acko22 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I am not going to say NR or ORR should be checking every train that moves, I am sure ORR will be looking at the qualified people to ensure they have meet the standards required in all cases. As to the use of MK1 Stock again it is a difficult one to answer although I would have thought that it cannot be that difficult to retro fit modern systems to them such as central locking so ensure the doors can't be opened with out the coaches been static and brakes applied although it will be costly. But back to this incident the train was already at a stand still and the doors were opened when the train moved, now please excuse me I don't know so I am asking but doesn't the train have to apply a parking brake when allowing for people to get on and off? And if so shouldn't that be capable of holding a train on it brakes even in the case of power accidentally been applied? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted June 15, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 15, 2015 But back to this incident the train was already at a stand still and the doors were opened when the train moved, now please excuse me I don't know so I am asking but doesn't the train have to apply a parking brake when allowing for people to get on and off? And if so shouldn't that be capable of holding a train on it brakes even in the case of power accidentally been applied? The parking brake or handbrake as it is better known is not usually applied while the locomotive is running as the air / vacuum brake is fully able to hold the train for as long as required* and unlike the foot brake your motor car does not require the driver to physically keep it on with their body. Also apart from Modern EMU designs, the handbrake also only applies to the vehicle it is physically mounted on and are not interlocked with the train brakes so it is perfectly possible for a loco to overcome a hand brake (with the resultant 20p shaped wheels as the braked vehicle slides rather than rolls along). The big issue here is not the brakes themselves but rather the lack of a link between the doors on traditional slam door coaching stock being open and the train brake, which prevents the train brakes from being released (on all vehicles throughout the train) if a door is open. *Note many BR diesels had lousy handbrakes and had to be scotched if being left unpowered to prevent runaways - the class 40s being particularly well known for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenw Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 The trains held on the train brake. Depending on traction type this may be fully applied by doors being released, or traction power can't be applied with the doors released and any movement applies the brake. Secondary Door Locking (eg HST Mk3) isn't interlocked, but an incident such as this could be used to relock any unopened doors. Although the train had stopped, so doors may have been released anyway, any incident involving open doors could still bring the door arrangements on this stock into question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
acko22 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Thank you gents for those informative answers So Mk1s in reality do need an interconnected locking system to ensure the doors cant open in the running brakes aren't fully applied and the train is at a halt, and via versa the train cant apply power if there are doors open (please correct me if I am incorrect in my understanding of what's needed). If such a system was applied then this could have stopped any potential human error, if indeed there was any (Please not I am not pointing as well the circumstances are unclear at this time) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Even if the circuit that works the central door locking bolts and lights on the likes of HSTs was interlocked with the brakes, I don't think this would solve the problem. I don't believe the system actually proves that the doors are closed, so that must still be done visually! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Thank you gents for those informative answers So Mk1s in reality do need an interconnected locking system to ensure the doors cant open in the running brakes aren't fully applied and the train is at a halt, and via versa the train cant apply power if there are doors open (please correct me if I am incorrect in my understanding of what's needed). If such a system was applied then this could have stopped any potential human error, if indeed there was any (Please not I am not pointing as well the circumstances are unclear at this time) Well, the loco was in forward gear and under power in the video clip, it definitely wasn't just rolling away. The cost of introducing this system would likely be prohibitively expensive for mk1 stock and somewhat dubious from a technical perspective, especially given how complex modern electrical equipment tend to react with steam locos. More likely I can see WCR and possibly other steam operators making it an SOP that the Guard applies the hand brake whilst the doors are open, with a valve also requiring to be fitted to the handbrake to stop the driver releasing the brakes whilst the handbrake is applied (the technology for which already exists). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 If this was the case then it merely throws the focus of the enquiry onto WCRs fitness to run / maintenance regimes rather than the actions of the crew. A leaking regulator is not something that should be tolerated by any main line certified engine and if there were any suspicions about this during the preparation of Mayflower before the tour started (or if it developed en route) that it would misbehave in such a manor then the tour should have been cancelled / terminated early and WCR will have some serious explaining to do. Ultimately if WCR have followed correct procedures throughout and the incident + any follow on actions can be proved to have been handled correctly (however it was caused) then WCR have nothing to fear. If however it is found that WCR have not followed their enhanced SMS there will be trouble. A regulator blowing through is not uncommon; most locos do to some extent. This is one reason why the taps (cylinder drain cocks) should be left open when the loco is standing, otherwise pressure will build up in the steam chest and one side of each piston, causing the loco to move as soon as the brake is released. Banning any stem loco with a slight blow past the regulator would virtually elimenate steam traction; within limits, it isn't dangerous provided the precaution outlined above is observed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Couldn't the train carry on with passengers as there was a fresh crew on board taking control of the train? The Guard and any other "on board" crew who helped with dispatch would have been relieved as well as the engine crew so unless there was a spare Guard around who signed that stock then No, it couldn't have. I don't think that any FGW and certainly no XC staff still sign Mk1s and as they'd be the only ones around that's it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Given the age of the traction and some of the other comments about the regulator it is also entirely possible that the locomotive isn't eliminated as the cause of the problem at this early stage so it too I suspect would have to have been replaced for the train to continue forward with passengers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 On the charters that I have stewarded (admittedly 10 yrs ago), upon arrival at the station, the Guard applied his brake in the van. So in that case, the driver would have been unable to move the train. As the Guard has ultimate responsibility to despatch the train, he kept the brake on until he was ready. Stewart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Well, the loco was in forward gear and under power in the video clip, it definitely wasn't just rolling away. The cost of introducing this system would likely be prohibitively expensive for mk1 stock and somewhat dubious from a technical perspective, especially given how complex modern electrical equipment tend to react with steam locos. More likely I can see WCR and possibly other steam operators making it an SOP that the Guard applies the hand brake whilst the doors are open, with a valve also requiring to be fitted to the handbrake to stop the driver releasing the brakes whilst the handbrake is applied (the technology for which already exists). While fitting steam locos with an interface for CDL is probably pretty hard, as long as the coaches all have CDL, connected to maybe a controller attached to the brake line in the brake coach ( actually, each coach could have their own brake controller, this would mean no need for through wiring) the train isn't going to go anywhere even if the driver applies power.Of course as mentioned, CDL as normally implemented on manual door stock only checks that the bolt has gone in, not that the door is closed when it has done so, so a door could be locked open. It can't be beyond the wit of man to provide some sort of sensor, mechanical or electrical to prove the door is shut at well as bolted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 As far as I'm concerned the sooner they put power doors on our HSTs the better, slam door stock, even with CDL is a pain in the backside to operate as well as being unsafe (we had a chap dive out through the open window just recently, not to mention the numerous times I've had to drag people's heads back in just before getting them knocked off)... (Sorry for thread drift!)... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted June 15, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 15, 2015 "Not as safe" rather than "unsafe" please. It's been used for an awful long time and almost everyone who used it has come out completely unscathed. I'm not claiming that it's issue-free and alternatives are therefore a waste of time but "unsafe" sounds rather too tabloid-ish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Neil Posted June 15, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 15, 2015 Though the focus is on charter trains on the main line, it strikes me that the same set of circumstances are present on all/most preserved railways and therefore the risk that a train may move off with doors open/passengers alighting or boarding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 "Not as safe" rather than "unsafe" please. It's been used for an awful long time and almost everyone who used it has come out completely unscathed. I'm not claiming that it's issue-free and alternatives are therefore a waste of time but "unsafe" sounds rather too tabloid-ish. It's an order of magnitude safer than before CDL was implemented, and there are the stats to prove it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 "Not as safe" rather than "unsafe" please. It's been used for an awful long time and almost everyone who used it has come out completely unscathed. I'm not claiming that it's issue-free and alternatives are therefore a waste of time but "unsafe" sounds rather too tabloid-ish. Inherently unsafe, you can get out through the droplights and the doors can be left open even with CDL so it is not "safe", the number of incidents (and there have been loads, most luckily near misses rather than injury or death ones) does not change matters. As far as I'm concerned you are simply playing with words, comparing the operation and use of power doors and slam doors is like comparing chalk and cheese... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted June 15, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 15, 2015 The number is entirely what matters and concentrating entirely on what could happen instead of what does happen does not give an appropriate appreciation of a situation (the obvious exception being with something new, when there's nothing else to go on although even then I'd expect a lot of testing to gain some appreciation of how it behaves in the real world). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted June 15, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 15, 2015 This is all getting a bit silly now.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted June 15, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 15, 2015 It's an order of magnitude safer than before CDL was implemented, and there are the stats to prove it.Sure, I'm not saying that CDL is a bad thing or a waste of time, my point is that making something that's reasonably safe safer doesn't immediately make the original unsafe or imply that it ever was to begin with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I would agree, Phil, trying to defend an outdated and unsafe method of door operation amazes me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted June 15, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 15, 2015 Oh boy... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted June 15, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 15, 2015 Sure, I'm not saying that CDL is a bad thing or a waste of time, my point is that making something that's reasonably safe safer doesn't immediately make the original unsafe or imply that it ever was to begin with. Especially when we consider how long the "unsafe" way was in use Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Sure, I'm not saying that CDL is a bad thing or a waste of time, my point is that making something that's reasonably safe safer doesn't immediately make the original unsafe or imply that it ever was to begin with. I was agreeing with you... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted June 15, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 15, 2015 I was agreeing with you... Oh, sorry, I'm obviously not used enough to that! Anyway I'll try to promise to say no more about doors (unless they get back to being on-topic and I can think of something relevent to say). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 @Beast so that makes it all ok then... Boy am I glad some of you are not in charge of safety on our railways... I've had my say, some of you don't agree, that's your prerogative, but you'll never persuade me that doors that can be opened when on the move and climbed out of through an open window were ever "safe"! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.