In message <t0fcpq$v9i$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:46:02 on Fri, 11 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result of
>> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.
>
>Presumably they were written off in the Selby crash?

Sorry, that should have said "Hatfield and Great Heck [aka Selby]. So
still seven awol.

>> There's apparently 27 in service from TfW, which came partly from LNER
>> but also partly from a pool stored for use by Grand Central, but never
>> called upon.
>
>They were all originally built for the BR ECML operation and only ever
>served on that line until the TfW re-use.

Eventually they'll be scrapping some TfW MK4's, so those won't be "Ex
ECML". That just leaves the edge case of the [albeit un-deployed]
ex-Grand_Central coaches, but as they've all gone to TfW, we can park
that discussion until TfW scraps or mothballs them.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:15:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <t0fcpq$v9i$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:46:02 on Fri, 11 Mar
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result of
>>> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.
>>
>>Presumably they were written off in the Selby crash?
>
>Sorry, that should have said "Hatfield and Great Heck [aka Selby]. So
>still seven awol.
>
>>> There's apparently 27 in service from TfW, which came partly from LNER
>>> but also partly from a pool stored for use by Grand Central, but never
>>> called upon.
>>
>>They were all originally built for the BR ECML operation and only ever
>>served on that line until the TfW re-use.
>
>Eventually they'll be scrapping some TfW MK4's, so those won't be "Ex
>ECML". That just leaves the edge case of the [albeit un-deployed]
>ex-Grand_Central coaches, but as they've all gone to TfW, we can park
>that discussion until TfW scraps or mothballs them.

I'm not sure I understand you: all Mk 4s are ex-ECML. They were only built for that route, and served nowhere else till
LNER started retiring them. Regardless of what happened thereafter, they remain ex-ECML.

Ian Yeowart had hoped to use some in his latest open access ventures, but Covid put paid to that. So TfW is the only
operator to have used them after their retirement from the ECML (where they served InterCity, GNER, NXEC, EC, VTEC and
finally LNER).

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 09:26:07 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:

>On 11/03/2022 09:12, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 11/03/2022 09:03, Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 01:41:06 +0000, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-60654251
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-02-slash-2022-derailment-of-a-passenger-train-at-carmont
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "...a drainage system had been incorrectly installed..."
>>>>
>>>> "...The failures identified are so bad that we believe this must be a
>>>> watershed moment in the way we ensure the safety of passengers and
>>>> staff"  ASLEF general secretary Mick Whelan
>>>
>>> Why does speed not appear to have been considered as a contributing
>>> factor?  To an outsider, driving at 73 mph in atrocious weather
>>> conditions knowing that the train was returning to its point of origin
>>> because it was not safe to proceed would on the roads be considered
>>> dangerous driving.
>>
>> The problem was it was fine on the way out. There was no obvious reason
>> why it shouldn't have been on the way back.
>>
>There was an obvious reason that it may not have been fine on the way
>back there had been copious amounts of rain. The problem was that
>control was too overloaded to make sensible decisions.

As with Salisbury, this is a case where the train drivers should have been instructed to drive at a lower speed because
of adverse weather.

In message <b3im2hl31qjt9d56kotlu1gd8vgd6r8deg@4ax.com>, at 13:09:03 on
Fri, 11 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:15:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <t0fcpq$v9i$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:46:02 on Fri, 11 Mar
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result of
>>>> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.
>>>
>>>Presumably they were written off in the Selby crash?
>>
>>Sorry, that should have said "Hatfield and Great Heck [aka Selby]. So
>>still seven awol.
>>
>>>> There's apparently 27 in service from TfW, which came partly from LNER
>>>> but also partly from a pool stored for use by Grand Central, but never
>>>> called upon.
>>>
>>>They were all originally built for the BR ECML operation and only ever
>>>served on that line until the TfW re-use.
>>
>>Eventually they'll be scrapping some TfW MK4's, so those won't be "Ex
>>ECML". That just leaves the edge case of the [albeit un-deployed]
>>ex-Grand_Central coaches, but as they've all gone to TfW, we can park
>>that discussion until TfW scraps or mothballs them.
>
>I'm not sure I understand you: all Mk 4s are ex-ECML.

But it's far more interesting (and additional data) who had possession
of them at the point they were scrapped or most recently mothballed.

>They were only built for that route, and served nowhere else till
>LNER started retiring them. Regardless of what happened thereafter,
>they remain ex-ECML.
>
>Ian Yeowart had hoped to use some in his latest open access ventures,

That's perhaps Grand Union, Wikipedia says they were in reserve for
Grand Central (unfortunately their cite is a dead end).

>but Covid put paid to that. So TfW is the only operator to have used
>them after their retirement from the ECML (where they served InterCity,
>GNER, NXEC, EC, VTEC and finally LNER).

--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 13:19:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <b3im2hl31qjt9d56kotlu1gd8vgd6r8deg@4ax.com>, at 13:09:03 on
>Fri, 11 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:15:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <t0fcpq$v9i$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:46:02 on Fri, 11 Mar
>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result of
>>>>> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.
>>>>
>>>>Presumably they were written off in the Selby crash?
>>>
>>>Sorry, that should have said "Hatfield and Great Heck [aka Selby]. So
>>>still seven awol.
>>>
>>>>> There's apparently 27 in service from TfW, which came partly from LNER
>>>>> but also partly from a pool stored for use by Grand Central, but never
>>>>> called upon.
>>>>
>>>>They were all originally built for the BR ECML operation and only ever
>>>>served on that line until the TfW re-use.
>>>
>>>Eventually they'll be scrapping some TfW MK4's, so those won't be "Ex
>>>ECML". That just leaves the edge case of the [albeit un-deployed]
>>>ex-Grand_Central coaches, but as they've all gone to TfW, we can park
>>>that discussion until TfW scraps or mothballs them.
>>
>>I'm not sure I understand you: all Mk 4s are ex-ECML.
>
>But it's far more interesting (and additional data) who had possession
>of them at the point they were scrapped or most recently mothballed.
>
>>They were only built for that route, and served nowhere else till
>>LNER started retiring them. Regardless of what happened thereafter,
>>they remain ex-ECML.
>>
>>Ian Yeowart had hoped to use some in his latest open access ventures,
>
>That's perhaps Grand Union, Wikipedia says they were in reserve for
>Grand Central (unfortunately their cite is a dead end).

Yes, Grand Union, though of course he previously founded Grand Central.

http://www.granduniontrains.co.uk/

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 08:48:41 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 19:32:25 +0000, martin.coffee wrote:
>>> On 10/03/2022 19:27, Tweed wrote:
>>>> The report also doesn’t seem to be good news for long term continued
>>>> use of HSTs in Scotland. Their crash worthiness doesn’t meet modern
>>>> standards.
>>>>
>>> I was thinking that. There goes the most comfortable trains by far on
>>> the network.
>>
>> If the minimum standards are going to be moved up past Mark 3 coaches,
>> there's a lot of new trains needed. IIRC most of the Sprinters are either
>> based on Mark 3 designs or at least built to the same standards.
>> It also would kill off most railtours if Mk2 and Mk3 coaches are banned
>> from the main line.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
>Speed and probability though. Rail tours make up a vanishingly small
>proportion of the daily traffic.

I don't think charters count as public transport, and the rules are much less stringent. That's why you still get Mark 1
charter trains on NR, many years after they were withdrawn from the mainline railways. Mk 2s and Mk 3s are regarded as a
safety upgrade.

> HSTs in Scotland have several problems:
>the driver protection that the plastic cab provides is very poor. The HSTs
>are running on some sparsely trafficked lines that are hard to patrol,
>those lines as we have seen, being prone to weather related failures.

Scotland also has a commitment to more electrification, which will increase pressure for bi-modes.

Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> When you add this construction related issue to the general standard
> of new build homes and office buildings I am becoming very unimpressed
> by the construction industry.
Is it the constructors or the Architects ? Though the latter may be
constrained by the customers budget which in turn may be whittled back.
This building near Southampton Station was built soon after I moved out of
the City so I still regard it as new.
Now it appears to need major work.

Southampton police HQ set for year-long closure
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-60660967>

I realise that direct comparisons are not really possible due to the need
to fit in cabling etc for IT
and rooms more suitable for present day conditions but the former central
Police station within the Civic centre lasted 78 years.

To close a building only built in 2011 for repairs is ridiculous, not to
mention the cost of finding temporary facilities.

I will be interesting to see how robust some of the rebuilt stations such
as Reading prove to be.

GH

In message <v3km2hlcddsekhia6v75ed01k5p1bn6rng@4ax.com>, at 13:40:37 on
Fri, 11 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 13:19:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <b3im2hl31qjt9d56kotlu1gd8vgd6r8deg@4ax.com>, at 13:09:03 on
>>Fri, 11 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:15:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <t0fcpq$v9i$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:46:02 on Fri, 11 Mar
>>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result of
>>>>>> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.
>>>>>
>>>>>Presumably they were written off in the Selby crash?
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, that should have said "Hatfield and Great Heck [aka Selby]. So
>>>>still seven awol.
>>>>
>>>>>> There's apparently 27 in service from TfW, which came partly from LNER
>>>>>> but also partly from a pool stored for use by Grand Central, but never
>>>>>> called upon.
>>>>>
>>>>>They were all originally built for the BR ECML operation and only ever
>>>>>served on that line until the TfW re-use.
>>>>
>>>>Eventually they'll be scrapping some TfW MK4's, so those won't be "Ex
>>>>ECML". That just leaves the edge case of the [albeit un-deployed]
>>>>ex-Grand_Central coaches, but as they've all gone to TfW, we can park
>>>>that discussion until TfW scraps or mothballs them.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure I understand you: all Mk 4s are ex-ECML.
>>
>>But it's far more interesting (and additional data) who had possession
>>of them at the point they were scrapped or most recently mothballed.
>>
>>>They were only built for that route, and served nowhere else till
>>>LNER started retiring them. Regardless of what happened thereafter,
>>>they remain ex-ECML.
>>>
>>>Ian Yeowart had hoped to use some in his latest open access ventures,
>>
>>That's perhaps Grand Union, Wikipedia says they were in reserve for
>>Grand Central (unfortunately their cite is a dead end).
>
>Yes, Grand Union, though of course he previously founded Grand Central.
>
>http://www.granduniontrains.co.uk/

OK, so this Wikipedia entry should say?

In 2021 Transport for Wales purchased these carriages from
Porterbrook along with the carriages that had been refurbished for
use by Grand Central ^H^H^H Union. This brought its fleet to 37.
--
Roland Perry

"Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7gim2ht4u0odu9c28108l8o6i8sae4a377@4ax.com...
>>> The problem was it was fine on the way out. There was no obvious reason
>>> why it shouldn't have been on the way back.
>>>
>>There was an obvious reason that it may not have been fine on the way
>>back there had been copious amounts of rain. The problem was that
>>control was too overloaded to make sensible decisions.
>
> As with Salisbury, this is a case where the train drivers should have been
> instructed to drive at a lower speed because
> of adverse weather.

Given that the train had been turned round because of a landslip, I wonder
whether it was wise (*) to run the train at full speed on its return
journey. Where there is one landslip, there may be others in cuttings: I
think there had been torrential rain in the area. *Is* that just being wise
after the event? When I first heard of the accident, I assumed that the
train was running at a speed at which it could stop in the distance that
could be seen was clear, and was shocked to fined that it was running at
almost full line speed.

(*) As in Sgt Wilson's leading question "Do you think that's wise, sir"
(implying "Of course it's not") in Dad's Army.

On 11 Mar 2022 at 13:48:09 GMT, "Marland" <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:

> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> When you add this construction related issue to the general standard
>> of new build homes and office buildings I am becoming very unimpressed
>> by the construction industry.
> Is it the constructors or the Architects ? Though the latter may be
> constrained by the customers budget which in turn may be whittled back.
> This building near Southampton Station was built soon after I moved out of
> the City so I still regard it as new.
> Now it appears to need major work.
>
> Southampton police HQ set for year-long closure
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-60660967>
>
> I realise that direct comparisons are not really possible due to the need
> to fit in cabling etc for IT
> and rooms more suitable for present day conditions but the former central
> Police station within the Civic centre lasted 78 years.
>
> To close a building only built in 2011 for repairs is ridiculous, not to
> mention the cost of finding temporary facilities.
>
> I will be interesting to see how robust some of the rebuilt stations such
> as Reading prove to be.
>
> GH

Judging (guessing?) by the quantity of water which comes out of various bits
of the downpipes in heavy rain - not very! :-(
--
Robert

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:12:02 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7gim2ht4u0odu9c28108l8o6i8sae4a377@4ax.com...
>>>> The problem was it was fine on the way out. There was no obvious reason
>>>> why it shouldn't have been on the way back.
>>>>
>>>There was an obvious reason that it may not have been fine on the way
>>>back there had been copious amounts of rain. The problem was that
>>>control was too overloaded to make sensible decisions.
>>
>> As with Salisbury, this is a case where the train drivers should have been
>> instructed to drive at a lower speed because
>> of adverse weather.
>
>Given that the train had been turned round because of a landslip, I wonder
>whether it was wise (*) to run the train at full speed on its return
>journey. Where there is one landslip, there may be others in cuttings: I
>think there had been torrential rain in the area. *Is* that just being wise
>after the event? When I first heard of the accident, I assumed that the
>train was running at a speed at which it could stop in the distance that
>could be seen was clear, and was shocked to fined that it was running at
>almost full line speed.
>
>
>(*) As in Sgt Wilson's leading question "Do you think that's wise, sir"
>(implying "Of course it's not") in Dad's Army.

It seems to be normal railway practice to drive at up to the usual line speed unless specifically instructed to drive at
a lower speed, and control presumably needs specific reasons to do that, which apparently didn't apply in either of
these cases.

On 11/03/2022 16:19, Robert wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2022 at 13:48:09 GMT, "Marland" <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> When you add this construction related issue to the general standard
>>> of new build homes and office buildings I am becoming very unimpressed
>>> by the construction industry.
>> Is it the constructors or the Architects ? Though the latter may be
>> constrained by the customers budget which in turn may be whittled back.
>> This building near Southampton Station was built soon after I moved out of
>> the City so I still regard it as new.
>> Now it appears to need major work.
>>
>> Southampton police HQ set for year-long closure
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-60660967>
>>
>> I realise that direct comparisons are not really possible due to the need
>> to fit in cabling etc for IT
>> and rooms more suitable for present day conditions but the former central
>> Police station within the Civic centre lasted 78 years.
>>
>> To close a building only built in 2011 for repairs is ridiculous, not to
>> mention the cost of finding temporary facilities.
>>
>> I will be interesting to see how robust some of the rebuilt stations such
>> as Reading prove to be.
>>
>> GH
>
> Judging (guessing?) by the quantity of water which comes out of various bits
> of the downpipes in heavy rain - not very! :-(

Reading had two broken escalators out of use last Thursday when I was there.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 16:26:09 +0000, Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:12:02 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7gim2ht4u0odu9c28108l8o6i8sae4a377@4ax.com...
>>>>>> The problem was it was fine on the way out. There was no obvious reason
>>>>>> why it shouldn't have been on the way back.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There was an obvious reason that it may not have been fine on the way
>>>>> back there had been copious amounts of rain. The problem was that
>>>>> control was too overloaded to make sensible decisions.
>>>>
>>>> As with Salisbury, this is a case where the train drivers should have been
>>>> instructed to drive at a lower speed because
>>>> of adverse weather.
>>>
>>> Given that the train had been turned round because of a landslip, I wonder
>>> whether it was wise (*) to run the train at full speed on its return
>>> journey. Where there is one landslip, there may be others in cuttings: I
>>> think there had been torrential rain in the area. *Is* that just being wise
>>> after the event? When I first heard of the accident, I assumed that the
>>> train was running at a speed at which it could stop in the distance that
>>> could be seen was clear, and was shocked to fined that it was running at
>>> almost full line speed.
>>>
>>>
>>> (*) As in Sgt Wilson's leading question "Do you think that's wise, sir"
>>> (implying "Of course it's not") in Dad's Army.
>>
>> It seems to be normal railway practice to drive at up to the usual line
>> speed unless specifically instructed to drive at
>> a lower speed, and control presumably needs specific reasons to do that,
>> which apparently didn't apply in either of
>> these cases.
>
> Does a train driver not have responsibility akin to the captain of a
> ship or aircraft or the driver of a motor vehicle?

I'm not sure, but drivers operate under the control of signallers.

>
> It's all very well to say that 'control' should have instructed him
> but aeroplanes have air traffic control and - as I understand it -
> this does not absolve the pilot from flying in a safe manner.

ATC tells pilots where to go, but doesn't advise on how to fly the plane.

>
> The captain was held responsible for grounding Ever Given even though
> there was a pilot on board.
>

That's automatic: a ship's captain remains in charge when there's a pilot
on board, apart from in the Kiel and Panama canals. The captain can
overrule the pilot(s) who are only advisers. Of course, it's regarded as
rude to do so directly, and there's an established etiquette for how to do
it discreetly.

On 11/03/2022 21:35, Recliner wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 16:26:09 +0000, Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:12:02 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:7gim2ht4u0odu9c28108l8o6i8sae4a377@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> The problem was it was fine on the way out. There was no obvious reason
>>>>>>> why it shouldn't have been on the way back.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was an obvious reason that it may not have been fine on the way
>>>>>> back there had been copious amounts of rain. The problem was that
>>>>>> control was too overloaded to make sensible decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> As with Salisbury, this is a case where the train drivers should have been
>>>>> instructed to drive at a lower speed because
>>>>> of adverse weather.
>>>>
>>>> Given that the train had been turned round because of a landslip, I wonder
>>>> whether it was wise (*) to run the train at full speed on its return
>>>> journey. Where there is one landslip, there may be others in cuttings: I
>>>> think there had been torrential rain in the area. *Is* that just being wise
>>>> after the event? When I first heard of the accident, I assumed that the
>>>> train was running at a speed at which it could stop in the distance that
>>>> could be seen was clear, and was shocked to fined that it was running at
>>>> almost full line speed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (*) As in Sgt Wilson's leading question "Do you think that's wise, sir"
>>>> (implying "Of course it's not") in Dad's Army.
>>>
>>> It seems to be normal railway practice to drive at up to the usual line
>>> speed unless specifically instructed to drive at
>>> a lower speed, and control presumably needs specific reasons to do that,
>>> which apparently didn't apply in either of
>>> these cases.
>>
>> Does a train driver not have responsibility akin to the captain of a
>> ship or aircraft or the driver of a motor vehicle?
>
> I'm not sure, but drivers operate under the control of signallers.
>
>>
>> It's all very well to say that 'control' should have instructed him
>> but aeroplanes have air traffic control and - as I understand it -
>> this does not absolve the pilot from flying in a safe manner.
>
> ATC tells pilots where to go, but doesn't advise on how to fly the plane.
>
>>
>> The captain was held responsible for grounding Ever Given even though
>> there was a pilot on board.
>>
>
> That's automatic: a ship's captain remains in charge when there's a pilot
> on board, apart from in the Kiel and Panama canals. The captain can
> overrule the pilot(s) who are only advisers. Of course, it's regarded as
> rude to do so directly, and there's an established etiquette for how to do
> it discreetly.
>

Not just those two canals but at least one other area - the Great Lakes
in North America have the same rule. Been there, seen that (long story
not for here!)

--
Colin

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 21:35, Recliner wrote:
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 16:26:09 +0000, Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:12:02 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:7gim2ht4u0odu9c28108l8o6i8sae4a377@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> The problem was it was fine on the way out. There was no obvious reason
>>>>>>>> why it shouldn't have been on the way back.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was an obvious reason that it may not have been fine on the way
>>>>>>> back there had been copious amounts of rain. The problem was that
>>>>>>> control was too overloaded to make sensible decisions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As with Salisbury, this is a case where the train drivers should have been
>>>>>> instructed to drive at a lower speed because
>>>>>> of adverse weather.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that the train had been turned round because of a landslip, I wonder
>>>>> whether it was wise (*) to run the train at full speed on its return
>>>>> journey. Where there is one landslip, there may be others in cuttings: I
>>>>> think there had been torrential rain in the area. *Is* that just being wise
>>>>> after the event? When I first heard of the accident, I assumed that the
>>>>> train was running at a speed at which it could stop in the distance that
>>>>> could be seen was clear, and was shocked to fined that it was running at
>>>>> almost full line speed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (*) As in Sgt Wilson's leading question "Do you think that's wise, sir"
>>>>> (implying "Of course it's not") in Dad's Army.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to be normal railway practice to drive at up to the usual line
>>>> speed unless specifically instructed to drive at
>>>> a lower speed, and control presumably needs specific reasons to do that,
>>>> which apparently didn't apply in either of
>>>> these cases.
>>>
>>> Does a train driver not have responsibility akin to the captain of a
>>> ship or aircraft or the driver of a motor vehicle?
>>
>> I'm not sure, but drivers operate under the control of signallers.
>>
>>>
>>> It's all very well to say that 'control' should have instructed him
>>> but aeroplanes have air traffic control and - as I understand it -
>>> this does not absolve the pilot from flying in a safe manner.
>>
>> ATC tells pilots where to go, but doesn't advise on how to fly the plane.
>>
>>>
>>> The captain was held responsible for grounding Ever Given even though
>>> there was a pilot on board.
>>>
>>
>> That's automatic: a ship's captain remains in charge when there's a pilot
>> on board, apart from in the Kiel and Panama canals. The captain can
>> overrule the pilot(s) who are only advisers. Of course, it's regarded as
>> rude to do so directly, and there's an established etiquette for how to do
>> it discreetly.
>>
>
> Not just those two canals but at least one other area - the Great Lakes
> in North America have the same rule. Been there, seen that (long story
> not for here!)
>

Yes, I was thinking only of ocean-going ships. There may be many other
cases in inland waterways.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 09:27:51 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 01:41:06 +0000, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-60654251
>>>
>>> https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-02-slash-2022-derailment-of-a-passenger-train-at-carmont
>>>
>>> "...a drainage system had been incorrectly installed..."
>>>
>>> "...The failures identified are so bad that we believe this must be a
>>> watershed moment in the way we ensure the safety of passengers and
>>> staff" ASLEF general secretary Mick Whelan
>>
>> Why does speed not appear to have been considered as a contributing
>> factor? To an outsider, driving at 73 mph in atrocious weather
>> conditions knowing that the train was returning to its point of origin
>> because it was not safe to proceed would on the roads be considered
>> dangerous driving.
>>
>
>Trains, ordinarily, don’t drive on sight. It’s very different to driving a
>car.
>
That is "ordinarily".
Trains have operated at reduced speed during several recent episodes
of poor weather. On at least one occasion that has involved suspension
of service until daylight with the first train doing an inspection run
at line of sight speed.

In message <a1NzLZJO1zKiFACl@perry.uk>, at 12:15:10 on Fri, 11 Mar 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:

>>> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result of
>>> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.
>>
>>Presumably they were written off in the Selby crash?
>
>Sorry, that should have said "Hatfield and Great Heck [aka Selby]. So
>still seven awol.

I wonder if any of them were scrapped during the selection process for
refurbishment of units to cascade to TfW?

In other words, once you've taken it apart enough to fully inspect, and
reject, why put it back together again.
--
Roland Perry

On 11/03/2022 16:19, Robert wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2022 at 13:48:09 GMT, "Marland" <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> When you add this construction related issue to the general standard
>>> of new build homes and office buildings I am becoming very unimpressed
>>> by the construction industry.
>> Is it the constructors or the Architects ? Though the latter may be
>> constrained by the customers budget which in turn may be whittled back.
>> This building near Southampton Station was built soon after I moved out of
>> the City so I still regard it as new.
>> Now it appears to need major work.
>>
>> Southampton police HQ set for year-long closure
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-60660967>
>>
>> I realise that direct comparisons are not really possible due to the need
>> to fit in cabling etc for IT
>> and rooms more suitable for present day conditions but the former central
>> Police station within the Civic centre lasted 78 years.
>>
>> To close a building only built in 2011 for repairs is ridiculous, not to
>> mention the cost of finding temporary facilities.
>>
>> I will be interesting to see how robust some of the rebuilt stations such
>> as Reading prove to be.
>>
>> GH
>
> Judging (guessing?) by the quantity of water which comes out of various bits
> of the downpipes in heavy rain - not very! :-(

The new-ish* £20 milllion footbridge at East Croydon is often at least
partly closed during bad weather. It is windswept, rain gets in and the
floor can be slippery. You also have to get wet to access it from the
covered areas of the platforms. Assuming they haven't simply closed that
station entrance all together on any given day.

*hmm, the internet says 2013-14, older than I thought.

--
Arthur Figgis

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <a1NzLZJO1zKiFACl@perry.uk>, at 12:15:10 on Fri, 11 Mar 2022,
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result of
>>>> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.
>>>
>>> Presumably they were written off in the Selby crash?
>>
>> Sorry, that should have said "Hatfield and Great Heck [aka Selby]. So
>> still seven awol.
>
> I wonder if any of them were scrapped during the selection process for
> refurbishment of units to cascade to TfW?
>
> In other words, once you've taken it apart enough to fully inspect, and
> reject, why put it back together again.

I doubt that they did much refurbishment for TfW. There would have been no
need to take them apart.

On 11/03/2022 11:03, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <B20FbnCqRyKiFAQ9@perry.uk>, at 10:28:58 on Fri, 11 Mar 2022,
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>In message <t0f6tb$a6l$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:05:31 on Fri, 11 Mar
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Wonkypedia says that of 303 built, 19 have been scrapped, and 139 are in
>>>> storage. Presumably mainly displaced from the ECML.
>>>
>>>All from the ECML, not mainly. Very few have found a new role.
>>
>>I wasn't sure that absolutely every one was ECML, hence the guarded
>>reference.
>
> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result of
> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.

That's quite impressive considering that there were only 9 carriages
involved, of which 7 were derailed, at Hatfield.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t0fcpq$v9i$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:46:02 on Fri, 11 Mar
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result of
>>> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.
>>
>> Presumably they were written off in the Selby crash?
>
> Sorry, that should have said "Hatfield and Great Heck [aka Selby]. So
> still seven awol.

Surely all are accounted for in
<https://225group.org.uk/docs/Intercity-225-Fleet-List-Mark-4-Coaches-and-DVTs.pdf>
?

In message <0r9ufi-a62.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 10:38:56 on Sat, 12
Mar 2022, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>On 11/03/2022 11:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <B20FbnCqRyKiFAQ9@perry.uk>, at 10:28:58 on Fri, 11 Mar 2022,
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>>In message <t0f6tb$a6l$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:05:31 on Fri, 11 Mar
>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Wonkypedia says that of 303 built, 19 have been scrapped, and 139 are in
>>>>> storage. Presumably mainly displaced from the ECML.
>>>>
>>>>All from the ECML, not mainly. Very few have found a new role.
>>>
>>>I wasn't sure that absolutely every one was ECML, hence the guarded
>>>reference.
>> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result
>>of
>> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.
>
>That's quite impressive considering that there were only 9 carriages
>involved, of which 7 were derailed, at Hatfield.

You didn't see my posting 22hrs earlier:

"Sorry, that should have said "Hatfield and Great Heck [aka
Selby]. So still seven awol".
--
Roland Perry

In message <t0hs1a$a75$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:18:18 on Sat, 12 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <a1NzLZJO1zKiFACl@perry.uk>, at 12:15:10 on Fri, 11 Mar 2022,
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result of
>>>>> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably they were written off in the Selby crash?
>>>
>>> Sorry, that should have said "Hatfield and Great Heck [aka Selby]. So
>>> still seven awol.
>>
>> I wonder if any of them were scrapped during the selection process for
>> refurbishment of units to cascade to TfW?
>>
>> In other words, once you've taken it apart enough to fully inspect, and
>> reject, why put it back together again.
>
>I doubt that they did much refurbishment for TfW. There would have been no
>need to take them apart.

It's a moot point now we have more than seven to account for.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t0hvqb$5c9$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:22:51 on Sat, 12 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t0fcpq$v9i$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:46:02 on Fri, 11 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result of
>>>> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.
>>>
>>> Presumably they were written off in the Selby crash?
>>
>> Sorry, that should have said "Hatfield and Great Heck [aka Selby]. So
>> still seven awol.
>
>Surely all are accounted for in
><https://225group.org.uk/docs/Intercity-225-Fleet-List-Mark-4-Coaches-an
>d-DVTs.pdf>

New data always welcome.

That has around 150 scrapped (and three as donors, which is much the
same in the long run), so the 19 reported elsewhere is definitely VERY
OLD news.

It also has entries such as:

82230 Stored pending return to service GC (un-branded)

Not GU. Any comments bearing in mind earlier correspondence?
--
Roland Perry

On 12/03/2022 11:22, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t0fcpq$v9i$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:46:02 on Fri, 11 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> A bit more research digging has 12 carriages written off as a result of
>>>> Hatfield, so only seven more to track down.
>>>
>>> Presumably they were written off in the Selby crash?
>>
>> Sorry, that should have said "Hatfield and Great Heck [aka Selby]. So
>> still seven awol.
>
> Surely all are accounted for in
> <https://225group.org.uk/docs/Intercity-225-Fleet-List-Mark-4-Coaches-and-DVTs.pdf>
> ?

I make that 140 scrapped

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.