Whats wrong with this picture?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

I took this picture of a train yesterday. Can anyone tell me what is slightly unusual about it?

[Phil]

My immediate reaction is that the "engine" doesn't look right to me.

[devonian]

Is it to do with why is the sleeper there at that time of day? Not clued up enough to recognise the location but would take a stab at Westbury.

[moonrakerz]

1. The two doors don't look right.

2. The flowers haven't been "dead headed" !

[readytostart]

It can't be as simple as pointing out that the sleeper failed the night prior and needed to be shifted from Long Rock to OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)), and that isn't exactly unusual. So I'm gonna go for something odd about the route it took.

[devon_metro]

It looks a bit like Taunton to me, could the fact it had a Virgin 57 on the front be unusual?

[grahame]

It is the sleeper at Taunton ... and the fact that it's not usually there in the daylight.

... the sleeper failed the night prior and needed to be shifted from Long Rock to OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)), and that isn't exactly unusual. So I'm gonna go for something odd about the route it took.

Ah ... I wasn't aware that it's not unusual for the sleeper to fail and have to be swapped over.   I guess I'm getting far more used to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) reliability in 2009 which is far better than reliability was in 2007 - a good improvement from FGW and so I now make the assumption that failures / cancellations ARE unusual

[readytostart]

It is the sleeper at Taunton ... and the fact that it's not usually there in the daylight.

... the sleeper failed the night prior and needed to be shifted from Long Rock to OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)), and that isn't exactly unusual. So I'm gonna go for something odd about the route it took.

Ah ... I wasn't aware that it's not unusual for the sleeper to fail and have to be swapped over.   I guess I'm getting far more used to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) reliability in 2009 which is far better than reliability was in 2007 - a good improvement from FGW and so I now make the assumption that failures / cancellations ARE unusual

I'dve not had a clue if, on my daily website trawl, I'd not read this as a photo caption:
"One of the UKs^▸ (United Kingdom) most unreliable train services is First Great Western's sleeper service linking London Paddington and Penzance, countless failures, delays and problems frequently see this train delayed or powered by hired-in traction or formed of HST^▸ (High Speed Train) stock. On the night of 2/3 October 2009 the up service from Penzance was failed before starting time when defects were found on FGW No. 57604, the result was that passengers had to travel without sleeping facilities on an HST set. The down sleeper on the same day was powered by hired-in Virgin Class 57/3 No. 57308 which was also in problems and arrived at its destination over an hour late. During Saturday 3 October Virgin No. 57308 hauled FGW No. 57604 and a rake of sleeper stock as 5Z70, 12.35 Penzance Long Rock to Old Oak Common, this move while transferring the sleeper rake to London for Sunday nights down train, left Penzance without a loco to power the Sunday night up service. The daytime sleeper move is recorded passing Dawlish Warren, with a rare 57/3 + 57/6 combination."

[devon_metro]

Colin J Marsden is hardly very reliable himself 

[Chris from Nailsea]

Another picture is at http://www.tauntontrains.co.uk/ (thanks to John R for this link)

[grahame]

Here are some more pictures which - they tell me - are more typical "enthusiast" ones:








And finally another question - why aren't the buffers touching?

[super tm]

None of the buffers should be touching where a coach is coupled to a coach.  That stopped happening when the got rid of chain link coupling which was a long time ago.  Buffers only touch between locomotive and coach.

[readytostart]

None of the buffers should be touching where a coach is coupled to a coach.  That stopped happening when the got rid of chain link coupling which was a long time ago.  Buffers only touch between locomotive and coach.

If I remember my buckeye and buffer training, its up and in, down and out!

[inspector_blakey]

On any British Rail standard coaching stock when one coach is coupled to another this uses "buck-eye" semi-automatic couplers (semi-automatic because the buck-eye only makes up the physical connection between one vehicle and another, as opposed to a "true" automatic coupler which also connects brake/multiple working controls/electrical jumpers a la DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)). The gangways themselves act as the buffers between vehicles, with the "normal" buffers retracted out of use.

When a carriage is coupled to a locomotive with a screw coupling, the buck-eye swivels down out of use to reveal a standard coupling hook. The buffers are pulled out of the coach body and a "saddle" placed on top of the shank to keep them extended. The coupling is screwed up tightly to ensure that the buffers are in contact the whole time to ensure a comfortable ride.

Diagrams here that might make things clearer... http://www.norgrove.me.uk/buckeye.htm

Screw couplings are still widely used on goods stock, but all but extinct on passenger vehicles except when loco-hauled. They are pretty common in mainland Europe though.

Buckeyes weigh about 14 stone, so lifting them up from the "out of use" to "in use" position isn't trivial. It's especially difficult if you're not the right height... I'm lucky because the coupler rests nicely on my forearm whilst pinning it in place but shorter people can have a real struggle. BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) required guards to be able to lift buckeyes as part of their shunting training, which is one of the reasons why the first female guard was not employed until the late 1970s; see http://hastingspress.co.uk/railwaywomen/gd1.html. I'm not sure if guards are still required to be competent in shunting using buckeyes or not currently.

Here endeth the lesson...

[readytostart]

I did my guard's training five years ago and had to lift the buckeye, though as I work for a multiple unit centred operator I don't think they'd bar anyone who couldn't. As for companies who mainly operate loco-hauled stock, I'm not so sure.