Class 150/1 Revenue Protection

[whole diary]

[phile]

I was wondering if anybody could say if:-
  (a) There are any services diagrammed to be worked by 150/1 coupled to another unit
  (b) If so, is there provision for Revenue Protection in both portions

Recently I travelled on 14 00 Cardiff to Taunton formed by 153 (leading) and 150/1 (rear), sitting in the 153 with no Revenue Protection, the Conductor in the 150/1 at the rear, of course.

[northwesterntrains]

The same thing happens on Northern, TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) and LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise).  Sometimes there's an additional conductor in the front unit, who's just checking and selling tickets - other times it's just the conductor in the rear.  With Northern they usually throw people out of the rear unit and lock it out-of-use if the service gets quieter later on.  One conductor did that on a service I was travelling on once, which was a 2.25 hour journey being operated by a 142+156 and he threw everyone off the 156 on to the 142. 

[eightf48544]

One conductor did that on a service I was travelling on once, which was a 2.25 hour journey being operated by a 142+156 and he threw everyone off the 156 on to the 142. 

Doesn't that constitute torture!

[inspector_blakey]

I assume there's a rule that requires the conductor to stay in the rear unit so that there's a staff member in each portion of the train in case anything goes pear-shaped. That said, there's no such requirement in the Thames Valley where driver-only services formed from pairs of turbos often have no staff in the rear portion at all.

I can only assume that the difference is accounted for by the passcom system - it's a passenger/driver intercom on the turbo fleet and a straight brake application on the 'west' DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) stock. However as noted by the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) in a report dealing with a passenger being trapped in a train door (so just for the record it's out there in the public domain already), if anyone activates the emergency door release on a moving turbo that will directly elicit an full brake application.

[vacman]

The guard does not have to stay in the rear unit, a memo has recently been put out saying that not only are guads aloowed in the front but it infers that they must go in as part of their patrol duties.

In Exeter more RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context))'s and ATE's were taken on last year due to the introduction of 150/1's.

[Worcester_Passenger]

The same thing happens on Northern, TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) and LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise).  Sometimes there's an additional conductor in the front unit, who's just checking and selling tickets - other times it's just the conductor in the rear.  With Northern they usually throw people out of the rear unit and lock it out-of-use if the service gets quieter later on.  One conductor did that on a service I was travelling on once, which was a 2.25 hour journey being operated by a 142+156 and he threw everyone off the 156 on to the 142. 

I've had a similar experience on Northern. A 142+153, with the 153 locked out of use. Fortunately not such a long journey (Lancaster to Skipton - 1:15). Not that the conductor did any of this "checking and selling tickets" of which you speak!

[Super Guard]

The guard does not have to stay in the rear unit, a memo has recently been put out saying that not only are guads aloowed in the front but it infers that they must go in as part of their patrol duties.

In Exeter more RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context))'s and ATE's were taken on last year due to the introduction of 150/1's.

Vacman is correct about the recent memo, however during my training I was told by one manager that Network Rail specifically authorise us to travel in the front unit (no guard in rear) between Exeter Central and Polsloe Bridge when stopping at St. James Park (front door only), so inferring that it was not acceptable elsewhere.  However, the same authorisation was not granted for EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains)-Crediton when stopping at Newton St Cyres due to the distance, hence why it has now changed to "Rear Door" at N-S-C.

[Maxwell P]

Interesting posts ref guards in front sets on non gangwayed multiple unit trains.  Further west, instructions are that guards must work trains from rear unit and that 'train hopping' is specifically prohibited.  This is ostensibly to minimise risk if units become divided, enabling guards to apply brakes in the rear unit.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

i think we have been here with the pacers several times on the forum, shame its such a pain to swap them around as a 4 car set made up of a 150/2 between a split 150/1 would fix that, mind you would that mean rewiring like on 153999

[Maxwell P]

i think we have been here with the pacers several times on the forum, shame its such a pain to swap them around as a 4 car set made up of a 150/2 between a split 150/1 would fix that, mind you would that mean rewiring like on 153999

Almost certainly :-)  I know that 999 has a non-standard, goodness knows how many way jumper cable fitted between coaches and that is probably just the start of it.  In addition to the lack of available stock precluding such an arrangement, I wouldn't think that depots would want to give up the flexibility provided by easily coupled/uncoupled 2 car sets.

Now that the 150/1 series is being fitted with intermediate door key panels, they are as easy to work for a guard as the 150/2s.  In some ways, they are better, drop light in the vestibule and bigger cabs for example. The problem arises when these sets run in multiple. No matter how guards are instructed to work, there will always be scope for fare avoidance and/or anti social behaviour in such cases.

[JayMac]

No matter how guards are instructed to work, there will always be scope for fare avoidance and/or anti social behaviour in such cases.

Unless there's a guard and an ATE.

[Maxwell P]

No matter how guards are instructed to work, there will always be scope for fare avoidance and/or anti social behaviour in such cases.

Unless there's a guard and an ATE.

ATEs are rarer than Argyle victories.

[inspector_blakey]

Interesting posts ref guards in front sets on non gangwayed multiple unit trains.  Further west, instructions are that guards must work trains from rear unit and that 'train hopping' is specifically prohibited.  This is ostensibly to minimise risk if units become divided, enabling guards to apply brakes in the rear unit.

I understand the logic here, but given that passenger trains have all been legally required since the late 1800s to have a continuous brake which will apply automatically on both portions in the event of a train division, isn't that a little unnecessary?

[Tim]

I understand the logic here, but given that passenger trains have all been legally required since the late 1800s to have a continuous brake which will apply automatically on both portions in the event of a train division, isn't that a little unnecessary?

I agree the brake issue seems a little far fetched.  It does mean that their is a staff member in each portion though to help passengers and/or protect the line if a train is devided.  Units do detach from each other from time to time. 

[inspector_blakey]

True, but that argument doesn't stand much logical scrutiny. Firstly, divisions of trains in service are exceptionally rare - the last one I remember hearing about I think was somewhere on the Thameslink route a few years ago, although I can't find the report into the incident at the moment. Also, driver-only services are permitted to operate with units coupled in multiple with no staff in the rear portion.

However what really defies explanation (at least to me) is that there are no objections to guards walking through between coupled gangwayed units (say, two class 150/2s) and travelling in the front unit carrying out revenue duties. The chance of a train division is no different, and if the guard is in the front unit when it happens the separated rear portion will still have no staff in it.

It seems like a deeply illogical rule IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion).