to do something.

 

Jamie

[Chris116]

Thanks for that, it does seem that there were walking boards either side of the centre rail and at the same level, for the shunter to stand on so they had at least tried to do something.

 

Jamie

Trouble is the train has stopped slightly short of the boards so they would not have been much use on that shunt although I am sure the shunters would have been happy when the train stopped in the right place.

[The Stationmaster]

Of course it's all too easy to compare the 'new' of today with the old and say it takes longer but from watching the thing take place I can tell you that splitting a air of  Class 387 sets is a heck of a lot quicker than splitting a couple of Blue Star dmu sets, and nobody has to  go in between to do the job.  But don't overlook the fact that procedural changes have occurred in the Rules and Regulations so for a start with most if not all auto couplers there is a need to do a pull away test and that takes time.  Equally brake continuity tests were very often observed in the breach in 'the good old days' and they too take time plus of course various other Rules were as much observed in the breach as they were properly applied - for example Shunters etc could often be seen remaining in between when an easing up move was made, and some undoubtedly paid the ultimate penalty for that foolhardiness.  

 

I would think that if it was done to modern safety standards and all Rules were properly observed you would be looking at a more than 2 minutes to complete the entire business of just attaching an engine to a train where screw couplings and brake and train heat connections are involved.  So very often we are comparing apples with pears, especially on trains with a lot of computer involvement.

[Rob F]

But why does it have to so much more complicated than in Switzerland, not a backward country by any stretch of the imagination. In this video from 0:44 onwards:

 

 

A train is sitting in the platform, with passengers aboard and the doors released. The joining portion arrives and couples, without stopping, and its doors are released seconds later. The combined train then leaves quickly. What do we have to do that they do not do and what benefits does it bring?

 

Rob

Edited November 14, 2018 by Rob F

[frobisher]

What do we have to do that they do not do and what benefits does it bring?

"We" have to couple vehicles of the AT300 family in the UK not Swiss EMUs and the benefit is the procedures work for the former where as the swiss procedures probably would not and that the UK has one of the best safety records for rail operations in Europe let alone the rest of the world.

[Steadfast]

Thanks for that, it does seem that there were walking boards either side of the centre rail and at the same level, for the shunter to stand on so they had at least tried to do something.

 

Jamie

Not dealt with 4th rail, but if anything the raised boards will make the job even tougher for the shunter unless he's particularly short. We have a couple of road crossings in the yard and if you've got to split the train there it's surprising how much harder it is to deal with couplings and pipes stood level with the railhead, not on the ballast. Also going under the buffer to go inbetween is a lot harder

 

Jo

[jim.snowdon]

"We" have to couple vehicles of the AT300 family in the UK not Swiss EMUs and the benefit is the procedures work for the former where as the swiss procedures probably would not and that the UK has one of the best safety records for rail operations in Europe let alone the rest of the world.

Perhaps you might like to explain why the Swiss procedures would not work in the UK, please.

 

A train is a train, whether it is in Britain, Switzerland or anywhere else.

 

Jim

[mdvle]

But why does it have to so much more complicated than in Switzerland, not a backward country by any stretch of the imagination. In this video from 0:44 onwards:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8XZmzlGpUY

 

A train is sitting in the platform, with passengers aboard and the doors released. The joining portion arrives and couples, without stopping, and its doors are released seconds later. The combined train then leaves quickly. What do we have to do that they do not do and what benefits does it bring?

 

 

But the video doesn't show that.

 

We have no idea from the video how long it took to make the coupling safe for departure, only that at the very least the person filming had time to walk down the platform.  But for all we know it could have sat there for 10 minutes.

 

It also appears to show older equipment likely without the computer handshaking issues (though whether they are actually issues, or merely a reflection that the computer doesn't allow safety checks to be skipped, may be debatable).

 

I would also point out that the platform isn't very safe - it isn't level with various heights and slopes that could be treacherous in slippery winter conditions.

[royaloak]

But why does it have to so much more complicated than in Switzerland, not a backward country by any stretch of the imagination. In this video from 0:44 onwards:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8XZmzlGpUY

 

A train is sitting in the platform, with passengers aboard and the doors released. The joining portion arrives and couples, without stopping, and its doors are released seconds later. The combined train then leaves quickly. What do we have to do that they do not do and what benefits does it bring?

 

Rob

Over here the driver would have been relieved of duty because that would be classed as a collision, we also dont know how long there was between the trains connecting and the train departing because the video is cut, if it was as quickly as you state then why the need to cut the footage?

[royaloak]

A train is a train, whether it is in Britain, Switzerland or anywhere else.

 

Jim

Is it really? 

 

Are you stating the coupling procedures are the same for all trains?

[Geoff Endacott]

Is it really? 

 

Are you stating the coupling procedures are the same for all trains?

 

Insert glue, push together, hold, stick.

 

Geoff Endacott

[royaloak]

Insert glue, push together, hold, stick.

 

Geoff Endacott

Trust you!    

[jim.snowdon]

Over here the driver would have been relieved of duty because that would be classed as a collision, we also dont know how long there was between the trains connecting and the train departing because the video is cut, if it was as quickly as you state then why the need to cut the footage?

Any coupling is a controlled collision, except that we British seem to make much more of a song and dance over what is and is not safe, possibly as a result of treating every incident as something that must not happen rather than considering the causes and making a realistic assessment of the risks.

 

Jim

[Rob F]

Over here the driver would have been relieved of duty because that would be classed as a collision, we also dont know how long there was between the trains connecting and the train departing because the video is cut, if it was as quickly as you state then why the need to cut the footage?

We do know how long it was because I took the video! It was around 1 minute.

[Rob F]

We do know how long it was because I took the video! It was around 1 minute.

Correction. I have just gone back to the videos and looked at the time stamps. It was 67 seconds from the moment the couplings made contact to the combined train pulling away. So really not much longer than a standard station stop where no joining was required. Longer for the train that was already in the platform, of course.

[Richard E]

I've seen units coupled and uncoupled at York with passengers on board, the only difference to the narrative above is that the doors were closed and locked during the move. Does that count as a collision given what has been said?

[Chris116]

I've seen units coupled and uncoupled at York with passengers on board, the only difference to the narrative above is that the doors were closed and locked during the move. Does that count as a collision given what has been said?

In the UK when two units are being coupled together it is standard practice for the unit (or loco) that is buffering up to stop short and than move forward. This is to ensure the moving part is under full control and the driver does not find at the last moment that he cannot stop. Of course this precaution does not stop the hard hit but it does make them a lot less likely.

[Mark Saunders]

In the UK when two units are being coupled together it is standard practice for the unit (or loco) that is buffering up to stop short and than move forward. This is to ensure the moving part is under full control and the driver does not find at the last moment that he cannot stop. Of course this precaution does not stop the hard hit but it does make them a lot less likely.

 

Procedure stop  6' move to 2' check alignment and electrical connection box, if all is well couple but remember to do a pull test to prove physical connection!

 

Have you ever heard an electrician muttering when replacing a 36 way jumper cable, it is not full of any pleasantries. 

[The Stationmaster]

Over here the driver would have been relieved of duty because that would be classed as a collision, we also dont know how long there was between the trains connecting and the train departing because the video is cut, if it was as quickly as you state then why the need to cut the footage?

 

Exactly so.  The Rule Book has long required that when vehicles or locos etc are being brought together to couple up the joining movement must be brought to a stand clear of the whatever it is going to couple to.  It is an area to which I always pay very careful attention when writing Rules for 'minor railways' and it is one where that sector had s had a number of official warnings for not observing that practice as getting it wrong can lead to some nasty happenings.  Similarly any sensible Driver will pay heed to his/her job and make sure that the train's doors are closed before carrying out a coupling manoeuvre thus avoiding the risk that passengers might attempt to board or alight during the coupling movement.

 

All of this is based on practical experience and is not in the Rules for fun or the gratification of those who write such things because it is based on trying to avoid injuries and damage which have happened in the past.  Personally I think that 6 feet is inadequate, especially where the 'nose' of the train restricts a Driver's view, but the counter argument is that if the gap is greater there remains a risk of the joining train acquiring too much speed.  Speed?  Having seen the results and casualties of a buffer stop collision involving a passenger train travelling at 5 mph I don't think there is anything at all ridiculous or stupid about the need for the joining train or loco to stop clear before slowly moving forward to couple.

 

The pull-away test also has it origins in common sense and experience and overall it is probably a lot better than having a train part while in motion.

 

We should also remember that the units we saw on the BOB in that film don't exactly have the software built into Class 800 sets.  Don't forget also - as has already been stated - Britain's railways have in many respects long worked to rather higher safety standards than apply in parts of the European mainland.  For example we long ago ruled that Shunters etc must not stand between vehicles, or locos and vehicles, when they are being shunted together to couple up.  The reason is I suppose fairly obvious, as were some of the mangled bodies of those who tried to save time by ignoring the Rule.  But in many European mainland countries it was still normal practice for Shunters to stand in that position and if you suggested to that railway that such a practice was dangerous you would be considered some sort of wimp.  And of course it was a requirement in UIC vehicle construction codes that the Berne Rectangle (created by having longer buffers housings) must be provided on all vehicles in order to make room for a Shunter to stand there.  Different world, different approach to personal safety, different staff injury and fatality rates.

Any coupling is a controlled collision, except that we British seem to make much more of a song and dance over what is and is not safe, possibly as a result of treating every incident as something that must not happen rather than considering the causes and making a realistic assessment of the risks.

 

Jim

 

It is that assessment of the risks, and real as well as potential outcomes, which has led to what is in today's Rule Book and led to some of what has been there for a long time.  Not necessarily a full risk assessment in the modern sense of the term but the result of experience produced the same outcome - the risk and potential is ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable).

[jim.snowdon]

This (procedure) has all the hallmarks of one written to satisfy a lowest common denominator approach, rather than something written from a practical understanding of how couplers operate and what they are designed to cope with. Buckeye (AAR or knuckle) couplers require someone on the ground to check that at least one knuckle is open, otherwise they will not engage. Scharfenberg (and similar couplers) are designed to couple directly and be self-aligning within reasonable limits - it is only when coupling on tighter curves that there is a need to manually align the heads. (Been there, and done that, including having to modify the self-centring cams to suit one particular railway.) The electrical heads are designed to either mate on contact, or be moved forward into contact after mechanical coupling has been achieved.

 

The whole idea of modern autocouplers is that not only do they avoid putting people on the track between vehicles, but that they simply push together and lock. That is how they are designed to be used.

 

Taken overall, the whole practice of allowing one train into an already occupied platform (or siding) is dependent upon the presumption that the driver has control of the train. If he hasn't, through oversight, carelessness or equipment failure, it is not going to make much difference whether he is intending to stop 2 metres short, or at the point of coupling. All the 2m does is give a slightly greater latitude for error, and the better principle is that the driver should be aiming to stop 2m short, and once it is clear that everything is under control, can ease off the brakes and proceed to the point of coupling. Slightly different with older stock having only air braking, as the delay times inherent in the equipment have to be factored in.

 

Jim

[Zomboid]

What would be the real benefit of relaxing the procedures? Watching the goings on at Bournemouth, Salisbury, Haywards Heath etc will show that these things can be accomplished very quickly and efficiently whilst using the present method. If trains take a while to set up communication amongst themselves then that's a different issue.

[iands]

Exactly so.  The Rule Book has long required that when vehicles or locos etc are being brought together to couple up the joining movement must be brought to a stand clear of the whatever it is going to couple to.  It is an area to which I always pay very careful attention when writing Rules for 'minor railways' and it is one where that sector had s had a number of official warnings for not observing that practice as getting it wrong can lead to some nasty happenings.  Similarly any sensible Driver will pay heed to his/her job and make sure that the train's doors are closed before carrying out a coupling manoeuvre thus avoiding the risk that passengers might attempt to board or alight during the coupling movement.

 

All of this is based on practical experience and is not in the Rules for fun or the gratification of those who write such things because it is based on trying to avoid injuries and damage which have happened in the past.  Personally I think that 6 feet is inadequate, especially where the 'nose' of the train restricts a Driver's view, but the counter argument is that if the gap is greater there remains a risk of the joining train acquiring too much speed.  Speed?  Having seen the results and casualties of a buffer stop collision involving a passenger train travelling at 5 mph I don't think there is anything at all ridiculous or stupid about the need for the joining train or loco to stop clear before slowly moving forward to couple.

 

The pull-away test also has it origins in common sense and experience and overall it is probably a lot better than having a train part while in motion.

 

We should also remember that the units we saw on the BOB in that film don't exactly have the software built into Class 800 sets.  Don't forget also - as has already been stated - Britain's railways have in many respects long worked to rather higher safety standards than apply in parts of the European mainland.  For example we long ago ruled that Shunters etc must not stand between vehicles, or locos and vehicles, when they are being shunted together to couple up.  The reason is I suppose fairly obvious, as were some of the mangled bodies of those who tried to save time by ignoring the Rule.  But in many European mainland countries it was still normal practice for Shunters to stand in that position and if you suggested to that railway that such a practice was dangerous you would be considered some sort of wimp.  And of course it was a requirement in UIC vehicle construction codes that the Berne Rectangle (created by having longer buffers housings) must be provided on all vehicles in order to make room for a Shunter to stand there.  Different world, different approach to personal safety, different staff injury and fatality rates.

 

 

It is that assessment of the risks, and real as well as potential outcomes, which has led to what is in today's Rule Book and led to some of what has been there for a long time.  Not necessarily a full risk assessment in the modern sense of the term but the result of experience produced the same outcome - the risk and potential is ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable).

Very well put Mike.

[jamie92208]

 

The pull-away test also has it origins in common sense and experience and overall it is probably a lot better than having a train part while in motion.

 

 

I was once on a train in the US where, I think there had been a loco change and they didn't do a pull away test and the loco broke away as we moved off.  Even though we were only moving at a couple of mph, the jolt as the brakes went into emergency and we came to a sudden stop, was quite severe.   We were on our way again pretty quickly and the catering crew over breakfast blamed it on a 'woman driver'.   Some things never seem to change.

 

Jamie

[Gwiwer]

Don’t tell everyone or we might end up doing this at Haywards Heath, Plymouth or where ever trains are split or joined. The Australian requirement is “Everyone out”. ALARP means no passenengers aboard during any shunt moves. So if you have been happily seated from Echuca you are required to vacate the unit when it arrives at Bendigo and couples to the additional unit starting from there. If you find yourself aboard a standing-room-only service from Ararat or Maryborough then you risk losing that seat when the two portions combine at Ballarat before going on to Melbourne. It takes quite a while, it is unpopular and based on the accident record (no injuries that I am aware of) may be excessively cautious. But for every task there is the right way, the wrong way and the rail way.

[The Stationmaster]

Don’t tell everyone or we might end up doing this at Haywards Heath, Plymouth or where ever trains are split or joined. The Australian requirement is “Everyone out”. ALARP means no passenengers aboard during any shunt moves. So if you have been happily seated from Echuca you are required to vacate the unit when it arrives at Bendigo and couples to the additional unit starting from there. If you find yourself aboard a standing-room-only service from Ararat or Maryborough then you risk losing that seat when the two portions combine at Ballarat before going on to Melbourne. It takes quite a while, it is unpopular and based on the accident record (no injuries that I am aware of) may be excessively cautious. But for every task there is the right way, the wrong way and the rail way.

 

A problem in Australia is that for comparatively recent 'historical' reasons some railway operators have become excessively fearful about the attitude of various politicians and even more importantly the attitude of would-be politicians currently in the legal trade.  This was very much the situation in NSW although it was at least remunerative for various persons (including myself for a couple of months doing a job  for Cityrail) and it wouldn't surprise me if neighbouring states jumped on the band wagon.  The vast majority of the risk assessment work in NSW was done by folk hired in from a UK company so hopefully we kept our feet on the ground.  I wonder if they're still using my junction risk assessment tool for timetabling?