Ken.W

Mind you, if there had been a solid intention to run the MK4's north of Edinburgh, I'd suspect that new build diesels which addressed all of those points would have been specified. Say something around the 4000HP mark, probably a diesel version of the 89 in effect. But clearly didn't happen and probably clearly never intended.

Hmmm. My memory (which may be faulty, or I was wrongly informed) was that when introduced the Mk4 was intended to be a 'universal' coach like the Mk3, and that the plan was for tilting Mk4's to later be used on the WCML with new locomotives. Hence the tilt profile. 

 

I've seen it said that the intention was to retro-fit the ECML Mk4's with tilt capability, but I believe the aim was just that the same bodyshell design (and jigs?) could be used to built tilting coaches later. (This seems more plausible to me anyway than retrofitting coaches, especially on the ECML which doesn't particularly need tilt).

 

As for diesel locomotives not being compatible with the DVT control system - if HST power cars could be temporarily converted for compatibility (for the hybrid 91-Mk3-43 sets) then perhaps the same could have been done for other diesel locomotives. Or just hauled them non push-pull North of Edinburgh. Running round in Aberdeen and Inverness might not have been implausible. And of course the full power of a 91 is needed to get the Mk4's up to 125 mph and keep them there. Not much 125 mph running north of Edinburgh I think, though acceleration would be reduced with less power available.

The non-compatibility of the control system just one factor though. The main one would be maintaining the existing timings for HSTs - which have 4500 hp for a 50 ton lighter train. Yes, there's no 125 mph running north of Edinburgh, but their power's still required for the heavy gradients, so for the heavier Mk4s and their higher ETS load, something like 5000 hp + would be required. Or significantly increased journey times.

There was certainly the intention, as I understood, of the EC Mk4 sets being retro-fitted with tilt for future increases in line speed, which never happened. They were, remember, designed for 140 mph operation, IC225 = 225 kph (140 mph), for which tilt would have been required.

In fact, one loco, 91002, was actually fitted when new with the 'Tilt Inverter' supply equipment, and the jumper cable sockets were located in the underside of the No2 end headlight 'box'. They also all had a 'Tilt' fault light on the desk (it's place now taken by an 'Interlock' repeater light instead of just having them behind you on the bulkhead), and all still have the empty Tilt Inverter cubicle in the equipment bay.

It was said in GNER days they needed to spend the money on refurbishment to make them work (the 91/1 re-build) rather than adding more complications to them

Which, if I remember correctly, is part of the reason why the 91+Mk4 sets for the ECML were designed that way, so that at Waverley, the electric could come off and be replaced by a diesel, in just the same way as the Southern Region had been doing for years at Bournemouth with the through Waterloo - Weymouth services.

I did wonder why they didn't run Mk4s to the frozen north with a diseasel on the front. Did they not order enough Mk4 sets, or some other reason?

The 91+Mk4 sets were designed for the 91 to come off and work the sleepers and postal / parcels trains overnight. The sleepers were never re-instated on the East Coast following electrification though, and following Sectorisation the Postal / Parcels were effectively a separate company, so this didn't happen.

Only 31 Mk4 sets were built, the East Coast prior to electrification (just checking the 125 group website history) had 34 HST sets, and 9 were retained (now back up to 15). As far as I was aware there was never any plan to completely replace them on EC, and there'd have been several problems with that;

The Mk4 set's a heavy train by passenger standards, around 450 tons, so there wasn't an available diesel loco of sufficient power that would have maintained the existing HST timings (with 4500 hp for an approx 50 ton lighter set).

No diesels can multiple / work in push-pull mode with 91s / Mk4s (which use the TDM system)

Mk4s also have a heavy ETH load. The ETH index of the 67s generally used for haulage is insufficient for the full ETH load of a Mk4 set - the kitchen's meant to be isolated when the sets are diesel hauled. Somehow doubt 'no catering available north of Edinburgh' would go down well.

Given the erm, 'reliability' of the Mk4s air-con, they'd be unlikely to be very welcome up in the 'frozen north'

 The Police seem to have closed the line for over 24 hours trying to work out what happened. The cause could

not really have been more obvious but I suppose they had nothing better to do. Vehicle operators are supposed to get permission to cross.

I don't think there are any signals protecting it so what on earth people were trying to establish is completely beyond me.

I hope the guard went forward and put down detonators as the up line was fouled.

Well, if you're making presumptions like that, then I presume from your tone you'd rather that, to save a few hours delay, railway incidents were handled in a similar way to Road Traffic "Accidents", ie swept up and carry on as normal. The disparity in casualty figures between rail and road should tell you something about the folly of that approach.

Also, btw, the Guard does not go forward to put detonators down, the Driver does that and the Guard goes back to protect the rear of his train and any parallel lines in the same direction or if not requiring to do this remains with the train to look after the safety and well-being of his passengers

Also GSM-R is not a fool proof system. There are many areas (mostly the 'dingy-dongy railway' (AB)) where train describers are not in use. In these areas GSM-R does NOT necessarily contact the correct controlling signaller.

I'd be very concerned if dets were being done away with altogether, though they have been partially as they're no longer necessary if 'you have immediate communication with the signaler who can assure you that protection's being provided by fixed signals'

It's not just the 'dingy-dongy railway' as you put either, or where train describers aren't used.

There's often short gaps in reception, particularly where between box / panel areas, only short but if the gaps take several seconds at 125 that's a long enough gap for a train to come to a stand in and then not have reception to broadcast a message.

I've also experienced being stopped at Edinburgh's second last signal and talking to Tweedmouth, and even heard about trains in Kings X connecting to Kentish Town (MML)!

There's also several signals in the Sandy area plated with the box's number in order to call the right one

I also understand trains are now to be allowed to complete their journey with a failed GSMR set (this was supposed to constitute a train failure)

I was wondering if that was one solution to the problem, but I assumed the risk of the driver misidentifying where he was would be too great.

 

With a farmer using a fixed phone you know exactly where they are when they say they have already seen the train pass.

That can be a very pertinent point.  Back 40 odd years ago when I had a substantial chunk of the Salisbury - Exeter line in my 'parish' we had around 80 occupation and accommodation crossings in 'our' c.60 miles of the route.  I happened to know in railway terms where they all were because I'd somehow acquired a list which gave the milepost mileage of all of them - which was more than could be said for the ex GW side of our patch.

As Mike has discussed regarding the number of 'crossings' in his former 60 route mile patch, by contrast I cover somewhere in the region of 550 route miles and there's drivers even at the same depot that cover considerably more. Although crossing numbers have been considerably reduced, I'd say it's virtually impossible for a driver to know every single 'crossing', other than public road crossings which have always been shown in the Sectional Appendix, and we don't even have a full list of all 'crossings'.

We don't for example routinely fit TPWS to signals in plain areas - despite the fact that there is a very real possibility of a driver, running on continual double yellows, cancelling the AWS for the single yellow and the red, then  smashing into the back of a stationary train at high speed.

The mitigation here is the Defensive Driving Policy which mandates dropping back to run on greens, to guard against canceling the AWS at continual double yellows, and then missing the single yellow that doesn't change up to double

Apparently the final set's due to be completed under the refurbishment program next week

 He did go on to work out how much space was required to grow the required Biomass rather than importing it, I don't think we had much space left to grow foodstuffs....

No, the space left over will have been taken up by solar farms

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/22/uk-hits-clean-energy-milestone-50-of-electricity-from-low-carbon-sources

 

Good news!

"Low carbon power now accounts for 50% of UK electricity"

Yeah, that's great news, with 'renewables' largely from solar and wind...

It's now winter and peak load comes after dark, and there's little wind at present,

oh, hang on a minute, why's the light going dim?

Interesting to note, from the graph in linked article, the largest increase has been in (carbon) Gas production, virtually directing replicating the fall in coal

oh, hang on a minute, what was coal composed of?

Also interesting to note, from the same graph, what increase there was in 'clean' energy was largely from nuclear, with that from 'renewables' being negligible.

Reminds me much like the famous quote;

"there's lies, d*mned lies, and statistics"

That possibly raises an interesting question, as GWR (maybe others too) run some ECS as class 5 and some as class 3. I've never managed to find an answer to this, beyond the suggestion that a class 3 has a "full crew" (Guard/Buffet) on board whereas a class 5 is Driver only. Now this has point about engineering works has been raised I wonder if that is part of it too?

The matter of Guard / DOO doesn't seem to have anything to do with it, it's the 'importance' of the working. It tends to be trains traveling ecs to form a booked service from another location (as opposed to local depot / station or out of service workings) that run as Class 3.

For example, the morning ecs workings to Berwick and Sunderland to form Kings X services both run as Class 3s, and although both have a Guard and convey Catering Crew from Newcastle the portion from Heaton CS to Newcastle (DOO) is also Class 3. All other Heaton / Newcastle ecs are 5s. The evening return working from Sunderland to Heaton, with Guard and Catering Crew to Newcastle, runs as a Class 5 throughout.

On Friday evenings, to balance a KX - N'cle that's extended to Edinburgh, there's an ecs that returns from Edinburgh to Heaton which runs as a Class 5. It departs 35 min. after the last passenger service, and still has to go into Newcastle station to change ends to go to the depot. I understand this one's upgraded to Class 1 next month.

This has happened before as well, the present 04:45 Newcastle - Kings X was originally an ecs working from Heaton to York to form the 06:00 York - KX (which it still is)

 And 3 requires full independence.

Which as they'll then re-join the EU they still won't be allowed to do

For the Fallen

On the 17 November, our iconic locomotive will be taking part in a very special service to London. We have teamed up with The Fusiliers across the East Coast Route to raise money for the Royal British Legion.

I didn't manage to see this working today, but looking it up, as expected following yesterdays events, the train was in fact worked by 91110 in place of 91111.

91111 now appears to be on the 09:00 Edinburgh - KX.

It was good to see that following the failure involving 91111 yesterday, efforts were made to at least get 91110 in the correct place to take over.

PS In above post 'BoB' is my affectionate nickname for 91110 ... Battle of Britain Memorial Flight

I note the commendable speed with which the RAIB has released its interim report.  That should assure all who need reassurance that they are doing all they can as fast as they can and want to have the tramway up and running again very soon.  But as we know the full investigation will take much longer and could yet result in the driver facing court.

Also, the RAIB's 'request' for interim risk mitigation measures be introduced before re-opening, such as restricting speed on approach to the curve, pending completion of their full investigation and assessment of possible permanent safeguards. Looking for cause and safeguards rather than blame, in the best tradition of the former HMRI

A similar main line scenario was the curve at Morpeth on the ECML.

 

In recent years, there had been three serious accidents on that curve before an AWS alert was implemented.

Similar, though at Morpeth it was an approx 50% reduction in speed rather than the proportionally more severe 75% in this case. Though it was actually Morpeth which led to the introduction of warning boards for severe speed restrictions, which has been subject to much discussion relating to this incident.

The first, in 1969, was Northbound, where the speed into the curve was an immediate 50% reduction, and the subsequent HMRI report led to the introduction of warning boards with an AWS warning for severe reductions in speed on high speed lines, including here.

The two subsequent accidents here, in the 80s / 90s? were Southbound, which differs in that, although the speed again halves, due to curvature of the line this occurs in stages over the preceding 3 miles, the immediate reduction on entering the curve being by 20 mph, thus did not qualify for warning boards as recommended following the northbound accident.

This was subsequently changed, plus now of coarse, both directions are also protected by TPWS

Hope the investigation looks to and learns from modern Aviation Safety.

 

Air safety remained stubbornly poor until investigators stopped automatically blaming the pilot and started looking at the systems which allowed, even encouraged, mistakes to be made. The effect on safety was immediately positive and lead to the very high air safety levels we benefit from today.

 

If a mistake Can be made, sooner or later it Will be made.

 

In this case that is a ridiculously tight curve for such a large tram in regular passenger-carrying service. Add a long straight stretch leading up to it and this was quite clearly an accident waiting to happen. Nor do I see the need for it looking at a plan of the track, although I've not been there.

 

Hope the investigation turns out to be a modern enlightened one.

Or perhaps this has occurred the other way round, with Air Safety Investigations learning from how rail investigations have traditionally been conducted by HMRI, predecessors to the present HSE and RAIB, since around 1840. Their reports seek to establish cause rather than blame, and recommendations to avoid recurrence have led to many (most) of the safety systems that have been adopted.

Tom Rolt's 'Red for Danger' is recommended reading on this subject.

Edit; omitted ref to RAIB added

For the Fallen

On the 17 November, our iconic locomotive will be taking part in a very special service to London. We have teamed up with The Fusiliers across the East Coast Route to raise money for the Royal British Legion.

 

 Looks as though The Reserves will be called out for this working tomorrow,

For the Fallen has, fallen down today.

Was observed standing at Newcastle early afternoon on a failed KX - Edinburgh, 1E06, which had been terminated at Darlington due to activating the 'Gotcha' wheel flats detection at Sessay. Set had then been worked forward at reduced speed.

It's return working, 1E17, 13:30 E'bgh - KX was also seen to be canceled.

Late afternoon it was seen on it's way to Edinburgh ecs, presumably still at reduced speed, looped for service trains to pass, and presumably on it's way to the Craigentinny wheel lathe.

Don't know if 'For the Fallen' is itself affected by flats, or if it's just on the coaches, but this still leaves it in the wrong place for tomorrow as 1Y14's set comes from Heaton.

However, 'BoB', which was working 1E22, 16:00 E'bgh - KX, was later seen terminated at Newcastle following a set swap with the 1N21 KX - N'cle terminating service which then goes to Heaton. This means that 'BoB' is now at Heaton tonight,  available for 1Y14 tomorrrow......

It probably depends which day of the week the photo was taken; if it were Monday or Tuesday, then the hoppers would be away at the quarry which supplied the ballast. No virtual quarries in those days.

That reminds me, as well as the working methods I posted above, the trains were sometimes made up and dispatched on the Friday, and stabled overnight in loops or sidings nearer the worksite ready to start on the Saturday. They were as I mentioned invariably unfitted, so wouldn't get to the site in a hurry

An interesting subject not generally well covered. I did turns as secondman on p-way trains in late 70s / early 80s in the NE area. Although later than the period being discussed, stock was still that from the late 50s / early 60s, so workings were probably little changed...

For a track renewal on a double line, trains would be formed for working either from the line actually being relayed, or from the adjacent line.

On the line being relayed trains were formed of;

Bogie track panel wagons, Sturgeon, Salmon etc, equal number of loaded and empty;

4 wheel hopper discharge ballast wagons, Dogfish, Catfish, Trout;

Shark ballast plough

Working from the adjacent line,

TJTL - the Twin Jib Tracklayer (crane);

A  4 wheel well flat, coveying an excavator (or earlier, bulldozer with bucket shovel), and timbers for unloading it;

Spoil wagons, Grampus, or for earlier period ex goods wagons;

Side-tip ballast wagons, Mermaid

Depending on size of the job, they could be split into more than one train to each line.

They invariably worked as unfitted, so a guards brake, which could include the previously mentioned engineers brake, or a shark, often one each end as reversals of direction were common to return from site. In the 50s / 60s riding accommodation would be provided as discussed, by the 70s this had been replaced by the Leyland pway vans. The TJTL would usually have it's own riding / mess / tool van with it still (ex GW toads a favorite for this).

Locos were usually the local goods engines, very little if any of this operated at weekends, this was pre the 24/7 era!!! An e-copy of signalbox opening hours I came across a while ago actually shows most freight lines routinely closed midday Saturday till Monday morning.

A summary of the working method would explain the train formations;

The TJTL starts by removing the old track panels onto the empty track wagons;

The excavator / bulldozers unloaded and digs out the old ballast, loading into the spoil wagons standing on adjacent line;

The side tipping Mermaids are then brought alongside to tip ballast to form the track bed, which bulldozer levels;

TJTL then starts unloading the new track panels and placing in position on the new track bed;

Then, the ballast hoppers are brought in to ballast the relayed track, with the Shark plough used to spread the ballast.

Finally, after the trains are withdrawn, the Tamping machines go in, independently, to finish off.

Once the trains on the adjacent line were finished and withdrawn, Pilotman's (single line) working would often be brought in to run trains on the adjacent line while ballasting / tamping was finished off

Also seems a shame to see stored 90's rotting away when again class 66 or 70 diesels are running under the OHLE, what a waste. Class 90's are far more powerful and even the class 92's which, although have had their problems, are being exporterd as surplus to requirements! Even the class 87's could have been used more productively on freight turns rather than being exported. At nearly 5000hp, they are seriously powerful and very capable.

It would seem that you don't understand electrics capabilities all that well. With freight, tractive effort is king, not power. A diesel may be less powerful, but it can get all of its power down on the rail from about ten mphish upwards. With a lightweight electric on only four axles, particularly an older one with tap-changer control, give it full power at anything less than about 50-60mph and even on a dry rail you will get wheelspin. That is why you often find electrics having to double head freightliners that a diesel could shift single handed.

This reminds me of a freightliner turn before the ECML north of Newcastle was 'cleared' for 8'6" containers - with rather tragic consequences at Penmanshiel.

A freightliner from Glasgow was routed via Carlisle to Newcastle, it'd come into Kingmoor yard with a pair of 86 / 87 electrics, which then came off to be replaced by a single 45 ... half the power of one of the electrics, to lift it up the bank from Carlisle on the N & C

It's not just on freight that problem with electric loco's evident either, take the class 91 (please, someone, do! ), 6000 hp and 80 tonnes adhesion's fine on a dry rail... 125 climbing Stoke bank! ...

BUT, the *******s will slip if a cloud comes over!  Wet rail and sands not working and lucky if you're doing 80 up the bank

It's just down to remembering basic maths... te / a = ws

(tractive effort over adhesion equals wheelslip)

From VTEC's Amazine magazine;

For the Fallen
On the 17 November, our iconic locomotive will be taking part in a very special service to London. We have teamed up with The Fusiliers across the East Coast Route to raise money for the Royal British Legion.



Starting at Berwick Station at 6.00, For the Fallen will be met by a Guard of Honour at each calling point, and greeted in London by a drum corps. The Fusiliers, veterans and community ambassadors will also be at all calling stations and on board collecting for the charity.

It’s one not to be missed, so if you can, please join us! Take plenty of pictures and share them on Twitter and Yammer using the hashtag #forthefallen.

For the Fallen Stopping Pattern
Berwick   6.00
Newcastle   6.55
Durham   7.08
Darlington   7.31
York   8.02
Retford   8.36
King’s Cross   10.02

Please note For the Fallen will be running in reverse formation for the day.

The road deck underneath the High Level Bridge was restricted a few years ago (one way and buses only if I recall correctly) and crash barriers erected along both sides of the remaining carriageway.  I'm not sure if this is to protect the historic fabric of Stephenson's bridge or because of concern about what might happen to the structure if one of the cast iron members was walloped. 

A combination of the two. Reducing the traffic loadings to reduce stress on the structure, as well as concern over the consequences of one of the cast iron columns being hit, the installation of the crash barriers to guard against this necessitated it being also made one-way, as the carriageway was quite narrow to start with, with busses having to slow to a crawl to pass.

why is that? does that apply even to things like 91s and HSTs which would be lighter than most diesel locos?

The High Level Bridge is only RA 5 (I think it was reduced after the last major refurbishment) and hence most locomotives are banned from crossing!

I'm surprised because I'd have thought that would limit the flexibility at Newcastle of being able to depart the station from either end or turn complete sets around when heading south

Just seen this sorry...

No. this doesn't really limit operating flexibility, as it's a case of anything heavier being restricted in use of the bridge, rather than actually banned, as Russ said earlier special permission's required for their use, which means in practice it's just limited to when operationally necessary, in order to reduce loadings on the bridge. In fact, the new VTEC Sunderland trains are all booked via the High Level (inc the ecs workings)

It's additionally restricted though by only Kings X drivers having been trained to operate them, which means it won't get beyond Newcastle, and is unlikely to venture that far on the few remaining Newcastle terminators as it would require the return working to also be a Kings X driver.

Ooops

Well, having said that, my first sight of one just after 1 this afternoon, and it was Southbound at Darlington.

Was also acting as a thunderbird, on the front (DVT) end of the train, and with a dead 91 on the rear.

The 90 was a DB red/grey one

Is there a specific reason why 90s are banned from the flyover? Or does each type of traction need explicit clearance (backed by paperwork etc) to use the 'new' route, and it hasn't been done yet for this particular class?

Don't know sorry, all it says is that they are.

Hadn't thought of that, but I suspect you're probably right though, as they're cleared everywhere else the 91s are.

Specific route clearance is required, as demonstrated by the recent incident of FS nearly being banned from a railtour it was booked on over the new Borders Railway for not having the correct paperwork.

So could simply be the case that as they're rare on the EC and diverting one via Cambridge's unlikely, there hasn't been seen to be a need to do the paperwork for them over the new flyover.

I suspect the lack of wires between Ely and Peterborough will be more of an issue for electric locos used on VEC Cambridge diversions

Any such diversions would be diesel hauled, but the notice regarding Class 90 use specifically states they're prohibited from Hitchin Flyover and must use the flat junction.

This is perhaps of more interest than the slim chance of EC actually diverting one that way, they'd more likely use an HST as happened the other Sunday when a GN had an altercation with some cows on Stilton Fen

From last Friday VTEC are hiring a Class 90 from DBC until further notice to supplement the Class 91s.

Due to the lower speed, it will normally be used only on Kings X - Newark or Leeds services, though is cleared for all EC routes as the 91s

(except, apparently they're prohibited from Hitchin Flyover, and in event of any Cambridge diversion must use the flat junction).

It's additionally restricted though by only Kings X drivers having been trained to operate them, which means it won't get beyond Newcastle, and is unlikely to venture that far on the few remaining Newcastle terminators as it would require the return working to also be a Kings X driver.

The loco used will only be one of a pool of four which have been fitted with DRA