tgk300

Just now, AY Mod said:

 

Not half as angry as I am at reading rubbish like that; believe me.

 

Think yourself fortunate that you are only on a final written warning for your forum conduct rather than being sacked yourself.

Are opinions differing from your own not allowed? Must all opinions agree with yours or else they are worthy of a warning? Is this one of those forums dictated by mods with their own ideology and anything else is totally supressed? Seems that way to me. 

7 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

Interesting. The barriers go up and cars start to cross, but the amber warning light for the barriers going back down again comes back on fairly quickly. Very close, fortunate there were no casualties. 

 

(Seriously though, even local press feels the need to use sensationalist terms like 'leaked footage'?!?!) 

The reason for the sensationalist terms is simply for views/clicks. The phrase “leaked footage” has a far better chance of capturing a readers attention then “official footage”. That would be the reason, it’s just clicks and money. 

56 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

Not directly opposite it as it sets off, but still a good indicator on noise:

 

 

 

I would say that it’s quieter then a 15x, but any noise it does make sounds far nicer then a 15x. 

12 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

Here is my video on the first day in public service last July. 

 

A lot quieter than a 15x

 

They’re a lot quite then a class 15x, although the engines are idling. What I was on about is where they are starting at a station and going to full power straight away almost, that’s when we will be able to see how much noise these units make. 

3 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

Opinions vary, but I found the seats comfortable, carriages seemed very quiet and smooth running too as the engines are not under the floor. Acceleration and braking seemed quite vivid on the first one I travelled on (it was making up time following a delay and doing a good job of it!) Not sure what they're like under the wires.

 

From the outside in diesel mode, setting off from stations they sound more like an EMU than the 153/156/170 they replaced. As a user I prefer them to their predecessors, I used to travel from Norwich to the West Midlands a lot on 158/170, a 755 would have been much more relaxing.

How loud are the engines from the outside of the train when pulling away in comparison to a Class 150 or 158/159? My guess would be considerably louder due to the close proximity of the engines, but having never heard one of these in real life, I can only guess . 

Thank you for that. Do you have any links to the afore mentioned DDA regulations before we close this topic for both the near and distant future? 
 

I believe that it is safe to say that anyone who wishes to continue this topic beyond this point will need to create an additional thread dedicated to the matter. If one does make a dedicated thread, I would be happy to participate in any and all convocations within it, but until then discussion on this topic should cease. 

Do we know what the cause of these occasional failures are? Is it any one thing in particular or a multitude of differant things at differant times?

35 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Equally guilty. And agree to a return to topic, though a bit depressing to hear that the units are still sitting down. Is it because they want their rest day over the holiday?

Jonathan

What do you mean "units are still sitting down"?

I will admit that between myself and a few others we have dragged this thread a bit of course, although I am in no doubt that I was the main culprit. My suggestion would be a sharpish return to the Class 755 and 745 units and also that we leave all the joyful discussions about the intricate details of NR pedestrian bridge design and all the politics behind them for another day, unless of course anyone wishes to make a specific thread 

33 minutes ago, Classsix T said:

The only near miss in recent memory was some berk at the station nearly twatted by a turbostar whilst filming a kettle.

That wasn't this video was it? The guy got very lucky in this case. 

Note the "Euuueowoo" from the camera man. 

32 minutes ago, Classsix T said:

 

I can neither comprehend the necessity of expenditure or requirement for such a mahoosive structure.

£1,500,000 was the price tag apparently. I would of thought that it would of been more seeing as it has to be designed, built and installed; none of which comes cheap these days. The ramps seem very gentle which is good for those actually in a wheelchair, although i do find it quite amusing that they have provided stairs for those who don't want to do the long walk all the way up and then down the ramp, I have certainly not seen that before. 

10 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Which regularly get misused by members of the public!

 

Why do you think the ORR amd NR have a policy of closing such crossings where physically possible?

They do have such a policy, I am just putting the idea out there. In reality they can only work if staffed, something that introduces consideralbe costs. 

22 minutes ago, Classsix T said:

You should see the monster west of Thurston son, viewable from space, it'll take horses (I sh*t you not) as a bridleway!

 

C6T. 

I have just looked it up and seen it, what a beast. I would say that we are entering an era where these bridges will become standard at many stations and ex level crossing such as the one you mentioned at Thurston. Out of interest, was the ability to take horses a requirement, or was that just a joke? 

Done a bit of research and apparently the bridge was not popular with the locals. Looks like ramp gradient is not all that steep, it would be interesting to know if there is a recomended and a maximum gradient. 

Just now, Talltim said:

With a massively over engineered ramp that goes back and forth

Ah ok, I get it now. They don't look great, but I suppose they're needed to avoid stairs.

2 minutes ago, Classsix T said:

Donkey Kong footbridges

What on earth is a "Donkey Kong foorbridge"? 

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Don't forget too that we are already well into an era - like it or not - where traditional ramped platform ends are vanishing whenever the opportunity to get rid of them offers.

Why is this? I am not saying that it is a good nor bad thing, I am just curious as too why this is done. The only reason I can think off is that it makes the track more difficult to access from the platform which would hopefully prevent those unauthorised to do so wondering onto the track. Is this somthing that is being retrofitted to existing stations or is it a new build policy only?

Regarding barrow crossing, would it not be possible where is bridge cannot be installed to have them but with level crossing style barriers & lights? Having barrier and lights would surely then make them just like a normal level crossing used by both foot and motor traffic? Forgive me if I am missing somthing, but would that not pose jsut the same risk if not less as it only pedestrianized traffic and not road as well? Would have then is basically just a mini level crossing with all the light and barriers, but scaled down somewhat. I am not saying this is a good idea, I am just wondering if It has been considered or trialed. 

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

The last time I was at Exeter St. Davids I saw a passenger in a wheelchair being taken across the crossing at the Plymouth end by a member of the station staff.   It does have lights which go out when a train is approaching though.

Exeter St Davids in my local mainline station, so I can confirm that the practice you described does happen, although it is not common by any stretch of the imagination. 

4 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

I have to apologise to tkg300; I misread the earlier post as saying new-build stations have stairs only, the opposite of what was actually said ! However, I must disagree that accessible stations are rare, there are plenty of older stations which have either been accessible from the word go, or where step-free access has subsequently been provided, as per the examples on the Neilston line in my post yesterday evening.

 

Appology accepted, sorry if I came across as almost agressive in my response. It is also interesting to me that you have many local stations that are accessible. It might just be a coincidence that I don't seem to be so lucky and that my most local station (the previosly mentioned Polsloe Bridge) is not accessible. It must be the differing topographys of our respective local areas that has caused this rather large split of non accessible and accessible stations.

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

The last time I was at Exeter St. Davids I saw a passenger in a wheelchair being taken across the crossing at the Plymouth end by a member of the station staff.   It does have lights which go out when a train is approaching though.

Exeter St Davids in my local mainline station, so I can confirm that the practice you described does happen, although it is not common by any stretch of the imagination. 

A MOD CAN DELETE THIS AS IT APPEARS TO OFF DUPLICATED

3 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

subject to a feasible design being possible

That there is the issue, many stations won't have a feasible design that is possible. We can almost be certain that the easy ones will get it first, leaving the slightly more challenging ones at the bottom of the pile with less money to do it. Regarding the station I mentioned earlier, when the second platform is reopened, you would need either a lfit on both platforms or a lift one on side and a bridge connecting both platforms, both of which is a little more costly than just removing steps and adding a ramp. 

15 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

Make your mind up. Your previous post said 

 

Regarding new build stations, I was saying that all stations apart from new build ones only have only stairs. Suggesting that only the very latest stations are accessible, the other 99% are not.

 

 

What are you on about? I initally said that all stations apart from new builds have stairs suggesting that ONLY new build are accessible. 

My next post says that many surburban routes don't have many accessible stations. 

Both posts suggest that accessible stations are rare, which where I am from is certainly the case. 

1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

A great many historic stations are accessible, not just those that topography suited when built 100 years ago but also many that NR have been retrofitting.

That maybe true, but many smaller surburban routes don't have if any accessible stations. 

3 hours ago, dvdlcs said:

 

2 power cars may take more space than one, and increase the cost of the unit, but as has been mentioned previously the diesel fuel capacity may be a consideration too.

 

[I'm assuming the fuel tanks are in the power cars. If not, then ignore the above comment.]

I'm not expert, but I can say for certain that they are. I cannot imagine that the fuel can be in one car, and the engines in another. That would mean pumping fuel through hoses along the train, somthing that, in the event of a derailment, would be diasterious.

2 hours ago, caradoc said:

The double-decker buses I use in Oxford are fully accessible to wheelchairs, prams etc, having fold out ramps, designated spaces and tip-up seats to provide more space.

That's interesting, down here you would struggle to turn any decent sized wheelchair on a double decker, especially if there are other people aboard. 

Regarding new build stations, I was saying that all stations apart from new build ones only have only stairs. Suggesting that only the very latest stations are accessible, the other 99% are not. Sorry if it was poorly worded and lead to a misunderstanding. 

2 hours ago, caradoc said:

I was under the impression that all new-build stations had (by law) to be fully accessible; That is certainly the case for the examples I know of in Scotland.

It is the same story down here in Devon, the two new stations within a few miles of my house have both stairs and ramps to access them. Although, both of these stations are on flat ground making access very easy, my most local (branchline) station, is well above road level at the same level as an overbridge making any kind of ramp impossible, a lift is the only way. The station is called Polsloe Bridge, it is not a new build station (in fact, it is still the orginal concrete from the 1920's) but it's an example of a station that is almost impossible to make acessible, I mean just look at those stairs. The link is below. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiW-fPg0-LmAhUmxYUKHdQRBogQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPolsloe_Bridge_railway_station&psig=AOvVaw2RYkhXzEGk_JxBIDaPkBrn&ust=1577976784972832

2 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

Not really, same axle load as a 755 has now. Remember, 6 car versions of these with only 2x powered bogies work from Belinzona on the old gotthard route, the UK has little to compare.

Although saying that, now we know that the unit is actually 163.4 tonne with what I think will be 53 tonne on powered axles, they actually look like they're in a much better situation in terms of adhesive weight. 

5 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

Best get that idiot Wilkinson out of office as quick as possible, he's signed those 

Bloke hasn't a clue about railways,  lives in Austria and it was him that was behind the hard seating and other passenger discomfort extras to be brought in

I thought the renatus 321s were compliant or is it now that any train  designed by BR is a death trap for disabled passengers? 

What gets me is the fact that they push for trains to be "accessible", but all but the latest new build stations have stairs and only major stations have lifts. Its all very well and good having disabled friendly trains, but if they can't get too me whats the point?