phil-b259

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

Seatbelts protects anyone, whether they were previously standing or not, who decides to use them at an unsafe time or location.

 

I would love you to demonstrate how a seatbelt helps a standing passenger from being flung down the carriage / to the floor due to sudden deceleration…

Yes a seatbelt will potentially stop those seated from adding to the numbers sent flying - but I repeat that given seated and standing passengers can potentially have paid exactly the same price (or the standee has paid even more than the seated person if the latter has an advance ticket) then, in law, the standee MUST NOT be subjected to a grater risk of injury than the seated person!

It doesn’t mater whether a person is seated or not - they all have to enter and exit the train at some point and as such CDL helps protect them all from exiting / entering the train when it is unsafe to do so, be it while they are passing though the train while in motion, waiting by the door to alight or even preventing them from boarding a train which is about to start moving off from a platform.

On 10/04/2024 at 13:51, Bernard Lamb said:

That is not just old, it is ancient.

Look at the loco to tender connection.

 

No it’s not - the plug and socket setup (usually accompanied by moving the decoder socket into the tender) was retrofitted to a number of ‘super detailed’  models* around 10 years after the tooling was first released - and no changes were made to the body shells or chassis at that time.

As such the type of loco to tender connection makes zero difference to how the loco looks (or runs - I have several of locos fitted with the original setup that run perfectly well with it), the only real difference is that if you want to fit sound then having the decoder in the tender means you would probably want to go for a later release with the monied loco - tender coupling.
 

* Tbe N15 was another

On 09/04/2024 at 08:51, adb968008 said:

Were those researchers from the accountancy team by any chance ?

 

I’m sorry the argument that everyone can assume the risk of death in a crash because it reduces revenue and increases inconvenience flies in the face of everything we are told the ORR is supposed to be for..

I dont see why seat belts couldn't be fitted and optional for use ?.. seatbelts arent revolutionary, and are not expensive… LNER are certainly moving towards an airline style all seated railway, maybe it time they upped safety too.

Whilst accepting the partisan nature of this thread, those showing support for posts reducing safety, is exactly what it is…a show support for reducing safety on a thread debating challenging of safety by another operator… which I find hypocritical.. surely safety is safety, not selective safety to those in vogue vs those who arent.

 

 

I don’t know the specifics of the study and as it was done by BR before privatisation the mechanics of the study may not be the same as if it were done today.

However the point still stands that seat belts would only have a chance of protecting seated passengers - and unless you ban standees then your risk reduction will only apply to some of the trains passengers!

That goes against all modern safety regulation - in effect what you are saying is that some passengers are more valuable than others and have a grater ‘right’ to safety than others - which any court of law would find to be ridiculous not to mention an act of negligence by whichever company installed them.

Therefore if you had a train company which fitted seatbelts and an incident occurred where a standing passenger suffered a minor injury then there is a very good chance they could take the train company to court for providing seat belts for seated passengers but doing nothing to protect those standing dispute both types of passengers having potentially paid the same fare.

seatbelts in other forms of transport are fine precisely because the relevant la2s prohibit the carriage of standing passengers and thus EVERYONE experiences the same level of safety.

As I said earlier there is also the little matter that in terms of safety, it’s far better to eliminate the possibility of something happening than deal with mitigating the risk - that’s why the HSE say best practice is to design things so they do not need the use of a ladder to access them (e.g. have the equipment be able to be lowered to ground level like the ‘fold down’ signals we see on the rail network) than address the risks resulting from ladder use by sending people on ‘working at height’ training  and issuing fall restraint equipment.

Thus, it’s far better in railway terms to invest in preventing collisions etc from happening in the first place (TPWS, better fencing, better drainage removing level crossings etc) than seatbelts (given the legal difficulties surrounding their fitment to trains which also permit standing passengers.

14 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I know were drifting ot on this but, Would seatbelt's help ?

 

I have wondered by seatbelts havent been a thing on trains before…

 

planes, cars, long distance coaches all have them.

But planes cars and long distance coaches don’t have standing passengers - everyone who has a ticket has a seat!

For seat belts to be made effective - and for the railways to stand half a chance of them being used then it would require standing passengers to be banned - something which commuters (who are voters) and politicians wouldn’t tolerate.

BR did some research into seatbelts towards the end of its existence and concluded that money would be better invested in stopping trains crashing in the first place through signaling improvements and things like the replacement of slam door stock.

22 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

Eh? on the CEGB crash the passenger accommodation remained entirely intact apart from about two broken windows and crush damage to the leading toilet where it over rode the loco as it did not have the benefit of the buck eye couplings that the rest of the train did. Pretty far from being pretty mangled...

I refer you to the post made by Northmoor just a few hours ago…..

3 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

Going a bit off topic (as we do), I've been thinking.....

Do the Royal coaches have CDL? If not, do they have B&Q door bolts and stewards at every door?

Only asking.

I suspect all doors are locked while on the move to prevent undesirables from trying to gain access should the train come to an unscheduled halt for any reason 

1 minute ago, stewartingram said:

The nuclear wagon test crash with the class 45 and mk1s, actually seemed too show the strength of the mk1 design?

Yes and no. Although it showed the under frames being very strong the passenger accommodation was pretty mangled…

The same is obvious when you look at photos of the Clapham crash in 1987…

48 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I can do quite well without Google Maps in the car, thank you.

I have a touch screen Sat-Nav and haven't used it once since I got the car in 2017.

I've also got voice controlled audio/phone, haven't used that either, even though I went to the trouble of pairing the phone.

Google maps is updated frequently at no cost to reflect changes (and I’m not just talking about new roads) to the road network - when was the last time your car manufacturer supplied a free update?

Also google maps can show live traffic information and can warn you of delays ahead plus offer you alternative routes - can your built in car system do that?

Car manufacturers have a history of being slow to update the latest trends into their vehicles - plus deliberately make it hard / expensive to update things like Sat-Nav’s…

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

I think the time will come when the Mk1 coach will no longer be acceptable on the network as their age alone and corrosion to the frames will render them unsafe.

 

Some sort of new or major rebuild will have to come to develop something for the future and it amazes me how on the ball Accurascale were with their Haulmark range of coaches.  If only all those Mk3s had not gone for scrap (or haven't they?).

 

You are rather forgetting that the Mk1 coach is actually a pretty easy thing to keep going indefinitely!

This is because of the separate non load bearing body and strong underframe setup - It’s technically possible to build an brand new underframe and transfer an existing body onto it in a way that you simply cannot do with Mk2s or later due to their monocoque construction.

The ORRs concerns have their origins in fact that IF the underframe do not stay in line with each other during a derailment and one rises up and impacts the relatively flimsy body then the damage to the passenger 6 will be far more extensive than with a monocoque design.

The relevant regulations were also largely written at the time when their were large fleets of 3rd rail EMUs being used and the chances of two Mk1 based trains colliding was considerably higher than is the case today - something the ORR themselves acknowledge in their continued granting of exemptions to such stock

7 hours ago, flockandroll said:

I need to do a science experiment like this:

Measuring the temperature of melting ice experiment - Temperature changes and energy - Edexcel - GCSE Physics (Single Science) Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zpjpgdm/revision/8

 

I have a 12V power Supply that is rated at 3 amps.

I have a miniature water immersion heater that is “12V, 50W”.

In terms of current, voltage and power, can I safely use the power supply to power the heater? (In terms of wires and connections it is fine.)

 

When I was much younger, I used to think that somehow, “Oh no, 50W at 12V, it will draw over 4 amps to get that 50W at 12 volts, so something will overheat and go pop or worse”.

But now I also think, “There’s only a maximum of 3 amps available, and the heater won’t be able to magically get more than 3 amps, so all that will happen is the heater will run with only 36W, so it will not get as hot, but everything will be safe, and nothing will break”

 

Which view is correct?

The circuit will look something like this:

 

Thanks!

The rating of a device relates to its maximum power output!

Just because a electric heater may kick out 4W doesn’t mean it has to do that!

Given power is a function of Volts multiplied by current the simplest way is to add resistance into the circuit - this will (depending on the configuration used) reduce the voltage or the current being supplied to the heater and consequently reduce the power consumed to less than 4W.

Similarly although a power supply may be rated at 3W - that relates to the maximum power it can provide.

If the load connected is less than 3A then it will not have a problem supplying power.

So if you add sufficient resistance in the circuit and your heater now only draws 2W then both your 3A power supply and 4W heater will function perfectly happily together.

34 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

 

So they weren't all idiots who deserved to be removed from the gene pool.

 

 

Plus even ‘Idiots’ still usually have families and loved ones…

Scraping human remains / body parts off the track or trains is not a pleasant task - particularly as most of the time that is not what the folk doing it signed up for when they started their employment…..

Then there is the delay to other rail traffic while the incident is investigated etc….

14 hours ago, adb968008 said:

.

To go with a specific exemption for WHL only, at 25mph might be a harder one to argue against… as that with door bolts and stewards would be stronger than what heritage railways today offer, many with a greater service frequency than the WHL and the risks of volunteers vs professional staff.

 

But train paths at 25mph on the WHL are not available without totally decimating the Scotrail regular timetable!

So even if WCR put forward that as their justification for not installing CDL they still wouldn’t be able to rub the Jacobite as NR would not be able to provide any suitable train paths.

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Relations between the ORR and wcrc arent good unless youve noticed,

 

The easy one to resolve this would be in the renegotiation of the Jacobite access contract to indicate all the requirements expected in order to approve it…

ie

 

1. Cdl fitting

2. Sealed windows

3. cet

4. internal door handles

 

no compliance no approval to run.

 

(The contract today does specifiy mk1/mk2, 37, B1, K1, 8f and 5MT, and CET requirement), so other clauses could be added…

 

tbh what maybe worthwhile is the ORR to publish its overall intentions inrelation to mk1’s for the next few years, so an operator could opt to do full compliance now, rather than piece meal upgrades every year.

 

Then wcrc puts its pitchforks away and goes ahead with certainty in knowing what it needs to do, beyond cdl and hence invest/plan accordingly.

 

if the ORR insist on sliding doors in 4 years.. we’ll be here all over again.

 

If the contract is up in 6 months, common sense suggests they should be discussing this in parallel to this current dispute, waiting until October would seem a bit late in the day, especially as LSL look to be interested, it does feel that money talks and LSL and ORR are becoming quite cosy…

 

 

 

Its not really the ORRs exact job to specify rolling stock (they don't go round telling any TOCs they must use X,Y or Z stock) - and their concerns around 'Mk1s' are more to do with things like metal fatigue / corosion / passenger doors / openable droplights than the Mk1 as a whole.

In other words if you maintain the Mk1s to a high standard (including paying special attention to end loading pillars / couplers / buffering gear and residual underframe strength - replacing where necessary) plus deal with passenger doors / droplights then the ORR will be quite happy for them to still be used on the national rail network.

Sliding doors are nothing to do with the ORR per say - but instead fall under legislation surrounding persons of reduced mobility and ensuring full accessibility for scheduled train services.

Similarly the requirement for CET is not an ORR requirement (UK legislation specifically allows train operators to discharge untreated raw sewage from trains) - its a private matter for Network Rail to decide on and is in fact being driven by the trade unions who quite rightly object to their staff being forced to work / breathe in raw sewage or passengers be exposed to the same when they touch door handles or door opening buttons on the train exterior.

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

You might wonder who exactly has lost out here. The UK management would (of course) portray themselves as the "victim" in any news or publicity. But you cannot con an honest man. They thought they could get more profit by using Chinese workers instead of British workers. The British workers had already lost out. As for the UK management, some might call it kharma.

 

You might (by now) be noticing a similar pattern across a huge number of other industries.

Given consumers (in this case railway modellers) most frequent gripe is the high prices then moving work offshore was inevitable.

Assembling todays crop of highly detailed models with loads of separately fitted parts and detailed printing requires considerable dexterity and skill - you are not going to get that sort of skillset from a UK workforce on the minimum wage (which is still generally significantly higher than the average wage in china for skilled assembly work).

UK produced trains would probably be coming in at the £500 -£600 plus mark if they were made in the U, not the £200 plus mark which is possible through the use of China... 

The same trend is true of quite a lot of consumer goods - to produce them in the UK would push the price above what consumers would be prepared to pay....

4 minutes ago, StuAllen said:

And one on the Brighton line as well this morning https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service-disruptions/haywards-heath-20240406/

Aye - and from what I have seen the embankment looks to have a significant amount of loco ash in it (the most common type of fill used to patch up earthworks from the earliest days of rail travel right through to the end of steam.

As any specialist in soil mechanics / geotechnical engineering will tell you Ash is pretty much the worst material to use to repair slips....

2 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

For goodness' sake calm down. I asked whether there was TPWS at the signal, not whether TPWS renders the trap unnecessary.

My Apologies,

I believe there is. However the short distance between the signal and the trap point means the train wouldn't have had to be going that fast for it to still come off the rails at the trap.

(It was just the leading bogie of the loco which ended up in the dirt by the way).

24 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Is there a TPWS train stop at the signal, or does the trap replace that?

TPWS does not suspend the laws of physics!

It takes time for the brakes on any train to apply and even longer for them to actually brig the train to a halt.

As such a trap point is still an essential tool as that physically guarantees the train will be diverted away from adjacent lines if a SPAD occurs, particularly if the associated signal has no overlap (and thus no distance for the brake application to take effect) - as is usually the case with loops and sidings.

8 hours ago, Craig1989 said:

There seemed to be a lot of rain around London last night so wonder if that would have had an impact? 
 

Nope.

It was just a bog standard SPAD....

16 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

There appears to be a trap point on the end of the loop in satellite views of the area, so presumably the loco ran through that and derailed?

Yup

The train SPADed the signal and the trap point did its job by derailing the loco away from the running lines.

The main issue is that because the train was carrying aviation fuel tankers it was classed as carrying 'dangerous goods' and as such extra checks had to be carried out to make sure there was no damage to the wagons before adjacent lines could be re-opened.

7 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

Wrong. 

They are however different.

The bottom line is this - everything in China (including copyright law) is structured in such a way that, if it wishes to, the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) can step in and eliminate anything it sees as a threat to its grip on power.

Thats why its illegal for foreign based companies to own factories or production plants - if they did then the CPC are worried that it would have no way of suppressing what it would consider 'subversive' activities, conversations or initiatives from emerging on the factory floor. Making sure a factory is under Chinese ownership allows the CPC to sack 'disloyal' workers or replace  managers / owners who are not loyal to the party in ways that would be difficult to do if the factory was owned by foreign entities.

Copyright laws are no different - yes they provide protection to individuals / organisations, but only as long as respecting them does not get in the way of the CPCs tight ideological control of the population. If that control is threatened then you can guarantee that copyrights will not be respected and ruled invalid in some way. Put it this way you try and copyright something which is perceived by the party to link to the Tianmian Square massacre by said CPC, however remote the link, the CPC will make sure the copyright will not be respected.

In the UK by contrast copyright laws are not under political oversight and as such could be considered more robust / offer more protection as far as intellectual property goes....

On 01/04/2024 at 13:39, ikcdab said:

Ok. HW on the plan is hand worked so no GPLs needed there. I think I am just missing one on the exit from the top left goods headshunt.

 

You miss understand.... see the attachment.

Remember that you have to consider protecting moves entering the siding from what is already in there deciding to move and colliding with it....

In general any point equipped with a point machine will need protecting with signals from ALL directions....

25 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Is this any help? It's a modern picture, but of a heritage railway installation (I suspect the orange piping is a more modern feature though!)

 

 

There's two cables going to the point machine, I would presume one would be to the motor itself (the taller bit on the right), and the other to the detector (the bit with three rods on the left).

 

Correct - though the termination point for all external cables is located at the left end of the machine (which has two cable entry points side by side on the left hand end)

5 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

I wish it would happen soon, as I am not a fan of the dirty noisy clapped out junk that EMR have to use at the moment and some clean quiet EMUs would be preferable.  But it s not London, so I doubt anything will happen in my lifetime.  

 

 

Don't forget that EMR are due to take delivery of a fleet of bi-mode IETs in the near future that will be able to take advantage of OLE where it exists.

Energy costs: Smart meter left woman, 87, scared to turn on heat - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckk77v4wvr0o

Older article

Smart meters: Almost three million still not working - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-67591320

Given this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26367160

And

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/england-met-office-worcestershire-worcester-wales-b2522182.html#

I am not surprised….

And those who are trying to claim that it’s all down to inadequate maintenance need to take a reality check - yes maintenance has been neglected etc but it’s quite obvious that the volumes of rain we are getting now are a huge contributor to drainage being overwhelmed (however well the Victorians etc may have built it) and earthworks failing through saturation / liquefaction.