Ken.W
-
Posts
1,099 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by Ken.W
-
-
Just sheer curiosity: I was watching a YouTube cab ride from Newcastle to Carlisle and approaching Haltwhistle I noticed a siding (on the left - not sure which is up/down)
Up's Eastbound towards Newcastle. Although the line runs East - West it still follows the usual convention of 'Up' being towards London as it was formally part of the NER.
Similarly, when EC services ran through to Glasgow Central, 'Northbound' services were actually travelling 'Up' from Haymarket to Carstairs, as they were on the former Calley
-
So if a TOC is resopnsible for infrastructure as well as trains, do I take it that the signallers will be employed by them too? How exactly is this going to lead to impartial train regulating , given that in some places it's as good as favoured to the incumbent TOC anyway?
The train regulating's hardly impartial anyway
(and it's certainly not the 'incumbent TOC' that's favoured)
-
114 has two pantos. You can just see it in the photo... If you squint.
Not sure they extended the experiment to any others ?
No, it was never extended to any other 91s, and last time I saw 114 it was back to a normal single pan
-
As a non-railway man, I find some of the jargon I read on RMWeb confusing, (that's not meant as a criticism, just an admission on my part). One thing which I would like to understand is the codes used for freight wagons TEA, TTA etc). Can someone point me in the direction of a layman's explanation of this.
I've sometimes wondered what the general public make of train load of bogie tanks that say 'TEA' on the sides plodding though the station
-
Even on the ECML King Edward South to KEB North is really tight!
Still not that tight compared to others mentioned, 30 mph. The curve through Newcastle West Jnc (off the North end of KEB), and through the through platforms, is 20 - still also ECML.
Isn't Morpeth the tightest curve on a 'proper' mainline? I've heard it said that the curve turns the ECML 96 degrees and it currently has a limit of 50 mph either way, it was 40 in the early 1960s.
Yes, Morpeth is 50 both directions, but still beaten though by KEB South Curve, and Newcastle, as above
The curve at Carstairs from the platforms to the Edinburgh line is pretty tight - is that 15mph and canted the wrong way too?
Carstairs Curve would also be my nomination, and it's 10 mph, yes with reverse cant*. For northbound trains this is immediately followed by the double curve of the main to main crossover, also 10, which resulted in when class 90s regularly worked EC MkIV sets their being prohibited from propelling in push-pull mode if the loco was fitted with screw couplings, in case of buffer lock
* And just to make it more interesting, also with a OHL neutral section
-
I've heard that, in normal service, the train will 'know' where it is and do it itself, starting the diesels about 15 mins beforehand to warm them up first.
Power to braking and control systems are maintained by battery supply, hence trains are able to coast after loosing power and don't (normally) come grinding to a stop on passing through a neutral section. There's also been recent occasions of 'high speed coasting' (with pan down) on the ECML which I've described in another thread to get through damaged sections of OHL, and some of these have been around 6 or 7 miles long.
As far as reservoir air lasting out to maintain the brake system, in a recent incident after a loco problem I managed to coast about 10 miles into Darlington, pan down, so no power for the compressors, and from an initial speed of only about 80. It was quite critical though at Darlington and was a case of making sure to just use a single brake application! It did avoid stopping where I'd have been blocking the line while sorting the problem though (or seeing if I could sort it).
-
3
-
-
Hope this is in the right place - can't find anywhere better to put it.
I've just been watching episode 2 of Robert Redford's The West on the History channel. Among other things this dealt with the construction of the Union Pacific railroad and the golden spike at Promontory Point. Among the bits of docudrama the usual dosage of archive pictures was rolled out, including one that looked incredibly like a view from near the southern portal of Blea Moor tunnel showing the signal box and siding with Ingleborough in the distance. Then at the end of the programme an Ivatt 2-6-0 and maroon coaches appeared running over a small viaduct, but I couldn't recognize the location. Very strange bit of film editing!
With the usual standard of film editing, lucky you didn't get a clip of an American 'Casey Jones' type 4-4-0 entering the tunnel, and emerging from the other end as a Midland Compound
-
There's photos of 3 of these in D Larkin's 'BR Dept. Rolling Stock' Pictorial Survey (Bradford Barton) p 44,45.
First, TRU1, a Heath Robinson looking prototype unit
Then TRU6, a Warwell with a Coles crane stuck on each end
Finally TRU9, more of the later BR 'standard' design. These later machines were more sophisticated, with both cranes operated from the central cabin, and capable of self-propelled operation when working on site, though they'd still be conveyed to / from site by the p.way trains.
I posted in an earlier thread the usual relaying procedures that I observed late 70s / early 80s using these TJTL (Twin Jib Track Layer) machines as they were known, particularly in relation to the formation of p.way trains working to / from the work site. Significant differences to the film were the old track being completely removed first, not wagon load at a time, and the track-bed ballast being replaced before the new track was laid.
-
Then trains won't be needed. The way things are going with automation, there won't be anyone left working able to afford them
-
I suspect "grabbed and suffering bruising" is an exaggeration and lawyer speak for "more cash needed". It is a very dangerous incident which could've been much worse, but that statement screams compensation culture.
No, this is stated as occurring in both the BBC and RAIB reports linked in first two posts, nothing to do with a quote from someone's lawyer
-
Which came first?
Sectorisation or reclassification from multiple units to locomotives and coaches?
The set numbers were dropped quite early, as it soon proved impossible to keep the power cars and sets together due to differing maintenance requirements
-
<< staff had placed a notice on the compartment door and attempted to secure it to prevent it being opened. >>
If I had seen such a sign on the door, if it was that urgent I would have tried another carriage then told the guard. If people ignore signs which are obviously there for a reason and then find a problem, don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Mother and child emerged with no harm done but now the long arms of the law and lawyers will blow it out of all proportions. Certainly as has been mentioned it shouldn't have been left like this, but it was and it would have been interesting to find out what the sign actually said!
Brian.
This, although classed as a near-miss, is hardly something that can be described as a molehill. The photo shows the floor completely missing, and the train wheel directly below, and the article also describes the child as having to be grabbed and suffering bruising. Even at the relatively low speed involved this is perilously close to not being a near-miss but a child fatality.
Given public observation of signs in general, to rely on a notice and 'attempt' to lock the door is clearly irresponsible in such a dangerous situation, and an out of use notice on a toilet door would normally be expected to mean it's not flushing or blocked, not that you're about to fall under the wheels.
Edit to note it's actually being classed as a Dangerous Occurrence (by RAIB not lawyers) not a near miss which was described in the OP
-
Evening all.
Piffling trivia question ahead.
At what point did HST power cars start losing their W/E/Sc prefixes?
Which ones were built with prefixes?
Cheers N
Sectorisation, when they became 'property' of Intercity rather than the regions
-
Yeah the East Sidings seem to have generaly been used for loco stabling, and to have replaced the former loco yard in this role. Their usual current role is for stabling the Thunderbird loco, also 91s doing loco swaps and locos in connection with charter trains.Yeah, I did think that the combination of the electrification of the suburban services and the switching to HST's must have radically reduced the use of loco hauled services in KX. So were the East sidings used for loco stabling as I've always wondered why they were built? And it seems that ECML sleeper services ended in 1988 so I guess that must roughly date the end of Motorail services at KX.
Again yeah, presumably so, as most Motorail vans were attached to the sleepers
-
I meant as in attracting much closer attention to and scrutiny of maintenance procedures and standardsAs in making sure every toilet has a floor?
This was an epic fail by the South Devon Railway, not a general malaise affecting the whole heritage railway movement.
-
It was a Mk1 according to the report, but I'd have thought the floor planks would be complete across the full coach width, not separate in a toilet compartment. Also from the report, the floor was removed for maintenance on the brakes, not to do with corrosion, but why was this even necessary then, surely this work could be done from below, they are on the bogies after all ? Unbelievable this coach could be considered fit for service in this condition, but couldn't have happened if floor hadn't been out in the first place.If it was a Mk1, then the body and chassis are seperate components mated together. I'd also suspect that the toilet floors corrode more quickly than the rest of the floor and need cutting out and replacing. Or not replacing in this case....
Good than no one injured, but could still lead to a clamp down on heritage lines in general
-
1
-
-
Agree Hotel Curve, together with the York Road Curve, would have been taken out use during the 1977 remodelling and inner-suburban electrification as Moorgate services were then diverted away from Kings X onto the current route from Finsbury Park. Also the East bore of Gassworks Tunnel was taken out of use then, which had given access to York Road.I've always been fascinated by the area of Kings Cross station with the suburban platforms/Hotel Curve/Milk Dock/Loco Yard ever since Model Trains had an article suggesting building a layout based on it. I believe that the Hotel Curve and some of the Suburban platforms were lifted in the 1977 'Clearing The Throat' remodelling, but that the Milk Dock and loco yard were still in use with the Milk Dock being used to unload Motorail coaches. However I've always wondered when were Motorail services removed from Kings Cross and was the Milk Dock still in use for parcel unloading at this time? Also when did BR stop using the Loco yard and when was it (and presumably the milk dock at the same time) actually lifted?
The station loco yard would have fallen out of use sometime fairly shortly afterwards with the virtual demise of regular loco hauled workings, as in Clive's photos above showing it already gone in early eighties. I was seconman on light engine to KX couple of times late 70s / early 80s and we went into the East Sidings.
I suspect the Motorail services were withdrawn at the same time as the EC sleepers, at the start of the ECML electrification works, as many were combined services.
-
If there had been an RMWeb in 1960 do you think this thread would have been about the merits of a Deltic versus the existing Pacifics.
No, in 1960 the discussion would have still been on how poor the EE type 4 performance was compared to the A4s
(Deltics came along couple of years later! )
If it had been then it certainly would have been an entirely one sided "we hate Deltics" thread, at least amongst the enthusiast fraternity.
For a grease driven engine Deltics are impressive, but nothing compared to an LNER pacific - yes, even the Thomson abominations.
Was about to click 'agree' - until I came to the Thomson bit
-
Or put it another way, the "failings" of the IEP are in fact due to elements outside of the IEP...
Given they haven't yet trialled them over the route, it's a little early to prejudge. On paper, the 5 car sets (which are likely what will be running to Inverness) have greater HP at rail per car than the current HST sets on the route, and given the line speed I suspect there will be little issue with them keeping to the same timings. Fuel may be an issue if you are running all the way from London on diesel, but then that shouldn't be happening (you make damn sure the ones that are going the farthest get to use the juice the longest if you're having to ration the overhead line capacity).
I did refer to the IEProject, as a whole, the project being the trains and infrastructure work to go with them, but it's obviously too much to expect the two to go together, or trains to be designed for the infrastructure they're to work on.
Line speed isn't the issue, even at speeds on the Highland Main Line. They are being tested on the EC route, and as I've previously posted, leaving Doncaster southbound they're still only up to 90 at Bawtry, where an HSTs already up to 110 so even at lower speeds they're not matching HST performance (this, I was told, by someone senior who's actually been on them)
The possible fuel capacity issue came up before that of rationing OHL supply out of London. Presumably, in the rush to electrification at the time, the designers* thought Inverness would be electrified for them, or they don't know how far away Inverness is.
* Design specified by DaFT, remember
-
I think there is a good chance that they will work as designed.
The "dodgy catenary" of course being part of BR's flagship route...
1. Unfortunately however, they were designed (at least in specification) by DaFT
2. As specified by HM Treasury
It's the naysayers latching onto the wrong part of the message and misrepresenting it...
Individual Azumas draw less from the supply than a 225 set, so on a one-for-one replacement of those, there is no issue at all. The supply on some sections of the ECML (north of Newcastle in particular) is not sufficient (yet) to run the current electric services plus all the current HST services replaced by Azumas.
So a fault of the infrastructure, not the Azumas.
So in todays fragmented system, it's too much to expect the IEProject to design trains to run on the existing infrastructure,
or to upgrade the infrastructure in time for them (and where else have we heard that?)
Issues over Inverness seem to be their inability on diesel to match HST, particularly with the route over Drumochter and Slochd, and possibly insufficient fuel capacity
-
An additional factor is that of speed, and the dynamics of the wheel:rail interface. The concept of putting all the power in one or two locomotives results in a unit with high axle loadings, and correspondingly high track forces, both vertical and lateral. The benchmark was set by the track forces exerted by a Class 55 at 100mph; anything wanting to travel at higher speeds than that must not exceed those forces, which complicates the engineering of the bogies and final drive, as well as limiting the overall weight of the locomotive. It is where the Pendolinos and Voyager/Meridian sets score by distributing the power throughout the train, keeping the axle loads down, and putting the traction motors under the body, with shaft drive to one axle on each bogie.
An interesting debate on the merits of loco hauled vs unit trains. Although loco hauled have a number of advantages, including of appeal from an enthusiast's perspective, axle loadings and track forces are a major factor in limiting high speed running. I believe the HST was designed as a unit with two separate power cars in order to comply with these requirements.
Although of coarse an electric loco can be made with sufficient power and still meet axle loadings for high speed running, another factor not previously mentioned is adhesion, which restricts further development in high speed locos.
Modern trains require greater tractive power for the higher performances that are being demanded, but the existing class 91s on the east coast, with 6000hp on an 80 tonne loco already push the limits of adhesion - quite frankly, the b*gg*ers will slip if a cloud comes over! The sanders on them are very much a necessity, whereas in good conditions they'll quite happily, for example, cruise up Stoke Bank at 125, on a wet rail with defective sands you're lucky to manage more than 80
-
What about the new Azuma trains on the east coast? The previous franchisees all made do with pre-privatisation designs, yet Virgin have single-handedly and remarkably quickly come up with brand new trains. They have clearly learnt their lesson from their first franchise when it took years before Pendolinos and Voyagers became available.
I did hear rumours that the trains were ordered before the franchise started but I've looked at the VTEC web site and it doesn't seem to be true.
(I'd better add since it's easy to be misunderstood, that the above is intended as sarcasm)
Indeed, that's what they'd like you to believe, when of coarse they were actually part of the franchise specification for whoever took over.
As discussed elsewhere however, whether these things actually manage to run on the east coast remains to be seen.
Latest is, a number of HSTs are being retained as 1 in 3 out of KX have to be diesel as they're overpwered for the wires.
That's on top of they won't apparently keep HST timings on diesel sections, take too much power to go north of Newcastle on electric,
and doubtful they can even reach Inverness (and there's no word yet of the diesel on EC sets being uprated as on the GW sets)
-
But even elsewhere, shed masters would in extremis use green locos for mundane goods work. Even the mighty
Gresley A4s had a power classification of 8P6F. Mind you, shunting with a screw reverser was no sinecure.
Ian
Goods work wasn't necessarily viewed as mundane. Many of the EC express freights, especially the Fish and Meat trains, and of coarse the famous 'Scotch Goods' from Kings X Goods to Edinburgh, were actually diagrammed for pacific haulage, including A4s, and also the V2s which were actually designed initially for such work before proving themselves equally capable of express work.
Far from being mundane, in an old ECML WTT I have, the Fish and Meat trains bear the instruction "Takes precedence over all trains other than east coast expresses"
-
Hence the need for these:
In an era of largely unfitted freight traffic.
Though why this one's being used on this train I'm uncertain:
http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/000-0-a-t-ermel-Type2-4.jpg
Not exactly, they were to increase brake force when working unfitted or part-fitted freights. The locos were still proportionately braked when on vacuum fitted trains, just not directly by vacuum.
The second photos interesting on several points
I've not previously seen a photo of a brake tender used on a passenger train, and as you say, why?
Also, why use a 25 to double head a 47 on a relatively short train (10 on) well within the 47's capability, particularly as the two can't work in multiple.
From the rear six vehicles, the train appears to be an East Coast Car Carrier, a route where double heading was uncommon.
I think, probably, the 47's failed and the nearest assistance has been in removing the 25 from a nearby looped freight, and the brake tender happens to have come with it
ECML franchise fails .... again....
in UK Prototype Discussions (not questions!)
Posted
Easy for them as, as discussed a few pages ago, they don't have premiums to government or the same level of track access charges to pay.
Another factor on the ECML is it has probably the highest level of freeloader, oops 'open access', competition already, and there's due to be another one, over the core Edinburgh - London route, starting shortly after the franchise is now being terminated early. This despite the fact that network improvements necessary for the service increases VTECs growth forecasts required are not going to be completed in time. The Werrington dive under for example, it's now been decided, has to go to public inquiry (not yet even started) so may be ready in time for the franchise after next.
Is it just cynical to think VTEC are being let out of the franchise in 2020, just in time for the government to ensure its re-privatised (yet again, yawwwwn) before the next election?