Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 13:55 19 Apr 2025
 
- Race Across the World winner on 'authentic travel' and how to do it
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 10/05/25 - BRTA Westbury
10/05/25 - Model Railsay Show, Calne
13/05/25 - Melksham TUG / AGM
14/05/25 - West Wiltshire RUG

On this day
19th Apr (1938)
Foundation, Beatties of London (link)

Train RunningCancelled
13:50 Liskeard to Looe
Additional 13:59 Bristol Temple Meads to Cardiff Central
14:22 Looe to Liskeard
16:38 Bristol Temple Meads to Worcester Foregate Street
18:52 Worcester Foregate Street to Bristol Temple Meads
21:32 Cheltenham Spa to Swindon
22:39 Swindon to Gloucester
Short Run
10:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
12:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
13:18 Paignton to Exmouth
13:30 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
14:14 Exeter Central to Barnstaple
14:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
14:38 Bristol Temple Meads to Worcester Foregate Street
14:52 Worcester Foregate Street to Bristol Temple Meads
15:35 Barnstaple to Exeter Central
16:52 Worcester Foregate Street to Bristol Temple Meads
18:12 Salisbury to Cheltenham Spa
20:45 Bristol Temple Meads to Weymouth
21:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Westbury
Delayed
13:30 Swindon to Cheltenham Spa
PollsThere are no open or recent polls
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
April 19, 2025, 13:59:00 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[147] FOSS and FOSW validity - some quirks
[111] Fifteen years of the Transwilts CRP
[97] Wiltshire Day Rover - new multi-operator bus ticket
[81] St Erth station - facilities, footbridge, improvements, incide...
[56] Destination: London Travelcard Zones 1-6
[44] Melksham's rail service - where are we, on the anniversary of ...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 [54] 55
  Print  
Author Topic: Thames Valley infrastructure problems causing disruption elsewhere - 2017  (Read 24456 times)
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10450


View Profile
« Reply #795 on: December 22, 2017, 16:49:10 »

Some are shuttles, aren’t they?
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
Adelante_CCT
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1314



View Profile
« Reply #796 on: December 22, 2017, 17:05:11 »

They are all shuttles, operated by HEX

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/HAF/2017/12/22/0600-2000?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt
Logged
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4574


View Profile Email
« Reply #797 on: December 22, 2017, 17:33:54 »

The 57 wasn’t used in the end. I don’t think the couplings were compatible.


 I have been told the 57 was coupled to the units to pull them into the sidings but although coupled up the the brakes weren't coupled hence the slow speed drag with brakes isolated.
Logged
a-driver
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1110


View Profile
« Reply #798 on: December 22, 2017, 18:08:13 »

The 57 wasn’t used in the end. I don’t think the couplings were compatible.


 I have been told the 57 was coupled to the units to pull them into the sidings but although coupled up the the brakes weren't coupled hence the slow speed drag with brakes isolated.

I heard several reasons why it wasn’t used, one being the coupler heights being different. Can’t remember the other reasons!
Logged
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4531


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #799 on: December 22, 2017, 19:53:28 »

The 57 wasn’t used in the end. I don’t think the couplings were compatible.


 I have been told the 57 was coupled to the units to pull them into the sidings but although coupled up the the brakes weren't coupled hence the slow speed drag with brakes isolated.

I heard several reasons why it wasn’t used, one being the coupler heights being different. Can’t remember the other reasons!


"Thunderbird" was not go then.

I can see Hitachi having much egg on face, its clear they have relied on the class 800's being self recovering, the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) have some culpability in this as well I would like to see the HazId and HaxOp for these new trains
Logged

Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
Oxonhutch
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1373



View Profile
« Reply #800 on: December 23, 2017, 09:42:21 »

I would like to see the HazId and HaxOp for these new trains

I am not familiar with these terms.  Please could you expand?
Logged
SandTEngineer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3485


View Profile
« Reply #801 on: December 23, 2017, 10:17:48 »

HAZID (Hazard Identification study) = Hazard Identification (Study)

HAZOP (Hazard Operability study) = Hazard Operability (Study)
Logged
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4531


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #802 on: December 23, 2017, 12:03:13 »

I would like to see the HazId and HaxOp for these new trains

I am not familiar with these terms.  Please could you expand?

HAZID (Hazard Identification study) = Hazard Identification (Study)

HAZOP (Hazard Operability study) = Hazard Operability (Study)

As SandTEngineer said

Basically these are processes. some is done desktop ie different engineering and operator disciplines form all parties involved collate all their data carry out risk assessments.  Then a series of meetings are held to work through hazards identified, the impact, mitigation etc ................... what is a mitigation to one discipline can become a risk to another.
Logged

Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 978


View Profile
« Reply #803 on: December 23, 2017, 13:10:03 »


If possible, as well as the brake on the assisting engine, another vehicle with an effective brake should be attached at the rear of the train with the isolated brakes.


I would love a framed picture of the first loaded IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) unit to be hauled by a 57 with a TOAD at the rear, oil  lamps lit and coal stove smoking nicely, even better with a video clip and audio of the 57 whistling for brakes!

Happy Christmas and New Year to all!

OTC
Logged
Henry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 369


View Profile
« Reply #804 on: December 24, 2017, 06:59:55 »


 I suppose the day's of 'dropping the buck-eye' and attaching an emergency coupling have gone.
Logged
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4531


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #805 on: December 24, 2017, 08:26:20 »


 I suppose the day's of 'dropping the buck-eye' and attaching an emergency coupling have gone.

Yep.   I was surprised to hear that a class 57 would not couple, would have thought that would have been an essential when they started the test runs.
Logged

Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7425


View Profile
« Reply #806 on: December 24, 2017, 09:42:18 »


 I suppose the day's of 'dropping the buck-eye' and attaching an emergency coupling have gone.

The IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) requirement goes on at some length about operating modes, which are:
  • Standard Mode
  • Locomotive Hauled Mode
  • Multiple Hauled Mode
  • Train Unable to Proceed Under Main Power Source Mode
  • Train Requires Assistance from Another Train Mode
  • Real Emergency Mode

Of course the concept of the "operational mode" is essentially a software designer's one - hence the absence of the one that presumably applies in this case: "Software Having a Tantrum Mode".

Loss of the main power source means either OLE (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") with no juice or most on-board generators u/s. For a bimode running under OLE I guess both could be the main power source, and this train couldn't use either, not even the limited motion expected of the 801s as "electric" units. In that sense we must be in between Train Requires Assistance from Another Train Mode (Rescue) and Real Emergency Mode.

Now Real Emergency Mode does have requirements for PA (Public Address (broadcast loudspeaker announcements) or Passenger Assist (railway staff providing physical assistance to passengers with mobility issues), depending on context), comms, and lighting, but no further hotel services. Oddly, the introduction for this refers to derailment as the typical case! For physically coupling a rescue engine/train, including brakes, the case is the same as Locomotive Hauled Mode and Train Unable to Proceed Under Main Power Source Mode. But these do assume the controllers on board are at least trying to help.

Coupling to a loco relies on an adaptor:
Quote
It is permissible for the Locomotive to be prepared for use with an IEP Train in Locomotive Hauled Mode prior to coupling to the IEP Train. If the Locomotive is to be prepared in advance of being coupled to the relevant IEP Train, the design of the adaptor coupler to be used for this purpose must allow any Locomotive that is prepared in advance for Locomotive Hauled Mode to remain able to operate on the railway.

When being rescued, the minimum performance requirement is one of the few places that recognises controller failure is possible:
Quote
N021 Where an IEP Train requires assistance from another train and assistance is provided by another IEP Train then the acceleration and maximum speed of the resulting IEP Train must not be limited by any restrictions other than those limits identified in TS261 and the available traction capability of the assisting IEP Train, subject to there being no system failure on the IEP Train requiring assistance which prevents this. This shall be possible irrespective of whether power is available to the control systems on the IEP Train requiring assistance.

N022 Where an IEP Train requires assistance from another train and power is available to its control systems it must be possible for a Locomotive to assist the IEP Train at a speed commensurate with the strength of any coupler adapter provided, and in any event no less than 30mph, subject to the capability of the assisting Locomotive and there being no system failure on the train requiring assistance which prevents this.

N023 In the event that a system failure occurs such that an IEP Train that requires assistance cannot be hauled by another IEP Train or Locomotive from hauling it as specified in N021 and N022 then the IEP Train must be designed so as to allow safe haulage at a lower speed. Such a failure must not occur more than once in every 100 rescues.

Note that N023 isn't in English, so it isn't clear just what it applies to. Would the controller really be needed for the train brakes to work? I can't see anything else about brakes not working once a train is stationary - I assume they follow standard railway practice. The section on brakes reads (in its entirety):
Quote
4.4 Brakes

TS314 In addition to complying with the requirements set out in the TSI that relate to emergency braking, an IEP Train’s service brake must also comply with the requirements of Figure 3, Curve A3 in Railway Group Standard GM/RT2044, Issue 4, June 2001, ‘Braking System Requirements and Performance for Multiple Units’.

TS1849 The IEP brake system on the IEP Trains must not allow undetected single point failures or likely combinations of failures that could lead to an unsafe event. As a minimum the events to be considered as unsafe shall include the following;
• significant loss of braking capability; and
• dragging brakes on all axles of one or more IEP Vehicles simultaneously.

I never got involved with complex system design for real (whether labelled "System Architect" or not). However, I see quite a bit of it about ten years ago, and I reckoned that software design ideas had been adopted in the design of whole systems, even ones with lots of solid bits, in a way that wasn't helping to get them right first time. So I wonder ...
Logged
SandTEngineer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3485


View Profile
« Reply #807 on: December 24, 2017, 10:23:11 »

You would have thought that coupling a locomotive would have been part of the testing regime, but then..... Roll Eyes
Logged
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 8612



View Profile
« Reply #808 on: December 24, 2017, 10:28:57 »

You would have thought that coupling a locomotive would have been part of the testing regime, but then..... Roll Eyes

As GWR (Great Western Railway) should be only too aware, as Brunel used to say, assumption is the Mother of all F*** ups!  Wink
Logged
a-driver
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1110


View Profile
« Reply #809 on: December 24, 2017, 12:48:15 »

I think the failure to couple the loco to the IET (Intercity Express Train - replacement for HSTs (manufactured by Hitachi in Kobe, Japan)) arose from them using a 57/3 which has a Dellner coupler fitted. This coupler is setup to haul 387’s.
If they had used a 57/6 and fitted the IET adaptor coupling over the drawhook I don’t think there would have been an issue.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 [54] 55
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules via admin@railcustomer.info. Full legal statement (here).

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page