Supaned

There's a 170 which does a passenger service from New St to Nottingham in the evening which then goes back to New St ECS which runs via Alrewas and Lichfield and the cross city line. I'm presuming this is a move to keep this diversion route on the drivers cards as it's used on weekends when the Tamworth route is having engineering closures.

 

Not ECS but it's followed a couple of hours later by the last Newcastle - New St passenger which I presume is run this way for the same reason. This train being the only passenger scheduled service over the South Staffs Line, not that it's much use to those in Burton or Lichfield as its non stop south of Derby !

Correct on both counts. The 170 goes that way for Driver knowledge purposes , the Voyager (1M00) for guard knowledge purposes as the booked driver then returns ECS to Central Rivers via Lichfield as well.

The last XC from Reading to Birmingham runs via Foxhall Junction (reversing there) for the same reasons and also does Stechford - Aston - Soho to New Street .

 

Consider Warley. I get up at 6 to drive to the NEC Saturday morning. Arrive, park up, load my trolley and walk my demo kit into the hall. Deposit kit in my allotted space then dash off for my breakfast (thanks Barry!). As I'm walking back to set up my demo the tannoy announces that due to crowds the NEC are letting folks in early. Now do they expect to be able to sit in front of my demo stand?

 

 

In the case of Warley I suspect very few will be interested in anything other than stampeding to the Bachmann returns jumble sale, so enjoy your breakfast.

if the Brush Electrics are getting a bit fragile , I'm sure the Chinese will build them some new locos to use. Glad to see the wires staying , and hoping that electric haulage extends to all trains under the wires.

My understanding of how a PRI works was as described by Stationmaster, ie the PRIs will only be lit if the route is set from the PRI to the next section beyond the junction signal , in which case the PRI being lit would indeed indicate that the next signal should show a proceed aspect - and based on Will Cav's reply they would appear to work as I expected.

I would like to see that standard in writing , if only to point out to the powers that be.

Something that came up on a recent safety briefing , and I'm hoping that one of our resident signalling engineers can give a definitive answer.

A Preliminary Route Indicator (PRI) gives a driver advanced indication of the route indicated on a particular signal , the PRIs usually being located between 1 and 2 signal sections on the approach to the actual junction signal to which the PRI applies. Our drivers have been advised not to regard a PRI being displayed as an indication that the next signal has been cleared, which is correct as they are specifically not a banner repeater.

The question is, if a train is stood at the junction signal , displaying a red aspect , with a following train stood say 2 sections back but in sight of the "A" PRI , when the junction signal clears , will the PRIs illuminate so that the driver of the following train would see it too even though it doesn't specifically apply to his train at that time?

To give an example of this , there are PRIs on the Down Coventry line approaching Birmingham International. The junction signal protecting the South Junction has 2 PRIs provided , A & B , with the A PRI being located just after Hampton in Arden station. A train following would in theory have a single yellow signal at Hampton in Arden , with the red being situated between HIA and the junction signal at BHI South, so does the PRI illuminate even though it does not apply to the following train? Or is there a signalling regulation that prevents this from occurring?

Still at Eastleigh today between 1110 and 1355 when I passed with 1O82/1S53 - on the holding sidings at the rear of the station and visible even though behind a row of 66s.

So what in a nutshell is the essential stuff to do in Japan? My wife and I are planning a trip for next April, and I won't be able to spend the whole trip doing train stuff... Is the Kyoto museum worth my while insisting on?

The museum was closed on the day I was in Kyoto , however , I did ride the Sagano Scenic Railway nearby , which was decent enough - at the one end of the line these is a small museum and a large HO scale model railway in the station building.

We visited Tokyo , Osaka , Kyoto , Hiroshima & Toyama on our trip.

Railway wise, we did the Oigawa Railway Narrow gauge line, the Wakayama Electric Railway (home of Nitama the Cat Stationmaster) , Sagano Scenic , and the Kurobe Gorge Railway , all of which were easily accessible by public transport. We also rode the trams in Osaka , Hiroshima & Toyama (which is prototype for the Kato Unitram model).

It was lurking at Eastleigh for the past two days (tues and weds) when I went through on 1O04/1M46.

Given that the present GW franchise was formed by amalgamating GW, Thames Trains and Wessex Trains , I don't see the need to then hive off the Far Western services again - it's not as if they will be big profit generators , or perhaps that is the point , leaving the money-making services to London alone to make the franchise more attractive?

Of late there does seem to be a lot of pointless franchise meddling going on. I believe there was a lot of public opposition to splitting the current EMT Liverpool-Norwich service at Nottingham , yet they have decided to go ahead and do that anyway , with TPE running Liverpool - Nottingham and EMT to Norwich. Not sure of the logistics there but I think it's safe to say it won't be a true through service any more.

The question then becomes do other TOCs / prospective TOCs see it as a hidden franchise bid and start legal proceedings.  

 

 Given the ongoing electrification debacle , I can't really see many willing franchisees waiting in the wings until the job is done and the fleet situation has settled down,

Looking forward to seeing it in the 1980s guise. 31 on a passenger train with a few mark 2 coaches as per the Birmingham - Norwich service?

Not sure if you are aware of this , but a series 4 MZ has just been announced in HO scale:

http://mck-h0.dk/kategori/test-overkategori/dsb-mz-iv/

Perhaps so , but the accident involving Amtrak train 188 on the outskirts of Philadelphia occurred on a line fitted with speed control - it just wasn't fitted on a sharp curve (which it clearly needed to be) . And however good PTC may be , it won't prevent vehicles or trucks from fouling grade crossings , which are in reality the bulk of the incidents that Amtrak are involved in - perhaps they should fit a form of PTC to road vehicles to prevent that from happening ?

The crash in South Carolina was a result of systems failure and an operating rule regarding operating in degraded working which really was an accident waiting to happen. Sadly it took one to get the rule changed but at least now they have amended the operating rule to err on the side of safety. As far as I'm aware , PTC can't tell which way a hand switch is set if it isn't interlocked, although I stand to be corrected.

I do understand the push to improve safety on Amtrak , and whioleheartedly support it , but I'd counter that by saying that in reality the majority of incidents are caused by outside factors over which they have little influence. The accidents in Philadelphia and Tacoma were both due to excessive speed and could have been prevented by PTC, granted . I still maintain that certainly in the case of the SWC , as it is the sole train to operate over the portion of line , there really is no need for PTC and the existing track warrant type working should be more than sufficient to operate safely over that section of line.

The Trump administration and Amtrak both want non-North East corridor and non-state supported long distance trains gone. This PTC thing is just another way of going about it dressed up as a safety issue - the FRA has already given them an exemption to operate on these lines.

They started by eliminating dining car service on some trains , either giving nothing or a cold sandwich as an alternative (this despite having ordered and not yet taken full delivery of a new fleet of single level dining cars), their latest wheeze was to propose partially bussing the Southwest Chief between Dodge City and Albuquerque because nobody wants to pay to maintain the track or needlessly install PTC over Raton Pass , which has just 2 trains a day - both of which are the Southwest Chief.

Once the trains are gone they won't be coming back. Meanwhile Delta and other airlines will no doubt reap the rewards - oh look, the current Amtrak CEO just happens to be the former Delta CEO. What a coincidence....

And that's the end of that then. The death of long distance passenger trains in the US. Funny how the likes of Delta will pick up the passengers.....

Cheers everyone

 

Well that’s really it, van gone, equipment handed back and not so much as a thank you or hand shake for the last 5 years of my working life, just a cardboard box with the stuff they needed back dumped unceremoniously in the control room, no manager to give me a leaving interview, nothing!

 

A proper kick in the teeth for me for all I’ve done for them the last 5 years, never felt so dejected in my life when I walked out the door for the last time

 

Thanks for ###### all Colas!

Perhaps a hard lesson to learn , but that's the industry we work in today.

No matter how much you do to help out, nobody really thinks any better of you , and nobody is beyond replacement. Traincrew are simply assets. Nothing more.

On a related topic , a colleague and I were working back from Bristol earlier this week when our attention turned to the exhaust outlets for what we presume were the standby generators for the now defunct Bristol Power Box. We were mulling over exactly what power units lurked inside the said building and whether it would turn out to be a treasure trove of Paxman , Maybach or similar. 

Does anybody happen to know what engines they were?

So having polished the turd , perhaps WMT/LNW might like to try conjuring up enough traincrew to run their sunday timetable....(and yes , I am aware of the traincrew T&Cs thanks)

The Bournemouth crews will just route refresh via Guildford on other TOC trains if there are no XC services booked that way.

Back to the matter in hand , 221127 was on the adjacent road to my unit at Central Rivers this morning , so I had a quick look. There is still a smell of burnt plastic some days after the fire , and there certainly looks to have been a fair bit of damage caused to the engine area - I presume the RAIB report will identify the cause and therefore no need for speculation.

I think it will be out of traffic for some time based on what I saw ; whether the 3 intermediate vehicles end up strengthening other sets remains to be seen , but XC currently has 2 x 4-car 221s , so not beyond the realms of possibility.

Thankfully all the passengers and staff were evacuated safely, which is the most important thing rather than flippant remarks about the type of traction.

I think part of the problem is this rose-tinted nostalgia where a loco MUST run over it's former stamping ground , wherever that may be. I'm sure some would be happy to see Mallard irreparably damaged on a repeat of the speed record run just to say they were on that train at that time.

The concept of running steam hauled services on secondary lines is indeed a good one , however these days a lot of those lines are busier now than they were in the 1980s etc , and at weekends they can be used by diverted services when there is engineering works on main lines, so who should be prioritised ? The general public paying to travel from A to B who don't care if the train is painted in the exact shade of green from June 22nd 1934 and just want a seat and a train to get them there on time , or the enthusiast who will complain that the loco never had those two rivets on the fireman's side of the cab on August 1925, doesn't like the sound of air pumps or a diesel iding on the rear , but is more than happy to ride in a Mark 1 coach behind a loco painted in pre-nationalisation livery.

To be honest there are far too many trains on some lines at the moment , without trying to fit anything else in , if a charter (be that steam , diesel or electric) is capable of running within the paths that are available without delaying other trains then fair enough , but it's simply wrong to run a 75mph charter in front of a timetabled 110mph passenger train "just because" , and this sort of thing happens more often than people would believe. And that's without the trespass issues that certain types of charter train seem to attract.

Go on , I'll play,

OO class 74....

(retires to a safe distance)

I always thought the major difference was the motor alternator set that the LHCS had to convert standard ETS to the three phase required for the electrical systems?

To be honest I'm not fully conversant with what goes on underneath a Mark 3 coach , but I do know that the XC trailers converted from LHCS had some electrical contraption there that enables them to work with the power car ETS , and that they are somewhat troublesome. My remit is mainly the power cars at either end.

The former Mk3 loco hauled coaches have an invertor underneath to accomodate the HST's 415v AC train supply - this was apparently easier to do than converting all the wiring and equipment to HST spec. So yes , they are compatible.

Not Anglia , but there was a legendary trip in the latter days with a Western to Leeds on a service train - willing crews , no doubt an "enthusiastic" power controller and job done.