Ken.W

4 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

This is the difference between two preserved lines. The original whinge comes from a line which seems to be in perpetual turmoil, while your quote is from one where the glass is always at least half-full, I think. 

Indeed, always preferable to be 'glass half hull' where steam locos are concerned

49 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

4 and a half years later... A couple of mk1 related questions:

 

What were bck intended to be used for and how common were they? Specifically in blue/grey and IC executive liveries. Just seems a bit of an odd vehicle, although ideal for a 2 coach trainset rake with an SO! 

On ECML expresses they were commonly used as part of though portions

eg Many Kings X / Edinburgh expresses had a BCK+SK pair on the north end to / from Aberdeen

On 03/12/2020 at 00:45, Bomag said:

 

I have to say the driving on the GW HST was being a bit limp on the video. Compare that to a ECML HST from Newark, Grantham or Stevenage leaving on full bung

Looking at that video again, although it claims to show the difference in capability between an 800 and a HST, the HST does look slow in starting away to me, probably not more than notch 3 (of 5), and that's just an 8 car set, I was used to the 9 car EC sets and worked HSTs regularly from '86

The speeds I quoted earlier for the climb to Durham are personal experience and clearly show the 800 is significantly slower on diesel. However, where the 91 and HST figures are in service, loaded, the 800s an empty set on training runs - they were on electric on this section by the time they entered service.

17 hours ago, DY444 said:

I don't think the IET in diesel being faster off the mark is anything to do with distributed traction.  Rather it's to do with design decisions as to how the available diesel power was to be deployed in the IET and the need to limit traction motor current in the HST power cars at low speed. 

 

The IET traction software was set up specifically to give fast acceleration from rest on diesel with the engine power being deliberately restricted above a certain speed.  By contrast the HST power cars have a system which deliberately restricts traction motor current up to a certain speed.  I can't remember the numbers but it's something like a max current of 1500A up to 35mph ish.  Or put another way the IET was deliberately set up to accelerate rapidly up to about 40mph on diesel and the HST was deliberately constrained.  This is why in original trim the IET took off quickly and then quickly ran out of puff and the HST did the opposite.  The increase to 940hp has made most difference to the IET diesel performance at higher speeds as you'd expect.

The HST doesnt constrain power up to a certain speed then increase to full power (the 91 does this, as I posted earlier). The governor / load regulator simply limit power to the maximum rating of the motors, and then, as with any electric transmission, amps will gradually fall as speed increases.

It's possible to give them full power at quite low speed, which clearly isnt happening in this example

On 02/01/2021 at 14:55, Bomag said:

 

According to a few sources I have seen (including P5 combined) all engines on 800/801/802 are now rated at 940hp

I'm sure I've seen that clip before, and it was early on in the introduction of 800s on GWR, so would have been before the 800s engines were uprated, if indeed they have been.

AIUI, the GWR 800s were initially 750, but were later uprated to 900 but only up to 40mph. Only the GWR 802s were uprated to start with, as these were not part of the IEP order. I've seen nothing to suggest LNER sets were uprated. However, I doubt if anyone outside of Hitachi actually know what the situation is, as they seem highly reluctant to give out any information if they can help it (as evidenced in the Neville Hill inquiry).

When the LNER training was being set up, there were problems getting the relevant instructions from Hitachi, and even when the courses were going on there was still a dribble of information coming from them.

They're also very averse to making any changes at all to the sets, even this long after Neville Hill some issues of unnecessary distractions from the TMS are still unresolved, and after over a year they still won't put in extra luggage racks LNER have requested as being needed - hence the end seats with a vinyl cover over for luggage to be placed on them.

On 02/12/2020 at 19:58, Bomag said:

HST  4500hp on 8 axles; 18.75t axle load

91 6300hp on 4 axles: 21t axle load.

800 (9 car) approx 6000hp on electric 4700hp diesel on 20 axles: 12.5t axle load.

 

On electric a 800 out accelerates both HST and 91 up to about 100mph (as expected for distributed motive power) after which (from GPS) the 800 acceleration flattens out and  dips below 91s.

On diesel I don't have too many comparable tracks but it is nothing special. I had a pair of 800/2 diverted via Lincoln due to a jumper and comparable to a Sprinter it was slower to line speed (may be driving style)

The 9-car 800s 3750hp on diesel - 5 x 750hp engines

Yes, even on electric the 800s 'acceleration' is only notable by it's absence once up to about 100mph.

The 91 on the other hand, while slow starting off, really gets itself into gear once you're up to about 60.  Approaching 125 you can still see the speedo needle moving and it would still keep on going, they were afterall designed for 140mph operation. So, overall the 91s only take a mile or two longer than the 800 in getting to 125.

Your experience of an 800 via Lincoln sounds probably about right

Yes, as others have said, an 800 can out-pace anything else - but, only when on electric.

In that clip, theres not an overhead wire in site so the 800s clearly on diesel and that clip's clearly rigged!

On the climb through Chester-le-Street towards Durham

A 91 will manage, just about, the 115 linespeed

An HST would manage about 110

An 800 on diesel? Max out at about 101 then drop back for the 90 at Newton Hall virtually without having to shut off

On 03/12/2020 at 13:14, Supaned said:

I wonder if these CONservative Home zealots are in some way connected to that Peter Wilkinson character of the DfT? I remember him making some spurious claims about traincrew allegedly being entitled to some sort of break which had continued on since the days of steam. I'm certainly not aware of any such breaks - the only ones we get are a PNB

That's right. The PNB was introduced with single-manning as a requirement for single manned diagrams.

On turns which were still double manned (Driver and Secondman) there was no requirement for any break

On 29/12/2020 at 04:41, PatB said:

Demonstrating the fine line between comedy and tragedy. Yes, it was funny but, presumably, firefighters would have been crossing the line on the understanding it was closed, and that train wasn't going particularly slowly... 

I recall two incidents in recent years though where a driver working on the outside of his train had a very narrow escape with a train at 125 on an adjoining line which he believed was closed.

This incident could also have had very serious consequences had there been firefighters at the end of the hose facing the fire at the time, and suddenly found their water cut off

My last railway photo of last year, 15.00 3rd September, 91119 departing Newcastle on rear of Edinburgh to Kings X service, possibly one of it's last runs.

On 19/11/2020 at 20:26, iands said:

There used to be one at Chaloners Whin Junction on the Up side that was actually for the S&T lineman. It lasted until at least the opening of the ECML Diversion (that did away with Chaloners Whin Jcn), may have lasted a bit longer, say 1985.

A lot of the surviving ECML huts fell victim to the electrification works

Just to add some context to that last post;

The location's Heaton Depot, and that's the set I was due to take out into service.

The photo's were taken for the benefit of York Control, who of course promptly declared it a failure - that was a de-wirement looking for somewhere to happen!

On the Azumas full prep's done by Hitachi's own tech staff who then issue a 'fitness to run' certificate to each cab. Drivers however still do a part prep, or 'mobilisation' on taking a set into service, mostly involving checking the safety systems. On one occasion during training doing this, I found we had no brake on one of the coaches. That turned out to be a circuit breaker on the adjoining coach tripped (something else Hitachi hadn't told us about) and the only indication was doing the brake sequence test - going through the TMS to the brake screen and observing the pressure on each coach while making brake applications - there was no fault alert that something was wrong.

9 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Computer / warning lights won't tell the train driver if

 

Bits are hanging off, perhaps fouling the gauge, or could cause derailment if not attended to immediately,

Windows etc broken 

Vandalism has occurred whilst parked

etc etc.

 

Slippery slope.

 

Brit15

 

Erm, something like this, you mean?

On 27/11/2020 at 23:36, jools1959 said:

Don’t forget that during the 90’s, Mk3 DVT’s appeared complete with their train in the West Country on Saturday extra’s.  I have feeling that the electric was left on as they didn’t want to upset the TDM equipment as it didn’t at the time like being plugged in and then disconnected, but I’m probably wrong.

Or maybe as the DVT was the only brake in the set and it saved finding an alternative from somewhere and a lot of shunting?

15 hours ago, Padishar Creel said:

Also from clips in YouTube occasionally between loco and first MK3 TSO, when the loco was pulling.

es grüßt 

pc

Yes possible, but would have needed the E70 (brake control) on the DVT to be isolated as not in push-pull mode

16 minutes ago, ColinK said:

Yes, I remember those too, looked really odd. Does anyone know what the working was?

Yes, I remember thinking it looked odd too at first, then realized why it could only be done that way (as posted above)

So basically, it would have been any push-pull working which also conveyed Motorail traffic

In the opposite direction they'd be behind the DVT

On 22/11/2020 at 22:26, adb968008 said:

Slightly off topic, but I recall seeing trains in formation of car carrying too in the form  of:

 

Motorail Guvs + 87 + mk3+DVT

 

on a few occasions.

 

That would've been quite common as the GUVs weren't fitted with train lighting control cables, which is what were used to transmit the push-pull TDM signal, so could not be marshaled within the push-pull formation and had to be behind the loco instead.

On 17/11/2020 at 15:58, petethemole said:

I saw that.  Given the time the MOM quoted between the barriers coming down and the train arriving (25-30 sec), I worked out that the couple had probably crossed the line quite safely before the crossing activated but were surprised that a train came so soon afterwards.

20 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Unfortunately the CCTV didn't show where the couple were when they thought the lights weren't working ...................... must admit the Network Rail guy dismissing their claim as just a trick of the light was a little worrying  -  it was a right-side trick of the light in this instance but could be a wrong-side one next time !

 

Nice shot of a minimalist HST 'set' !

Sounds right for the time AHB's are set for the lights coming on for a train approaching at line speed.

The one remaining AHB on the ECML, Markle, on the Up you'd see the barriers falling as you approached at the permitted 100 mph. At some AHBs on slower routes like Newcastle - Carlisle or Edinburgh - Carstairs, I'd see traffic still crossing ahead before the lights started.

6 hours ago, bimble said:

set the loco's speedo with worn wheels then stick a new set on... but the speedo says I'm doing 35mph... 

Don't know about in US, but in UK 3 MPH is the allowed tolerance for the speedo

5 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

our trains at Eurotunnel normally run at 140 kph in the tunnel. If the EP has to be isolated, this immediately drops to 100; furthermore, the driver has to run at half the indicated speed when on other tracks. It can spoil an otherwise perfect day....

 

Similarly With HSTs, The E70s (brake control units) on both power cars make brake applications from both ends simultaneously, as do the 91/DVT on Mk4s.

With the rear E70 isolated speeds restricted to 100 mph

When doing the HST training*, on one run we made a Full Service application at a certain point from 125 to a stand.

Repeated the same thing on the next run, but with one E70 isolated...

we went an extra 1/4 mile

* in the days when we got a training special for this

I'm quite sure that 150s have never operated in service in the North East (as opposed to Yorkshire), as by that time North East services were wholly operated by Heaton based sets which has never had an allocation of the class.

It's highly unlikely that the Yorkshire based units would have strayed into the North East, as the two areas local services were effectively separated by a 44 mile gap between York and Darlington which was mainly, if not fully, covered by Trans-Pennine services, the only remaining intermediate stations being Northallerton and Thirsk. At the time in question these would be generally 47 hauled, later going to 158s. Up until Newcastle depot being split for sectorisation in 1990 when I went to Intercity, I still worked the Trans-Pennines which were still 47 hauled - I never learned the 158s as these didn't come in until after the split.

In the unlikely event that a Yorkshire based 150 did stray north of York, it still couldn't have strayed far as, with none being based in the area, no North East crews were trained on them.

adb968008 commented that 156s would have worked in the North East as NL based sets did S&C workings.They do regularly work in the area as Heaton received it's own allocation of the class from around 1988 and it was this that led to the 143s being transfered away. Heaton's original Pacer allocation was all 25 of the 143 class only with no 142s. With the need for fewer Pacers when the 156s came, rather than split the small class of 143s they were all transfered away to Wales and replaced by a smaller allocation of 142s.

Since the Glasgow / Stranraer - Newcastle through services started we also get Scotrail allocated 156s working in on those.

12 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

Not a stupidity post, but this seems a suitable place to ask this.

 

At Lolham Bridges, NW of Peterborough, there is a level crossing over the ECML:

 

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.64910/-0.35873

 

(It's an old Roman Road, known as King Street.)

 

However, the present situation seems to be that for motor vehicles the road is now one-way only, north to south, but cyclists can go both ways:

 

What's the thinking behind this? Was abuse of the crossing more prevalent in one direction? Is this a busy route for cyclists? How are the signage and barriers affected for cyclists on one side only?

 

thanks,

 

Martin.

 

As I recall, the road over Lolham LC (ECML) has a single track river bridge almost immediately to the east side of the crossing (about a couple of car lengths), so that if there was a queue of traffic both ways over the crossing eastbound traffic couldn't clear the crossing until westbound had cleared the bridge unless someone westbound gave way.

This situation  could, obviously, cause delay to closing the crossing, thus delaying trains.

Not actually dangerous though, as the crossing's controlled via CCTV so the signals aren't cleared until the crossing's closed and confirmed clear.

Where a loco's being hauled as in the examples above, as the locos aren't coupled for multiple working, the driver of the hauling loco will not have any fire alarm warning for the hauled loco(s).

Therefore locos being hauled need to be either manned by a driver, or shut down and hauled dead.

When a loco's dead, the BIS* needs to be put to off/isolate to preserve battery power, so a portable tail lamp's required.

* Battery Isolating Switch

2 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

S The idea to use the Class 91's on "other trains" between daytime use on Mk4's had two fatal flaws- the incredible daily mileage they would encounter meaning they needed maintenance at night, and the fact that you might well end up with a Mk4 set or five sat on a depot all dressed up with nowhere to go if their "power cars" had failed to make it back off the other duty in time!

Three flaws actually.

By the time they came out, the overnight trains they were supposed to work had either;

Permanently disappeared in the case of the Sleepers - At the time of their transfer from the ECML to the WCML it was meant to be be a temporary measure to allow for the overnight electification possessions, but they never returned.

Or;

With the Postal / parcels trains, they now 'belonged' to someone else post-sectorisation, so Intercity locos couldn't work them.

They wouldn't have worked freight anyway, as Keefer suggests. With 6,000+ hp and 80t adhesion, they'll slip if a cloud comes over!!

In wet conditions they have enough trouble with a 400t Mk4 set behind, put one on a freight and you'd just have a very efficient rail-grinder

12 hours ago, lekkie lad said:

 I have been looking at the Isinglass website but I've had bad experience with 3D printed stock. Admittedly it was for 009 and was from the early days of 3D printing.

 

Ian S

They're good kits, I've built one, and then got some more to do.

You can see some, and some discussion on them, on page 2 here;

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/154259-who-is-correct-gresley-corridor-stock-end-designs/page/2/

5 hours ago, TechnicArrow said:

 

 But in the absence of any specialised LNER vehicles, I'm probably going with 13T steel open wagons

 

Very unlikely, at the period you're talking of these were new, and built for express goods such as the "Scotch Goods"

For spoil, when Grampus type wagons became available these were often used for spoil. Otherwise, and even late into BR days, old redundant goods wagons transfered to Departmental stock would be used.

Revenue service stock were not generally used for Departmental work

So, for late '30s I'd suggest probably pre-group goods wagons with departmental markings

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The final words convinced me to click 'Like'    And LM Controls were like that for just about everybody I think - except their 'favourite' depots on the Region.

Oh yes, and the LM Control was equally detested by us! That sort of thing was, unfortunately, far from unusual...

Up until the time of Penmanshiel we had a regular booked turn with a freightliner that was booked via Carlisle as it conveyed 8'6" boxes.

Our working was light engine Gateshead to Darlington to pick up the train, work through to Carlisle Kingmoor where a pair of electrics took over, and then back home LE (there was also a similar working the other way).

Of course, the LM Control would very often nick the loco, their excuses being it was one of their LM engines and theyre not in the business of running light engines...

Regardless that it left us sitting in Carlisle all night waiting for the first passenger back, and again, finishing with well over 12 hours in.

Oh yeah, and although it was a LM loco, it was booked back to Gateshead to work...

a Newcastle - Liverpool (LMR) that morning, which Gateshead was then left short of the loco for and had to find a replacement.

Eventually Gateshead fettled them though...

Started putting one of their own locos on the turn that was a stopper... booked for exam or repair, meaning the LM **** had no choice but to let it come back

Then after Penmanshiel re-opened the train could go mainline instead

In another DMU 'parcels' working, the set off the last Newcastle - Carlisle passenger returned as a postal at around 02:50, the seats as well as the van full of mail bags. Clearly letter mail, Stationmaster Mike has already mentioned security for this, the crew consisted of Driver, Guard, and Postman.

It was actually hence this working, I had the incident which I mentioned in another thread recently when I encountered a cow with a 101 at 3am - that's what a DMU was doing out at that time in the morning!

The consequence of this, the train had to be hauled back into Carlisle and terminated there, and with the usual disdain then of LM Control for train crew (or at least NE men), following this incident we were then just left to sit and wait of the first passenger back next morning, getting back with well over 12 hours in