|
Btline
|
 |
« on: February 13, 2009, 18:40:48 » |
|
I though something was up today, when the 1602 WOF to Paddington was announced calling at Shipton. I have checked the CLPG» and this is what they say: Without prior warning, as far as the CLPG can tell, First Great Western has withdrawn the 1830 Shipton stop from its Mondays to Fridays 1700 Great Malvern to London Paddington service. This is because of a change in the type of rolling stock from the advertised High Speed Train to a 3-car Turbo. The platform at Shipton is only long enough for 2 coaches and, unfortunately, 3-car Turbos cannot call there as they do not have selective door opening.
Instead, First Great Western has inserted a stop at Shipton in the preceeding train, the 1510 from Hereford to London Paddington, which now calls there at 1705. Times at other stations are not affected.
These changes took effect from Monday 9th February 2009.
Not very good, in my opinion. no warning. I expect people turned up to see the Thames Turbo stream past. And I thought the "halts" train was a Turbo....  It will make the stopping train the best part of 5 mins late, due to the extra stop, SDO▸ and lower acceleration.  But don't worry, "it's only the Cotswold Line."  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2009, 00:45:01 » |
|
The halts train is a Turbo - but only a 2-car. Rubbish situation though - a train an hour and a half earlier isn't much use for the poor sods who turn up for the advertised service. Let's hope the help-point telephone works there! Even sillier given that the 1700ex Malvern already sits at Kingham for 8 minutes and waits at Ascott for nearly 10 minutes to wait the single line to clear.
The lack of SDO▸ is a pretty poor excuse. I can't help feeling an operating exception should be made with the driver of the 3-car turbo instructed to leave his cab at Shipton and (if there are any passengers) let them on and off using the external 'butterfly' handle on the first set of doors on the first carriage. No safety risk. No delay risk, and no need for silly compromises like the one that has been enforced.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ 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/ |
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2009, 12:29:08 » |
|
The lack of SDO▸ is a pretty poor excuse. I can't help feeling an operating exception should be made with the driver of the 3-car turbo instructed to leave his cab at Shipton and (if there are any passengers) let them on and off using the external 'butterfly' handle on the first set of doors on the first carriage. No safety risk. No delay risk, and no need for silly compromises like the one that has been enforced.
Oh dear, far too sensible a suggestion, can't possible done! HMRI▸ would have a fit! If you do work in the rail industry I hope your bosses don't know you are putting up dangerous suggestions like this. Common sense has no part to play in the modern dynamic rail industry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2009, 12:53:45 » |
|
And no more evenings out in Oxford either, as the 18.30 was the only train from Shipton that the FGW▸ 's special cheap fare to Oxford was valid on.
The argument about the butterfly switch was all gone through years ago when Thames put a 3-car on the 17.20-ish train from Oxford in 2002 due to overcrowding and made the 18.23 the halts train instead (and got a special exemption from its franchise agreement to do so). They either couldn't be bothered, or didn't dare suggest the idea to HMRI▸ . Although this method of working is used at The Lakes between Birmingham and Stratford upon Avon (and Avoncliff and Freshford too??).
Alternatively, you could do what I saw done on a couple of occasions when a three-car was used after a two-car set had failed and the rear doors were isolated and passengers asked to get off from the front two coaches - though I'm sure that's highly irregular and dangerous too.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2009, 13:02:28 » |
|
Alternatively, you could do what I saw done on a couple of occasions when a three-car was used after a two-car set had failed and the rear doors were isolated and passengers asked to get off from the front two coaches - though I'm sure that's highly irregular and dangerous too.
There is at least a reason as to why that might be a safety risk as the whole coach has to be locked out of use (including the doors from the next carriage) and depending what way round the train is, that would mean the emergency equipment cupboard would be blocked off. The 'butterfly' switch, whilst not a practicable solution at somewhere like Ealing Broadway in the rush hour, at Shipton with it's one man and his dog it is a different case. The railway industry really does need to get a grip with itself and realise that black and white procedures are not necessary in all cases. All it would take (apart from HMRI▸ approval) is a note in the Sectional Appendix - but that's so out of date that it still makes note that loose shunting is prohibited in Oxford South Yard. A yard that has been closed for about 15 years! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ 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/ |
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2009, 13:12:28 » |
|
Alternatively, you could do what I saw done on a couple of occasions when a three-car was used after a two-car set had failed and the rear doors were isolated and passengers asked to get off from the front two coaches - though I'm sure that's highly irregular and dangerous too.
There is at least a reason as to why that might be a safety risk as the whole coach has to be locked out of use (including the doors from the next carriage) and depending what way round the train is, that would mean the emergency equipment cupboard would be blocked off. The 'butterfly' switch, whilst not a practicable solution at somewhere like Ealing Broadway in the rush hour, at Shipton with it's one man and his dog it is a different case.
The railway industry really does need to get a grip with itself and realise that black and white procedures are not necessary in all cases. All it would take (apart from HMRI▸ approval) is a note in the Sectional Appendix - but that's so out of date that it still makes note that loose shunting is prohibited in Oxford South Yard. A yard that has been closed for about 15 years!
Oh dear you are not suggesting that isolated doors are dangerous? I've been on plenty of Turbos where doors have been isolated but the carriage still in use. Doesn't half increase the dwell time at places like Ealing Hayes etc. when passengers have to come through the gangway from the other coach. I suppose it's safer to run a peak train with doors isolated than risk the safety of the driver and station staff from the angry mob if the train is cancelled. From these posts it seems power operated sliding are obviously far too dangerous to have on trains. There is only one solution to this problem we must go back to passenger operated slam doors. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2009, 13:39:13 » |
|
Whilst appreciating that 'eightf48544' has his sarcastic head on today  For the record, a turbo (and every other train with power operated doors that I know of) can carry passengers providing one of the doors on each side of the carriage is working OK. So you can have one door out of use, or even two doors provided they are on opposite sides of the train, and that vehicle can continue to carry passengers. Any more and it must be locked out of use. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ 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/ |
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2009, 14:13:39 » |
|
But clearly some naughty railway staff didn't do this. I seem to recall we then had a slightly extended stop at Shipton or Kingham where the locked coach's doors were reactivated. All highly irregular, I'm sure, but the train ran and people got home and the sky didn't fall in.
Of course, the three-car sets should have had SDO▸ fitted from new, but that's another case of BR▸ building down to a budget, eg the 166 'air-conditioning' system.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 14, 2009, 14:27:31 by willc »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Don
|
|
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2009, 17:50:39 » |
|
It will make the stopping train the best part of 5 mins late, due to the extra stop, SDO▸ and lower acceleration. This train has to wait at Ascott for another train to come off the single line anyway so, stopping is a good idea. However, the preceding train also had to wait and will I guess now wait even longer at Ascott. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Regards,
Don.
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2009, 18:24:54 » |
|
Good, at least the train won't be delayed by this extra stop (although recovery time will be reduced by 3-4 mins).
Really, there is nothing wrong with stopping a 3 car Turbo at Shipton. Just make an announcement.
The H&S▸ talibans have a lot to answer for! A 2 car train can't stop, because it is 3 cars; so let's stop an 8 car train instead....
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 16:32:34 by Btline »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2009, 12:43:15 » |
|
Whilst appreciating that 'eightf48544' has his sarcastic head on today For the record, a turbo (and every other train with power operated doors that I know of) can carry passengers providing one of the doors on each side of the carriage is working OK. So you can have one door out of use, or even two doors provided they are on opposite sides of the train, and that vehicle can continue to carry passengers. Any more and it must be locked out of use. Not sure I understand why at least one door a side must be working otherwise the coach has to be locked out of use. In the event of emergency am I right in assumming that the manual door opening handle in the roof of the of the vestibule and the butterfly switch on the outside overide the door isolation switch and open the door? Objectively, assumming that there isn't going to an emergency, I would suggest there is no difference for the safety of passengers travelling in a coach if non, one or both doors are isolated. But even if there were an emergency provided the handle and switch open the door what's the problem. If it were a serious enough incident it is likely that in many cases passengers would have to open working doors using the handle or switch because either the driver is not able to, or the mechanism has been damaged. The only problem as I've said before is increased dwell times at stations where the coach is platformed. If the handle and switch don't open an isolated door then I would say there is far greater safety issue and any coach with any door isolated should be taken out of service immediately because passengers could be trapped in an emergency if they can't open the isolated door. It would go against all basic rail safety systems which should be designed to fail safe. (Which is why TPWS▸ is not 100% satisfactory because it doesn't fail safe.) Thus my sarcasim was directed at those that say that two perfectly feasable solutions as to how you safely stop a 3 car Turbo at a two car platform are not allowed on what I consider spurious safety grounds. As an aside legend says that in hot summers the Oerlikon stock on the New ( DC▸ ) Line out of Euston ran with its sliding doors open with passengers on board. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2009, 15:12:58 » |
|
In the event of emergency am I right in assumming that the manual door opening handle in the roof of the of the vestibule and the butterfly switch on the outside overide the door isolation switch and open the door?
Objectively, assumming that there isn't going to an emergency, I would suggest there is no difference for the safety of passengers travelling in a coach if non, one or both doors are isolated.
But even if there were an emergency provided the handle and switch open the door what's the problem. If it were a serious enough incident it is likely that in many cases passengers would have to open working doors using the handle or switch because either the driver is not able to, or the mechanism has been damaged.
If the handle and switch don't open an isolated door then I would say there is far greater safety issue and any coach with any door isolated should be taken out of service immediately because passengers could be trapped in an emergency if they can't open the isolated door. It would go against all basic rail safety systems which should be designed to fail safe. (Which is why TPWS▸ is not 100% satisfactory because it doesn't fail safe.)
Thus my sarcasim was directed at those that say that two perfectly feasable solutions as to how you safely stop a 3 car Turbo at a two car platform are not allowed on what I consider spurious safety grounds.
Perhaps surprisingly, if a Turbo passenger door is locked out of use, then no amount of tugging on the green emergency egress handle will open it. HMRI▸ obviously consider it 'safe' to operate like that provided that the other door on that side of the carriage is in working order. If there ever was an incident then perhaps their view would change! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ 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/ |
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2009, 10:42:42 » |
|
Perhaps surprisingly, if a Turbo passenger door is locked out of use, then no amount of tugging on the green emergency egress handle will open it. HMRI▸ obviously consider it 'safe' to operate like that provided that the other door on that side of the carriage is in working order. If there ever was an incident then perhaps their view would change!
I'm speechless.
Whatever happened to fail safe?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
super tm
|
|
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2009, 11:13:16 » |
|
The view is that there is another door a few feet away that does open and that is sufficient. However if both doors on the same side of the coach are locked out then the coach must be evacuated and taken out of service.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2009, 15:01:52 » |
|
The view is that there is another door a few feet away that does open and that is sufficient. However if both doors on the same side of the coach are locked out then the coach must be evacuated and taken out of service.
Supposing there's a fire in the bit between the two doors and the gangway to the next coach is blocked, (Bad accident). How do passengers get out of the isolated door in an emergency? Seems to be genuine safety issue to me. It as bad as nightclub owners chaining up fire doors to prevent unauthorised access. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
