Switzerland - railways and incidents (merged posts)

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

It seems to me a little odd that the higher doors intended for light freight or parcels are of a contrasting colour to the surrounding bodywork.

I though that a European standard requires doors intended for passenger use to be of a contrasting colour so as to be seen by those with poor eyesight. That would seem to imply that doors NOT intended for public use should be inconspicuous by being of the same colour as the surroundings.

I've thought the same of the staff doors on ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)))'s class 150s. They say Staff Access on them but are painted the same colour as the passenger doors.

[stuving]

From 2012 consolidated text of the the PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) TSI:

4.2.2.4.2. Exterior doors
...
External  doors  shall  be  painted  or  marked  on  the  outside  in  a  way that  gives  a  contrast  to  the  rest  of  the  vehicle  body-side
...

There is also this, from the 2014 draft of a revison (apprently still work in progress):

4.2.2.3.2 Exterior doors
...
All Exterior passenger doorways shall be marked on the outside in a way that gives a contrast to the vehicle body-side surrounding them.
...

There isn't anything about goods or staff access doors not being painted like passenger ones, which might help. As would common sense, of course.

[chrisr_75]

It seems to me a little odd that the higher doors intended for light freight or parcels are of a contrasting colour to the surrounding bodywork.

I though that a European standard requires doors intended for passenger use to be of a contrasting colour so as to be seen by those with poor eyesight. That would seem to imply that doors NOT intended for public use should be inconspicuous by being of the same colour as the surroundings.

Or are these doors intended for the public to load their own bulky luggage, skis and so on ?

Having witnessed them in action, albeit a few years ago now, I seem to recall station staff (there are lots) loading up with crates of food/drink deliveries, luggage and so on - I assume they use the high doors (agree that the floor is high due to the bogie clearance, but that bring other benefits) as they're on a level with a van or hand cart. And yes, in winter I am sure they'll be racked out for skis, although there is often an open wagon with ski racks that's towed/pushed at one end of some of the mountain railways. There's many tour groups visiting this area, so there will be significant demand for luggage space, especially for trains to Wengen as road access is not permitted.

With regards to oddities and not conforming to euro standards - this is Switzerland afterall...

[grahame]

From 2012 consolidated text of the the PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) TSI:

4.2.2.4.2. Exterior doors
...
External  doors  shall  be  painted  or  marked  on  the  outside  in  a  way that  gives  a  contrast  to  the  rest  of  the  vehicle  body-side
...

There is also this, from the 2014 draft of a revison (apprently still work in progress):

4.2.2.3.2 Exterior doors
...
All Exterior passenger doorways shall be marked on the outside in a way that gives a contrast to the vehicle body-side surrounding them.
...

There isn't anything about goods or staff access doors not being painted like passenger ones, which might help. As would common sense, of course.

My reading is that this makes the livery on 43003 to be against the 2012 rules, but allowed again from the 2014 rules, as the guard / train manager / bicycle door isn't contrasting.   Commonly accepted (or rather commonly acknowledged) that the who set couldn't be retro under modern requirements.

[stuving]

My reading is that this makes the livery on 43003 to be against the 2012 rules, but allowed again from the 2014 rules, as the guard / train manager / bicycle door isn't contrasting.   Commonly accepted (or rather commonly acknowledged) that the who set couldn't be retro under modern requirements.

That's what I meant by common sense: is the driver's door an "external door" under the 2012 wording? Or does it not count as there's no reason for considerations of passenger accessibility to apply to it. (Unless it's to help drivers who ...)

[stuving]

There was, in fact, a revised version that came out in 2014 - with the new wording:

4.2.2.3.2.   Exterior doors 
(3) All exterior passenger doorways shall be marked on the outside in a way that gives a contrast to the vehicle body-side surrounding them.

There has been a lot more changed in the words defining the scope of the standard. This has gone from:

This  TSI  concerns:
...
 — the Conventional Rail Rolling Stock subsystem shown in the list in point 1 of Annex II to Directive 2001/16/EC, as modified by Directive 2004/50/EC, only when intended to carry passengers. However, heritage Rolling Stock is specifically excluded from the need to comply at upgrade or renewal....

to :

2.1.2.  Scope related to rolling stock subsystem
This TSI applies to rolling stock which is in the scope of the LOC&PAS TSI and which is intended to carry passengers.

However, the earlier text also had a section headed "2. DEFINITION OF SUBSYSTEM/SCOPE", within which was:

2.1.2. Rolling Stock Structure, command and control system for all train equipment, traction and energy conversion units, braking, coupling and running gear (bogies, axles, etc.) and suspension, doors, man/ machine interfaces (driver, on-board staff and passengers, including the needs of persons with reduced mobility), passive or active safety devices and requisites for the health of passengers and on-board staff.

I can see that might be confusing. I take it to define the scope in terms of the subsystem breakdown - which parts of the railway does this apply to (or not) - while the simpler "scope" is about the scope of application, i.e. which aspects are affected. Which I see as common sense (though that's always been a tricky concept in specifications and standards writing).

[TM]

From 2012 consolidated text of the the PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) TSI:

4.2.2.4.2. Exterior doors
...
External  doors  shall  be  painted  or  marked  on  the  outside  in  a  way that  gives  a  contrast  to  the  rest  of  the  vehicle  body-side
...

There is also this, from the 2014 draft of a revison (apprently still work in progress):

4.2.2.3.2 Exterior doors
...
All Exterior passenger doorways shall be marked on the outside in a way that gives a contrast to the vehicle body-side surrounding them.
...

There isn't anything about goods or staff access doors not being painted like passenger ones, which might help. As would common sense, of course.

My reading is that this makes the livery on 43003 to be against the 2012 rules, but allowed again from the 2014 rules, as the guard / train manager / bicycle door isn't contrasting.   Commonly accepted (or rather commonly acknowledged) that the who set couldn't be retro under modern requirements.

I think the intention has always been for passenger doors to be contrasting.  The 2014 simply make that explicit.  AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) the doors on power cars have never had a contrasting livery.

[Rhydgaled]

My reading is that this makes the livery on 43003 to be against the 2012 rules, but allowed again from the 2014 rules, as the guard / train manager / bicycle door isn't contrasting.   Commonly accepted (or rather commonly acknowledged) that the who set couldn't be retro under modern requirements.

I'm no lawyer, and I haven't read the relevant regulations in full, but as far as I can see there is nothing to stop FirstGWR putting a whole rake in a heritage livery if they wanted, for the following reasons:

• The regulations don't actually come into full force until 2020, and the slam-doors mean the train cannot operate beyond that date anyway
• Chiltern painted ex-Virgin mrk3s into blue&grey for their Banbury set and
• as has just brought to my attention by stuving above, there is an exemption for heritage stock anyway

I think a far more likely explanation for only 43002 and 43185 being in retro livery is that FirstGWR don't think it would be a good use of money to do a whole set.

AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) the doors on power cars have never had a contrasting livery.

The guards door on the TGS and one of the doors on the buffet cars aren't in a contrasting colour either.

[chrisr_75]

The guards door on the TGS and one of the doors on the buffet cars aren't in a contrasting colour either.

Isn't that door on the buffet car permanently out of use? I don't think they even have door handles fitted anymore.

As I recall, on the west coast mk3 loco hauled stock, there was at least one set of doors of each buffet car marked as 'not for public use' (predictably the 'l' used to go missing from time to time...)

[RailCornwall]

Yes, that makes sense, and is consistent with there being no windows in that part of the train. I've travelled a fair bit by train in Switzerland (and will be there again in May) but never noticed a train with doors like that.

A lot of the 'private' railways in Switzerland that go to high resorts seem to carry quite a lot of goods and parcels and luggage - makes sense, especially in winter, to keep some of the vans and lorries off the road. Don't forget the BOB goes to Wengen which is traffic free.

Have you got any specific travel plans for your break this year? The ride on the BOB from Interlaken to Grindelwald and then on up to Junfraujoch is expensive and can be very busy (and is also quite a lengthy trip), but is worth it if you've not done it before. As I recall you can get 50% off with a Swiss Pass or half price card on the Junfrau Bahn and the BOB is classed as part of the national network for the rail cards iirc.

NB. The BOB doesn't go to Wengen, although part of the same Jungfraubahn group, Wengen is served by the WAB, a change of vehicle is required at Lauterbrunnen to get there. Incidentally a huge project on the other side of Mannlichen from Wengen, the Grindelwald side is being constructed. A new BOB station is being built just north west of Grindelwald to link with the replacement Mannlichen cable car AND the brand new mega cable car service from Grund to Eigergletcher, meaning that Kleine Schiedegg will be by-passed by most of the customers aiming for Jungfraujoch from the Grindelwald side. The existing Grindelwald - Kleine Scheidegg rail service via Grund is to continue but in a reduced format unless the new cable system is weather halted.

http://jungfrau.ch.jungfrauweb1.nine.ch/tourismus/news-events/v-bahn/das-projekt-v-bahn/

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

A lot of the 'private' railways in Switzerland that go to high resorts seem to carry quite a lot of goods and parcels and luggage - makes sense, especially in winter, to keep some of the vans and lorries off the road. Don't forget the BOB goes to Wengen which is traffic free.

Have you got any specific travel plans for your break this year? The ride on the BOB from Interlaken to Grindelwald and then on up to Junfraujoch is expensive and can be very busy (and is also quite a lengthy trip), but is worth it if you've not done it before. As I recall you can get 50% off with a Swiss Pass or half price card on the Junfrau Bahn and the BOB is classed as part of the national network for the rail cards iirc.

GTBE junior & family live in Switzerland and his local station is Ilanz, on the Rhatische Bahn between Chur and Dissentis.  Every year we stay a few days with them then travel on by train to a Swiss city. We've done Interlaken and did the trip up the Jungfrau via Grindelwald in the sunshine (best to go early in the day for this). This year it's Bern, so travel via Dissentis, Andermatt, Brig.  We usually get Swiss passes for convenience.

We fly to Zurich.  Used to use Eurostar, but got fed up with unpredictable service and appalling facilities at Gare du Nord which aren't much better than Dover Western Docks used to be.

So many trips to recommend in Switzerland. Rhatische Bahn is wonderful - proper trains with locos on the front and Guard's vans, local pick up freights etc. As Chris75 says, a lot of freight is moved by rail in the high valleys.  Bernina Express route is arguably more scenic that Glacier Express, but on both routes get the local trains not the named trains. 

Edit for spelling of "Rhatische"

[chrisr_75]

Bern is a very pleasant city and comes highly recommended from me for a day visit. There are a number of self guided walking tours available from the tourist info which are quite good.

Depending on which direction you arrive from, keep an eye open for Wankdorf station if you wish to have a childish snigger!

Oh, and don't expect anything other than pizza to eat! For some reason we didn't seem to be able to find anything other than pizzerias when looking for an evening bite to eat! 

[chrisr_75]

NB. The BOB doesn't go to Wengen, although part of the same Jungfraubahn group, Wengen is served by the WAB, a change of vehicle is required at Lauterbrunnen to get there.

We're both sort of right, the Berner Oberland Bahnen AG (BOB) own all of the rail lines/companies in that valley including the railway at Murren, Schynige Platte, BOB, WAB & Jungfrau Bahn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernese_Oberland_railway

[stuving]

The report of the investigation of this accident has been published by SUST (aka SESE, SISI, and STSB). It's only in one language, in this case German which is local to Rafz. I'd expected the summary to be translated into French and Italian, but apparently not.

Since I know almost no German, and this is complicated stuff full of long words (even by German standards), that causes some problems. However, it's full of pretty pictures, so it's possible to follow the narrative parts pretty well.

For those who think the Swiss set the highest standards of "how to run a railway", the causes of the accident may be a bit of a surprise. The S-bahn train did depart against a red signal, and the emergency stop when this was realised left it foul of the points where a through track joined the platform track.

This is my take on what report identified as the main reasons:

• The drivers (trainee and trainer) mistook the green signal for the through track for the one applying to theirs. It was straight ahead, and brighter than the correct one which was to one side. I think the report even says that the design rules for signals don't include sighting confusions like this.
  
• The train and signalling system (ZUB) should stop a train attempting a SPAD^▸ (Signal Passed At Danger), but in this case it was not fully operative - the train had reversed at Rafz, and turning on the new driving position reinitialised the system so this autostop was temporarily inactive.
  

There are several other things, including a lot about the operational procedure taught for departing a station (rather than the way the learner was being supervised). That, and other points, make less sense to me.

If anyone can cope with the German, and wants to correct any errors in the above, please do.

[SandTEngineer]

Thanks for posting that STUVING.  I must say that having been involved in signal sighting and scheme layout design in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) over a considerable number of years, that I do find the conflicting signal aspects somewhat supprising, but then they do tend to rely on the Train Protection system being the safeguard in such circumstances.  If I do manage to decipher anymore of the report (I'm lucky as a signal engineer to be able to understand some of the technical issues even though they are in German) I'll add it here