Ken.W

I think the loco chosen for that experiment was 91114.

Yes, that's right...

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131666-class-91-photos/page-2#ipboard_body

post # 29

Posts # 20 & 22 in that thread illustrate my point of a second pan being of little use in event of a dewirement... neither of them are going anywhere without fitter's attention anyway!

Also, in the case of 91114, the duplex pan had an interlock to prevent both being raised at the same time, so both had to be down and locked before either could be raised. So with damage to one, you weren't gonna get the other up anyway!

So are you saying that the advantage of having the pantograph up on the leading vehicle is that the driver is more likely to be aware if it's taken the wires down?

 

I'd never thought of that but it makes sense.

 

Perhaps this is less applicable to a Pendolino since the pantographs are on intermediate vehicles.

Basically, yes, as when the wires go out of tension you're likely to see them start moving irregularly, or hear something going on, although fortunately, it's not something I've actually experienced.

I believe the actual instructions allow for a single pan being up on one of the first two or three vehicles, hence EMUs (up to 4 car) tend to have it in the centre. A bit vague there as in our case it's always on the 1st or 11th vehicle anyway.

So it's basically;

Cl.91 leading; 4 Reset attempts / Pan Down / carry on coasting to a suitable location (station or somewhere you're not blocking the line)

DVT leading;  1 Reset attempt / Pan Down / Stop / examine

Having noticed the occasional 9-car IET on the Western recently, I see that they are running using the leading pantograph, which makes an interesting contrast with the WCML Pendolino sets, where it is always the trailing pantograph that is used. I understood the logic for that was that if there was a dewirement or other damage to the pantograph, at least the leading one, by virtue of being lowered and ahead of the damage, could remain usable.

But the Western region/GWR always had to be different didnt they, maybe its just a continuation of that!

I suppose that depends on how they run on LNER...

Or maybe it's more to do with OHL instructions?

With the Cl.91/MkIV sets -91 loco one end, DVT the other -

When driving from the 91 end, so pan on leading vehicle, and loose the 'line light' (ie overhead power), so long as there's no unusual noises or movements of the overhead lines, 4 attempts can be made to 'Pan Up / Reset', which would lock out a defective traction motor, and failing that, Pan Down and coast to the nearest convenient location - next station or somewhere other trains can pass...

(Have done that fairly recently, from about 80mph approx 10 miles into Darlington)

From the DVT end, so pan on rear vehicle, it's one Pan Up / Reset attempt then stop and examine immediately.

Having a spare pan available, though seemingly a good idea (indeed EC/VTEC recently trialled a twin pan on a 91), however in event of dewirement / pan damage is rarely of use practically, either;

1. The wires are down in the section where you've stopped, so the other pan can't be put up, or the train's still caught up in the downed wires

2. The wires are down behind you, so the 'breakers will be out and unless while stopping you've past an OH neutral section even if you can put the other pan up there's no juice there

3. The remains of the damaged pan will usually be 'out of gauge', so you're standing waiting of fitters to attend to remove it - the case in both such incidents I've attended with  the 'Thunderbird'

(The 91 twin pan trial was abandoned a while ago, it's reverted to the normal single one)

Not completely accurate Ken, as you well know. I accept single manning and remote booking on/off were BR progressions of productivity enhancements to basic pay.

 

Eurostar kicked off the new driver deals with the Annualised Contract Hours arrangement, which nearly collapsed within a few years, because the hours were getting used up too quickly. But this was the pattern for some of the TOCs and FOCs to follow, to some degree, and it was widely accepted, in my time in GNER, that Virgin had upped the game by offering a far better package than us or others, because they were losing drivers hand over fist at first. The trade off between TOCs (and FOCs) by ASLE&F negotiators focusing on individual company deals was real (my brother was a drivers' rep and saw all this for himself) and drove their salaries, in many cases, to a pensionable level significantly in excess of what had been hoped for under progressive efficiency deals. And so it should be, given the enormous responsibilities they have. Privatisation, in the form it took, has benefited drivers more than any other group of staff.

 

On East Coast, "Guards" had become Senior Conductors in BR InterCity days, some years before privatisation. The concept of Train Manager was introduced by GNER, not VTEC, and Guards were encouraged to apply, but many of them chose not to. It was always the stated intention to eventually merge the two roles. That was not a Virgin invention.

Whilst some trading off between companies was involved, the main substantial increases were still largely a result of productivity restructuring agreements. These obviously difered significantly between companies as conditions varied, but the list I gave above was what was involved in the GNER deal - plus a significant one I missed off, elimination of 'Long Mileage Bonus' (on a company where most turns came under this) - and in this case the deal was entirely productivity financed (with a significant saving still going to the company too).

In the case of East Coast Guards, the change to 'Senior Conductor' was basically cosmetic, no role changes were involved.

While GNER did introduce a system of 'Customer Service Managers' (not Train Managers) quite a number of the CSMs were non-ops and still required to work with a 'guard' (under a disguised name), while some CSMs (generally former guards) were ops and did the guards role to as well as managing catering crew.

This system however soon collapsed, and things reverted to having a "Train Guard" which is how they were actually graded and announcements were made as such and who had no involement with catering, with a 'Crew Leader' in charge of the catering.

This continued until the present system of a single 'Train Manager' performing both guard and catering manager roles, together with a substantial reduction in other on-board crew, which was introduced by VTEC just a year ago. Substantial changes to the roles and staffing levels of on-board staff have taken place under VTEC

And it will be improved with the Govt taking control?

Aren't they already?

It was their DfT which imposed the introduction of further DOO operaration, knoowing full well what the RMT responce would be

Why do people think so many new franchisees are so keen to introduce DOO operation knowing what the consequenses will be?

Answer; they don't have any choice!

A manufactured dispute!!!

At a recent meeting of a well known railway society I attended with a Northern manager as guest speaker, he admitted it's a franchise imposed commitment to have 50% route DOO operation, this dispite most of their routes having unmannned stations and paytrains!!

Now back to the (not so) sad demise of VTEC perhaps?

It might have worked well at reducing the impact of strikes but I think it also worked extremely well in increasing drivers' wages by playing TOCs off against each other in a way that wouldn't have been possible under BR.

Erm no, most of the substantial increases in driver's pay have been a result of productivity restructurings, other increases have been generally in line with that of other staff.

In the case of EC (the subject here) this included;

Total single manning on high speed running (previously 2 drivers for above 110 and originally above 100 mph)

Elimination of all shift allowances and enhancements, and DOO payments

Sundays becoming part of the ordinary working week with no enhanced rate (was previously overtime)

Much greater flexibility in daily rostering changes

Changes to more flexible PNB (break) requirements

Remote book on / off (a phone in the S.O.P to York Control, instead of a T.C.S. being there)

Just the main points I can think of atm

This was within a couple of years of GNER taking over.

Regarding the post above re staff conditions being largely unaffected by franchise changes, in the short period under VTEC there's been very substantial changes in roles and staffing of on-board services, with Guards becoming 'Train Managers' and also responsible for managing catering on top of their train duties and ticketing, and changes and substantial cuts to the on-board crews

That should cover the basics, think it was discussed in more detail in the thread covering the former proposed DJM model

A question for experts on NER tenders. Are all NER 4125 gallon tenders the same width over the body and footplate or were those 4125 gallon tenders built for use with Q6s narrower than those built fof the B16s and Q7s?

 

I'm building a 2mm scale Q6 and have got a 4125 gallon tender from a B16 etch to go with it, and want to make sure any difference in width between loco cab and tender body is prototypical before proceeding!

 

Many thanks

 

Simon

Hi,

Thought I'd read it was the case there was a difference,  but checking the RCTS green book, it gets a bit more complicated as there were 5 types used on Q6... and some were basically the same as the B16s / Q7s.

The first 30, of 1913, had 3940 gal tenders, the tanks being 6" lower, non self-trimming bunkers, and the older style 'D' (on side) shaped frame cut-outs.

Some 4125 gal tenders also without self trimming bunkers were transfered from C7s from 1932, two styles with either older 'D' frome slots or later 'oval' ones.

The later Q6s originally had 4125 tenders with self trimming bunkers and 'oval' frame slots, either with the coal rails ending square-cut at the back of the bunker, or later ones curved down matching the front, imeadiately after the bunker***. A number of these went to C7s and D49s after '32.

Now to answer the original question, the non-self trimming tenders had tanks 7'5" over the sides, and can be distinguished by coal rails around the rear of the tank, and noticeably lower tank sides for the 3940 gal ones,

while the self-trimming tenders were 7'10" over tank sides and had coal rails cut-off or curved down at rear of the bunker.

Edit to add;  *** these were similar to the B16's but built without water scoops

Most stations (and airports) seem to adopt the nomenclature of "XXX airport / station", with separate terminals (or separately signed parts) for "XXX International" and "XXX Domestic". I presume it was marketing nonsense that made everyone agree calling the entire station "St Pancras International" would make it seem sexy and glamorous when, in fact, it is irritating and confusing. For the separate Thameslink platforms spectacularly so.

 

And while I'm on an old man rant, I know the reasons why, but having an entirely different name for the Underground station also causes confusion for some visitors (elsewhere on the network it is apparently acceptable for the same station to have two names - Bank and Monument - or for different stations to have the same name - Charing Cross; it's perhaps a pity that that flexibility can't be applied to St Pancras / King's Cross (sic)).

I've also thought its always been particularly confusing in that the most prominent "St Pancras Intenational" sign's over the modern - Domestic - section

What? Just some of them??

Bank and Monument are actually different places, each with an Underground station, on different lines. However they are (now) physically connected together underground (though it is shorter, quicker, and easier to use the street connection) and operationally by LU are one station with one set of staff.

And Kings Cross and St Pancras are actually different places,on different lines. As Fenman commented above about confusing visitors, it seems just about every time I'm down there I need to re-direct someone to St Pancras, explaining they're actually different stations on different routes! It's actually irratating that TfL cant seemingly get this through their th*ck sculls and insist on calling it "Kings Cross St Pancras" when it's actually "Kings Cross & St Pancras".

This might seem minor, but can be annoying or embarrassing for some passengers, and must on occasion have made the difference between catching and missing their train

Yes but by implication, you must have gone to parties in your past. Did you not get just a tiny bit rowdy after a few sherbets? It seems a bit rich to demand that now you have had your fun, no one else is allowed to have any. 

 

Live and let live is how I was brought up; but maybe that philosophy has been overtaken by something else these days? 

 

I don't enjoy a rowdy party, and never have; but I don't believe that gives me the right to ruin the enjoyment of those who do. 

That philosophy's been overtaken since it apparently became considered that the middle of a train's an appropriate place to have a rowdy party, go to a night club for that.

And those who do enjoy a rowdy party have a 'right' to spoil the enjoyment for everyone else on the train?

Presumably this was the reason for the announcement at Kings Cross yesterday at about 2.50 that the 3.22 Great Northern service from Kings Cross would depart at 3.21 from st Pancras! No mention of which bit of St Pancras, though i assume it would be the Thameslink platforms.

Jonathan

Yeah, and Im sure you could have heard those d**n*d announcements IN St Pancras!

Network Rail is proposing to replace the manual gates at Wateringbury and East Farleigh with manually worked lifting barriers.  As Wateringbury level crossing is in a Conservation Area and East Farleigh station building (not the gates) is a listed building, Maidstone Borough Council consent is required.  Being considered by MBC planning committee on Thurs 5 July - see https://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=3008&x=1 - some interesting background details in the linked reports.

Reading in the report, the objections made by Teston Parish Council, the parish counsellors should be made to go there and operate the gates thenselves and see if it has "an adverse impact" on them!

Any news on the condition of the signaller,  or result of investigation?

LNER Azuma on Twitter tonight:

https://mobile.twitter.com/RichieVeitch/status/1009541799709499395/photo/1

Looks more like a low-loader it's on to me

a promotional livery with the 'more....' slogans on the blanked windows?

Why not if the company was being run with a good operational profit, before premium payments had to be taken into account?

As I said, I couldnt comment myself, and that was a statement of fact, but some previous posts were hoping for an end to the Virgin style hype

With the same senior management staying on it appears they may be disappointed.

Why not?

The same could also have been said of the previous EC management, but it seems unusual for senior management to remain the same after a franchise change.

I agree.

 

IMO the whole Virgin gimmiky theme was is cheap and tacky eg "clucking lovely egg sandwiches"  "ex's sweater", "don't plug in toasters" "baby it's cold outside" and all the rest of it!

 

It would be nice if we got some GNER type of quality back.  The ECML deserves it.

 

The Virgin spin even carries on announcing LNER!  https://www.virgintrainseastcoast.com/about-us/lner-is-coming/ 

 

Note "WE look forward to welcoming you aboard LNER", and  "OUR" commitments include delivery of ongoing timetable improvements and launching the new Azuma trains that will revolutionise East Coast rail travel".

 

Oh, and it seems all those stickers are hard to remove!

Well you can say that, I couldn't possibly comment

Confirmed in internal email this morning, David Horne (MD), and all but two of the current VTEC directors are staying on....

I saw that. Gobsmacking.

 

Due next month, but Dan works at his own pace. Your best bet is to write and suggest it for a future list. He did do the NER one some time ago, I built one for someone else, but I don't recall the GN one being listed.

Hi

So, the next list of releases, inc some NER coaches, still isn't out yet?

Very relieved at that, as i've just come across this thread, so I've not missed them then?    (now have this thread 'followed')

Shouldn't, possibly, but there's nothing to physically stop the VoR from using the crossing whenever it likes, surely? And the ng crossing has no road barriers either, unlike its big cousin furher down the road.

This reminds me of reading of the arrangement here some time ago, and yes they're interlocked so only one will operate at a time.

From what I recall reading of it, as I understand it, the reason to stop the VoR using it's crossing at the same time as NR, is that the two are too close together along the road and this arangement is to prevent any possibility of the second crossing operating  when obstucted by traffic already queuing for the other one.

Missed the down 5X21 as it was 15 minutes early at 36E I discovered when I got home (been to Gym just near the Station!!!!!). Seems like a Leeds has had trouble somewhere south (hope it wasn't 90036?) and so I presume they let 5X21 off the leash; it was 29 minutes early south of Donny! 

P

Don't know if any of the Leeds had trouble, but when 1E21 passing through Newark there was a 180 stabled on the Up Goods Loop.

A 'First' colours one, but could have been either a Hull Trains, or one of GC's still in de-branded GW.

Nope, 5X20 was the white one (again) closely followed by 90036 on Up Leeds/Kings X.

P

1N35 approaching Northallerton passed a white 800 standing at Longlands Jn (end of Down Slow)

43318

This month marks 40 years of ECML HST operation

East Coast class 8xx will have a little buffet/shop, look for the blanked out windows on one of the intermediate vehicles. From memory it's two blanks one side and one the other, but I can't find any photos at the moment.

I've now seen interior layout plans posted, and yes, they do include a cafe/bar area - it's in the second vehicle from the standard class end

The seats are still a bit hard, and those grab handles really want to be on top of the seats, but other than that I've no worthwhile criticism of the passenger experience. It's even got about the right table/ airline seating ratio IMO.

 

Definitely much better than a 2018 GWR HST. (Maybe not better than a VTEC HST, haven't been on one of those for a very long time now so can't make a meaningful comparison).

The only change by VTEC has been the leather seat covers in place of the fabric ones

What about the East Coast ones?

They currently have 15 sets, and there's no plans for them so far. There has been rumours of EC palnning to keep some.

(PS; There's a thread on HST re-deployment under Prototype Discussions)

I looked on Flickr for coal trains and come up with these 2 links. I know ones a bit early

 

https://flic.kr/p/nFwPbF

 

https://flic.kr/p/cgYDjj

 

Hope that helps a bit

 

Michael

The second shot shows both HTO/V and HOUs on the same working.

A couple more things notabe in that second shot;

The train's on the Morpeth North - East curve, which at that date must have been just recently installed.

Most of the HTOs visable appear to be LNER builds, note the 'high' brake levers, clearly shown on the second wagon

Hello,

I am modelling a typical North East coal train around 1980 of around 18-20 wagons.....class 37 more often than not and a long rake of 21T coal hoppers.

 

My question is does anyone know were the vacuum braked HTV's generally mixed with HTO's (no braking) to form shorter loose coupled coal trains?? or were they mainly HTV's to provide the maximum braking and probably longer coal trains.

 

The reason I ask is generally HTO's were normally painted grey and HTV's bauxite (although I have seen a few grey HTV's on Flickr etc) but when you look at photographs there are say generally 3 or 4 grey ones (HTO?) and the rest 15 - 20 bauxite (HTV)'s in a standard rake around 1980. The grey ones are regularly randomly in the middle of the rake so were they likely to be HTV's but just painted grey? I presume there was no through piping on such?

 

I spent ages watching these trains all those years ago but didn't really pay much attention to the wagons at the time just the BR Blue locos at the front!

 

Just wondering if anyone could offer an insight - although my question applies to the North East - similar practices would occur no doubt around the country at the time.

 

Thanks in advance

Hi,

Well, on first starting as a secondman I'd six months at South Dock (Sunderland) from late '77.

The trains were generally 37 hauled - these were the only mainline locos that South Dock, and I believe, Cambois (Blyth) and Harlepool, which handled the majority of this work, knew.

All the local trip workings invariably ran loose coupled, and the vast majority of wagons were unfitted. The bauxite colour's a bit of a red herring here, as by this time all wagons were indiscriminately being painted bauxite - the TOPS code was now the indentification of brake type. The few HTVs that appeared were randomly mixed in with the HTOs, their brakes were not used as, it was said, it would couse problems at the collieries. I also recall LNER built hoppers still being fairly common (though most probably re-bodied), readily identifiable by the high level brake levers standing well above solebar level.

Fitted working of these trains only commenced with the introduction of the HBA air-braked hoppers, the training for which was under way when I transfered out of South Dock mid-78.

On tops codes, **O vehicles were unbraked, vacuum piped would be **P

There was one long distance block working which ran fitted using HTVs that I recall, which ran from Tyne Yard, usually 'Peak' hauled - probably the Brenford one mentioned above. I've some photos somewhere of one of these spread all over Ouston Junction.

Are they still looking at December 2018 for introduction to the Kings Cross services?

We've now been told December for KGX - Leeds, and from February for further North

They certainly seem to be venturing a bit further now having visited Harrogate and Skipton recently.  I would guess over the coming weeks they'll also venture onto some of the more common diversionary routes.  Leeds to the ECML via the Hambleton Junctions, to name just one.  

They've now apparently started platform gauging / possitioning / wheelchair access etc tests, and are due to visit all platforms used by VTEC.

I've read one's been to Sunderland.

Driver training scheduled to start from June / July.

Hi 

I have this shed plate 55A but can not find out what shed it from had a look on line and it not listed?.

Can anyone one help, Thank you.

55A was Leeds Holbeck, from Sept.56 when, with BR boundary changes to the former LMS lines in the Leeds area, it was transfered from the LMR to the North Eastern Region.

It had previously been 20A as an LMR depot, which is perhaps why it wasn't on the list you found