DY444

21 hours ago, icn said:

It is true that batteries have some challenges of their own, but the data is pretty clear: battery vehicles are less fire prone, and the tools to put out such fires are available (they're becoming more and more widespread across fire services internationally). Water tanks are far from the only solution. The real issue with battery vehicles is uninformed and political animosity as opposed to real fundamental issues with them.

Quite the reverse, the real issue with battery vehicles is a refusal of their advocates to admit there are downsides and risks.  The argument that battery vehicles are less fire prone is a classic example of this in action because, irrespective of whether it is a true or false statement, it is totally irrelevant and therefore a classic case of obfuscation.  As for the idea that there is political animosity, that is a myth.  Before Luton or the Freemantle Highway, I had a lengthy dialogue with my MP about the need for regulation and infrastructure to mitigate an EV thermal runaway in enclosed spaces such as underground car parks, ferries etc.  Couldn't have been less interested if he'd tried and went full fingers in the ears, head in the sand mode.

There are two real issues:  firstly the consequences should a fire start are far more serious, and secondly the rise in ambient air temperature required to initiate a battery thermal runaway is relatively low.  So let's say a fire-prone (by your logic) ICE is parked next to an EV and catches fire.  There is a very high probability that the rise in local air temperature from the ICE fire will cause a thermal runaway in the adjacent EV's battery.  Then you have a far more more intense fire than the original one, a fire which generates extremely toxic smoke and a fire which cannot be fought by conventional means.

Oh and nobody has satisfactorily explained how a thermal runaway in a class 777 battery under Liverpool would be contained.  I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the ORR's obsession with avoiding third rail extensions has blinded them to the need for proper risk assessments of the alternatives. 

On 05/07/2023 at 20:58, stewartingram said:

I've used varnish from B&Q to seal my Scalescenes  & Metcalfe card models, with no ill effects.

Please could you give a link to the specific product you are referring to.  Thanks.

12 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

A lot of talk is about easing congestion on the WCML, but this can surely be done far cheaper than HS2 is costing.

Total myth.  To get two extra tracks worth of capacity then you can probably get from Euston to Primrose Hill Tunnels cheaper.  From there you're talking about demolishing thousands of buildings to get you out to the M25.  Then thousands more between Coventry and Birmingham.  Widening Tring cutting would be a mammoth undertaking.  What do you do through Bletchley, Milton Keynes, Rugby?  Then there's the disruption.  No matter what it costs HS2 will always be cheaper to get the same amount of additional track capacity.

It's simple economics.  If flights, sailings and ET departures were half empty then fares would be lower.  Thing is they're not half empty as most of the post-Covid demand ramp-up predictions have been wrong like many of the things claimed by so-called experts during Covid.  Airlines for example stood down a large number of aircraft and have been caught napping as a result; several have had to do a hasty re-work of their fleet plans and return aircraft to service they thought were surplus to requirements.  Plus I've seen numerous reports of a late surge in bookings following the failure of this year's UK summer weather to get the memo about rising temperatures.

Oh and blaming it all on Brexit is a lazy, click-bait trope.  Travel prices are up across the board not just between the UK and EU member states. 

4 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

Salmon Abedi's three hostile reconnaissance trips around the MEN Arena were missed because security staff were insufficiently trained to even consider it, so its hardly surprising they're a bit more switched on these days. It's not like a railway station has never been blown up before. 

 

Conversely a report which crossed my desk of a passenger phoning the BTP because  three fellow passengers matching a particular stereotype were photographing signals, level crossing equipment and station exits from the train was correctly identified as nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with Pokemon Go by some casual engagement and questioning by the conductor. They get paid to be nosey. 

 

 

That kind of proves my point though.  They failed to spot the one they needed to spot and the ones that were observed, and therefore making it clear what they doing, were not a threat.  

They're brilliant unless you live in the South East and want to go north because you can't use them on departures from Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross before 10:00 Mondays to Friday.  If you live in Manchester and want to go to Euston you can catch an 08:00-ish train and arrive in Euston some time after 10:00.  If you live in London and want to go to Manchester then you can't depart until after 10:00 and thus won't get to Manchester until after 12:00. 

Yes there are ways around it but they are a pain and the restrictions are another legacy of the gone and definitely unlamented ATOC's greed first, everything else second standard modus operandi.  What makes it worse is that Brit Pass has no such restrictions so foreign visitors can travel when they like but UK residents (and thus tax payers) who foot much of the bill for the railways can't.  And yes it is a very sore point for this particular London resident. 

On 08/09/2023 at 14:19, Hibelroad said:

Could the London Underground ban also be due to terrorism concerns i.e photos used for surveillance and planning purposes? Terrorism in one form or another has existed for many year and must be a concern on the railways.

"Security" is an old chestnut much beloved by heavy handed jobsworth station staff.  As we all know terrorists and agents of foreign powers always walk around with SLRs and camera bags whilst doing reconnaissance.  Anyway these days almost everybody has a camera courtesy of their phone and surreptitious photography has never been easier as a result.  If they can see you're taking pictures then you aren't a terrorist or an agent by definition.   

Oh and there is no ban on London Underground providing you stay in public areas, don't use flash and don't cause obstructions with tripods etc.  Even if there was a ban it would be unenforceable given the number of tourists taking pictures and videos.

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The same can be said of internal combustion-engined vehicles. I had a quick Google from which I get the impression that the actual statistics indicate that EV fires are less frequent per vehicle mile than are internal combustion engine fires.

 

It's just that they're currently more newsworthy, skewing the popular perception and leading to the spread of misinformation. 

The first part is true but totally missing the point and the misinformation is the false belief that an EV fire is comparable to an ICE fire. 

It's not the risk of an EV catching fire which is the issue but the consequences when one does.  EV battery fires are, for all practical intents and purposes, impossible to put out and they will continue to burn until all the electrolyte in every cell has been consumed.  The usual way of fighting an ICE fire (ie oxygen depravation) doesn't work on an EV battery as the electrolyte decomposition when burning generates oxygen.  The other problem is that the combustion produces some very toxic chemicals, some of which can cause severe injury merely through contact with the skin.  The heat produced is fierce and is such that it can weaken metal.  We've already seen this happen on two car carrying ships one of which sank and the other reduced to floating scrap.  If an EV catches fire in an underground car park, on a ferry or in the Channel Tunnel the consequences will be far more serious than an ICE vehicle fire in the same location. 

Another problem is that the temperature rise in an EV battery needed to cause thermal runaway and a fire is quite low by "things catching fire" standards.  Thus the radiant heat from any fire, be it in an EV, an ICE vehicle or just a rubbish bin can cause the battery in any adjacent EV to go into thermal runaway.  So what do the powers that be do?  They put all the EV chargers in a row thus guaranteeing that if one EV has a fire then it will cascade along the line to all the others.  

In short an EV fire is a low probability severe consequences risk whereas an ICE fire is not.  Normally mitigation is legislated in for such risks (look at the history of the railways for multiple examples) however nobody in authority is doing that for the EV battery fire risk.  It will no doubt take a catastrophe before they do.

Edit PS.  In a railway context the traction supply is generally recognised as being a harsh electrical environment with a reputation for exposing the weaknesses in traction unit electrical systems.  Any flaws in the battery management of battery powered traction will be exposed by that environment especially under fast charging which places a higher stress on the battery.  I have concerns about some of the locations where such traction might be charging batteries - the tunnels under Liverpool, the Severn Tunnel, Birmingham New St etc.  

On 06/09/2023 at 19:30, big jim said:

Is there much visually different between an 86/1 and 86/2?

 

Just won a Heljan model of 86214 ‘sans pariel’ that I think I can renumber to 86101 in its current guise, or have I dropped a ball!

 

 

I’m pretty sure it’s the older Heljan 86 with grilles in the wrong place, im not after 100% fidelity but I’m hoping there’s nothing glaringly obvious, there’s some mention of the bogies a page back, although at £110 DCC fitted I’ve not paid over the odds for it I recon and I’ve not got an AC electric in my collection

 

visually I can renumber it easily enough and add current ohle flashes and a cant rail stripe etc, pantograph looks poor though, can’t make out if it’s sitting too high (or even an old Hornby one!) 

 

I want to do 86101 as it’s the first and only AC loco I’ve driven (so far) which happened on the 20th anniversary of me starting on the railway and it was also the first AC loco over the cannock chase line which was a nice honour for me too

On 06/09/2023 at 19:46, woodenhead said:

Different bogies - they had class 87 bogies, I am sure there might be underframe differences as well.

Yes.  The 86/1 has a weak field case which other 86s don't have and this is located where the empty compressor shelf is on other 86s.  The exhauster side of an 86/1 is the same as other 86s.  Both sides of the 86/1 underframe are different to an 87.

20 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Being very pedantic, as we all are, this unit is standing on the most southerly point of the Northern Line...
 

Though I suppose some might argue that the Northern Line ends at the southernmost point of the platforms in Morden station, and what lies beyond are just sidings, not part of a "Line".

Indeed!  After I'd posted it I thought someone would say that!  😉 

9 hours ago, VIA185 said:

The 'Arrow' had a non-Pullman section, did it not, latterly formed of BR Mk1 stock. Presumably the (green) Mk2s replaced Mk1 FKs for a time. By the time it finished in 1972 it had only blue/grey Mk1s and three or four Pullman firsts. (CJL)

It did.  My one and only instance of Class 71 haulage was on the down Arrow and my recollection is that I was conveyed in a blue/grey Mk1 SK.

7 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Do these count as 3rd rail?

I recognise that - the most southerly point on the Underground - sunny Morden! 

12 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

My gut feeling is that in spite of the best efforts of the current idoits in charge at Westminster (who will hopefully be removed within 18 months), phase one will be completed all the way into Euston and connected to the WCML at the same time / shortly after Old Oak - Birmingham.

And if they are they'll be replaced by a group led by the man whose constituency contains Euston and who has campaigned tirelessly against HS2 for his entire political career - well right up until about 9 months ago.  I never cease to be amused by the blind faith in the current opposition by railway people despite all the historical evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't get too carried away.  There have been a number of expression of interest requests issued in the last 2 or 3 years that have gone nowhere. 

9 hours ago, Matt37268 said:

Auto correct taking over maybe? 

No idea but it's clearly Cardiff and looks nothing like Cambridge looked at the time.  There's even a little bit of what looks to me like the rear of the offside of an HST power car visible on the left.

16 hours ago, Matt37268 said:

Not sure where that image is, but it’s not Cambridge, somewhere on the Western maybe? 

Cardiff Central

On 03/08/2023 at 16:56, Nearholmer said:

Sone fragmentary bits regarding the Southern Region mid-to-late 70s:

 

- East Croydon, where there was a GPO platform next to the sorting office on the down side, which was shunted by the “train engine”, which was either an ED or an MLV according to the train. Mail was also handled from other platforms by overhead conveyor, in some cases from passenger train guards vans, in others from “parcels trains” which made long stops for the purpose;

 

- Redhill, this was a postal Mecca with a dedicated bay, plus use of conveyor to other platforms as well, and it retained a pilot loco later than other places, although I couldn’t say until when. The pilot also used to shunt freight in the up side yard, mostly but not wholly sand hoppers, and mostly in the morning, whereas Mail was mostly later in the day, into the night. The Mail and railway parcels traffic was by a mixture of dedicated trains, carriage in passenger trains (the 3R units generally had a car set aside for that, with all the seat cushions turned over), and tail traffic (on loco hauled Reading-Tonbridge services). At Christmas the place was mayhem!

 

- Tonbridge, not as busy as Redhill, but still pretty busy, mostly on the down side, which has road access. Some passenger trains arriving from Reading were either shuffled across to the down side or routed to the down bay direct (rare) for Mail and parcels. Biggest excitement was an Up TPO train in the evening, which was somehow dealt with at the down through platform. Tonbridge had at least one pilot loco, and I have a feeling there were two (dim memory) one east, one west, until maybe the mid-70s, but most of the Mail and parcels didn’t need its/their services.

 

- Woking, had a main sorting office (with a very good canteen), but I don’t think any vans were detached from trains there by the mid-70s, although in earlier years they definitely were, and in the late-1960s I remember an 03/04 being stationed at the down side bay at the London end, which was used to add or subtract vans to/from down trains. Looking back on it, I can’t fathom how up trains were dealt with - maybe vans went all the way to London and came back on the other side!

 

Guildford also handled a lot of mail and parcels, as did most of the other bigger nodal stations, but I’ve less recollection of how. What I don’t recall is any of them having dedicated bays (some did for newspapers though).

 

Splitting and combining passenger trains was, still is, routine on the southern of course, but done properly, using EMU/DEMU, so no pilots needed.

 

I think it may be hard to find photos of pilot locos dhunting parcel vans, because so much of the activity was after dark, in some places at the very dead of night. I remember the first time I changed trains at Crewe in the small hours and it seemed busier with parcels at night than passengers in the day.

 

(There’s a separate thread about sleepers, some of which detached/added cars along the way, and a thread about daytime Penzance trains growing and shrinking at Plymouth)

 

 

Southampton was another.  There was invariably a rake of vans in the down bay platform during the day in the 1970s.

1 hour ago, aictosphotos said:

 

I guess that the Class 50 would propel the SLEP from Laira all the way into Platform 8 if running on time or into the siding next to Platform 8 until the London bound sleeper arrived than the shunt would occur as you've explained.

I would be very surprised indeed if that happened.

On 02/08/2023 at 16:43, Wickham Green too said:

On the face of it, a bi=mode Hastings Unit : - 

 

.... but just working as straight electric ...... even 73.213 on the back was along for the ride with its shoes up ! : Eden Park, 10/10/09

 

Yes because you can't multi a 73 with a Hastings unit so it and the rear ED is just an air braked formation being hauled.

7 hours ago, DavidBird said:

 

Thanks very much, just the sort of anecdote I was looking for. When I was watching trains in the mid 70s and later, it was all about what was on the front, never what was happening at the back.

 

As a further question, did TPO trains ever drop off vehicles at intermediate stations on their routes?

 

That happened at Derby too both in the 1970s and later when it became one of the centres of the TPO universe.  I recall in the 1970s during the day there was frequently a TPO coach coupled to other vans stabled in the sidings between P6 and the goods lines.

On 31/07/2023 at 14:49, Ron Ron Ron said:

Only from personal experience, travelling from the UK to EU destinations over the last 18 months, I can't help feeling all this talk of increased passport checks and delays, has been somewhat overblown and exaggerated.

 

Quite.  When I travelled on Eurostar pre-Brexit, I always thought the St.Pancras Eurostar waiting area was a chaotic, cramped, over crowded mess with wholly inadequate facilities wedged into a confined space with no room whatsoever for expansion.  And that's when services were running normally.  I'm not saying the border controls situation hasn't made life difficult but this implicit idea that now is hell and before was an unqualified triumph is rewriting history to make a point.

It used to happen at Derby regularly.  One train I remember clearly in the 1970s was the 1900-ish St Pancras to Sheffield which had a BG on the rear that was detached there.  One of the Derby 08s invariably dropped onto the BG very quickly after the train had come to a stand. 

22 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

A friend of mine who was depot manager at Tinsley always maintained that the difference between the UK ones and the Romanian ones was that the UK ones could, just about, pull the skin off a rice pudding.

Don't agree with that.  It was the 58s that couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding especially if there was a hint of moisture in the air.  The 56s were pretty capable in respect of haulage, they just had some less than ideal design features and the well documented build quality issues.   

On 21/07/2023 at 14:54, The Stationmaster said:

But it sn't just about passengers falling or not falling out of trains.  It is about a company - on teh surface of things - failing to comply with things it had previously agreed to comply with.

I'm sure that's true but this does have a feeling again to me of the ORR failing to react in a way that is proportionate to the risk of the specific issue, something for which it has plenty of previous.

Then there's the issue of consistency.  The RAIB report into the Lumo incident at Peterborough had, to me anyway, even if seemingly not to anyone else, disturbing similarities to Ladbroke Grove in respect of a new driver being ill prepared by palpably sub-standard training to deal with the signalling of a complex layout.   There can't be that many signals on the ECML with 5 feathers so why anyone thought that the identification of route hazards should gloss over P468 is a mystery not explained.  The training's sole focus on not accepting wrong routes at P468 smacks of avoiding cost, inconvenience and embarrassment to the operator rather than ensuring safe operation.  If the cookie had crumbled only fractionally differently then this could have been a major high speed derailment with significant casualties.

Every new driver at Lumo will have received this inadequate training which, as it subsequently transpired, had overlooked other high risk locations too.  ORR would have been entirely within their rights to suspend the Lumo operation until the driver training programme had been audited, brought up to standard and retrospectively applied to every driver.  But they didn't, for a very serious incident that actually happened, which was just as bad as Wootton Basset in its potential for catastrophe and in respect of having a systemic failure as its underlying cause.  Yet, for the Jacobite, they suspend the operation because of a theoretical risk, which to my knowledge, has never happened on that particular service.  You can bet your bottom dollar that if WCRC had been involved in Peterborough then all hell would have broken loose.  First Group not so much, despite them having previous too with the collision at Plymouth exposing the fact that the GWR driver training had failed to impart a proper understanding to a new driver of their responsibilities when being admitted to a section under a permissive signal aspect.  

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not defending WCRC here.  I'm criticising the ORR for not treating everyone the same.  I also can't help the nagging suspicion that their enthusiasm for ECML OAOs might have played a part in them not taking action against Lumo.

What I want is for the whole railway industry to wake up and smell the coffee.  I am getting sick to the back teeth of everyone and his wife jumping on the "it's all this nasty government's fault" bandwagon when the origins of the current mess are all squarely in the industry's court.  If NR, Crossrail and HS2, roared on by the ridiculous, unaccountable and arrogant ORR, hadn't treated project planning, budgeting, cost benefit analysis and cost discipline as something which only applied to others then it's highly probable that none of this would be happening now.    

I always used to think the BBC were the gold standard when it came to a publicly funded body wasting money but they are absolute beginners compared to NR who have raised it to an art form.  By any metric you care to mention everything NR does costs way more than it should.  The examples of wasted money are everywhere from the ole structures on the GWML which would hold up an office block to a station near me which received a platform extension of literally a couple of metres even though every single class of train which has ever served the station, or is ever likely to serve it, already fits comfortably.  From miles of nice new cess walkways which have barely been used and are now overgrown through to pointless signage.  From the traffic management fiasco to the Ordsall chord farce.  It's everywhere and is bordering on an unreported national scandal.

  Then we come to covid where the supine response of the TOCs to the DfT's abject stupidity at two critical points contributed greatly to the current financial situation.  First, it was very obvious, very quickly, that the level of train service provision, at the DfT's behest, in the period after March 2020 was hugely excessive for the demand on many routes.  Cutting the service level to meet the demand would have saved a fortune in train maintenance, access charges etc.  The TOCs, as usual thinking solely about today and never about tomorrow, coupled with the industry's legendary oil tanker with failed engines nimbleness, said nothing.  Second, when the restrictions began to be lifted, the DfT, unbelievably, vigorously pursued a policy of discouraging rail travel.  The TOCs again failed to push back against this in any meaningful way and meekly accepted it thus losing the opportunity to drive journey numbers back up earlier and improve the revenue line sooner.  I saw reports that they were scared of what the DfT would do to them if they argued.  Well whatever it was I can't conceive of it being worse than what they have now which I gather they are pushing back against.  Stable doors and all that.

Worse still, despite all of this, the industry continues to mess it up.  HS2 costs soaring out of control, NR remodelling and resignalling track layouts it resignalled and remodelled barely 5 years ago (eg Stalybridge), structures installed to historically proven totally safe electrification clearances rendered useless by the ORR and its cost benefit agnostic diktats, the obsession with expensive battery trains instead of calling out the ORR's hypocrisy (eg Headbolt Lane), resignalling schemes abandoned (eg Marches) or severely curtailed because of ludicrous SEU costs, the vast cost of ETCS for questionable benefits, and plenty of others.  Even the much heralded traction decarbonisation plan somehow totally managed to misread the room and is now in the bin. 

Yes the geniuses (sic) at the DfT and the freezing cold hand of the Treasury are making life immensely difficult but boy did the industry go out of its way to hand them a lengthy list of reasons for doing so.  At least try and give yourselves a chance and start by looking long and hard at your own major contribution to how we got here and do something about continuously making the same mistakes.