On 11/03/2022 22:44, Recliner wrote:
> 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.
>

Errr, Great Lakes do take ocean-going vessels!

Look at the following - I joined that ship in the Great Lakes, took
grain to Colombia, then grain from Pascagoula to Nakhodkah in Siberia
(near Vladivostock) and then to Australia in ballast to load grain.
Definitely ocean going!
https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/media/mv-vancouver-trader.353763/

--
Colin

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> 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?

Some were destined for the notional GU to Wales and some for the notional
GCWC, which were, I think both Ian Yeowart ventures. As neither actually
happened, I wonder why you're so hung up on them?

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 10:37:02 +0000, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 18:00:39 +0000, 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?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The captain was held responsible for grounding Ever Given even though
>>> there was a pilot on board.
>>
>> All of this was discussed in the report. Did you miss that part?
>
> I still have to read the full report. Maybe I have joined the
> discussion too soon.
>

I think the problem with asking train drivers to slow down in bad weather
is that you have to slow down to a very low speed indeed to be able to stop
on sight of an obstruction. Given we have quite a lot of bad weather, if we
left this to driver judgement the railway network would be regularly
paralysed by trains limping around. And what do you do about night time?
It’s not as though trains are fitted with full beam headlights to light the
way ahead.

In message <t0i8tr$9tm$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:58:19 on Sat, 12 Mar
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

>I think the problem with asking train drivers to slow down in bad weather
>is that you have to slow down to a very low speed indeed to be able to stop
>on sight of an obstruction. Given we have quite a lot of bad weather, if we
>left this to driver judgement the railway network would be regularly
>paralysed by trains limping around.

In the recent storms, all the trains in our region were limited to I
think 50mph. That wasn't so much because they might encounter a tree
across the line (although one very close to me *did*) but mainly because
the OHL can't cope with being blown around.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t0i8tr$9tm$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:58:19 on Sat, 12 Mar
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> I think the problem with asking train drivers to slow down in bad weather
>> is that you have to slow down to a very low speed indeed to be able to stop
>> on sight of an obstruction. Given we have quite a lot of bad weather, if we
>> left this to driver judgement the railway network would be regularly
>> paralysed by trains limping around.
>
> In the recent storms, all the trains in our region were limited to I
> think 50mph. That wasn't so much because they might encounter a tree
> across the line (although one very close to me *did*) but mainly because
> the OHL can't cope with being blown around.
>

Of course, that wouldn't have been a consideration with the Stonehaven and
Salisbury crashes.

Glazebrook West <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.net> Wrote in message:r
>> 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
>>
>
> According to the Guardian it wasn't so much incorrectly installed
> as not matching the design.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of 'incorrectly installed'?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> One can't help wonder that newer, more crash-resistent Mark 4s are being
>> scrapped while elderly Mark 3s are expected to soldier on into their sixth
>> decade of service.
>>
>>
>
> Are Mk4s going for scrap? I didn’t know that.
>
>

Yes, several of them; they have no meaningful options for service life
beyond their operations with TfW and the stalled CG operation to Blackpool.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:27:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> One can't help wonder that newer, more crash-resistent Mark 4s are being
>> scrapped while elderly Mark 3s are expected to soldier on into their sixth
>> decade of service.
>
> Could Mark 4 coaches be used with HST power cars?
>

With a fair amount of rewiring work to either one or both.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

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.
>

So would driving at 125mph in 50yd visibility fog; so would driving at
125mph with a stopping distance of potentially over a mile, on curves with
under 1/4 mile visibility; so would driving 125mph in torrential rain.

Such judgements are easy to make with hindsight; the driver had driven over
that section of line a couple (?) of hours earlier with no apparent signs
of problems. I suspect that the decisions made would be very different
today.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> 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$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:05:31 on Fri, 11 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t0etpo$r1v$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:30:00 on Fri, 11 Mar
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>> Are Mk4s going for scrap? I didn’t know that.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>

There have been at least two scrap movements to Sims Metals at Newport,
where stock doesn't tend to hang around more than a couple of days.

> 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.

Which, in turn, were also ex-LNER.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

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.
>

Thus far, that's also, entirely, ex-LNER (or predecessor ECML operators for
those scrapped as a result of earlier accidents).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

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.
>

Since Carmont, blanket speed restrictions (and also complete withdrawal of
service) in response to severe weather warnings have become much more
frequent. So frequent, indeed, that they've been criticised by the
Transport Secretary…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>

Broken as in present but not operational, or the two which are currently
fenced out of use for refurbishment works?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

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...
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>
> 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.
>
>

That's an interesting discussion and one which will presumably be held
frequently over the next few months.

My input at this time, pending further reflection on the matter, is that we
are expected to drive all the time such that we can't stop in the distance
we can see to be clear; there's total trust in those responsible for
ensuring that the way ahead is clear, and those responsible for advising us
when it might not be considered so.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 14/03/2022 10:47, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Glazebrook West <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> NY <me@privacy.net> Wrote in message:r
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> According to the Guardian it wasn't so much incorrectly installed
>> as not matching the design.
>
> Isn't that pretty much the definition of 'incorrectly installed'?
>

Yes and No.

It meets the definition of "incorrectly installed" but understates what
actually happened. I would describe it as "major unauthorised
modifications".

On 14/03/2022 10:48, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Broken as in present but not operational, or the two which are currently
> fenced out of use for refurbishment works?
>
>

I've no idea except there were two on the platform my Cardiff service
was departing from. I'd be surprised if there was any refurbishment
works going on as they appeared to have electrical power as their lights
were illuminated at platform level.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Procedures which did exist previously but since Carmont have been used much
more frequently.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> 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>
> ?
>

Thanks!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 10:37:02 +0000, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 18:00:39 +0000, 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?
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The captain was held responsible for grounding Ever Given even though
>>>> there was a pilot on board.
>>>
>>> All of this was discussed in the report. Did you miss that part?
>>
>> I still have to read the full report. Maybe I have joined the
>> discussion too soon.
>>
>
> I think the problem with asking train drivers to slow down in bad weather
> is that you have to slow down to a very low speed indeed to be able to stop
> on sight of an obstruction. Given we have quite a lot of bad weather, if we
> left this to driver judgement the railway network would be regularly
> paralysed by trains limping around. And what do you do about night time?
> It’s not as though trains are fitted with full beam headlights to light the
> way ahead.
>
>

And even if they were, we regularly can't stop in the distance seen to be
clear around curves.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> 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$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:05:31 on Fri, 11 Mar
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t0etpo$r1v$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:30:00 on Fri, 11 Mar
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are Mk4s going for scrap? I didn’t know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> There have been at least two scrap movements to Sims Metals at Newport,
> where stock doesn't tend to hang around more than a couple of days.
>
>> 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.
>
> Which, in turn, were also ex-LNER.

Surely the invisible word “directly” was perfectly apparent in Roland’s
posting.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 14/03/2022 10:48, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Broken as in present but not operational, or the two which are currently
>> fenced out of use for refurbishment works?
>>
>>
>
> I've no idea except there were two on the platform my Cardiff service
> was departing from. I'd be surprised if there was any refurbishment
> works going on as they appeared to have electrical power as their lights
> were illuminated at platform level.
>

So, present and looking like they should be working? Rather than surrounded
by 6 foot high blue wooden fence? In which case yes you're right, they were
just broken (or perhaps, had had an emergency stop operation and hadn't
been restarted). Next time I'm there I'll try to remember to check.

Incidentally several times recently, Newport station platforms 2/3 have
been out of use due to broken lifts.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 14/03/2022 11:41, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/03/2022 10:48, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Broken as in present but not operational, or the two which are currently
>>> fenced out of use for refurbishment works?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I've no idea except there were two on the platform my Cardiff service
>> was departing from. I'd be surprised if there was any refurbishment
>> works going on as they appeared to have electrical power as their lights
>> were illuminated at platform level.
>>
>
> So, present and looking like they should be working? Rather than surrounded
> by 6 foot high blue wooden fence? In which case yes you're right, they were
> just broken (or perhaps, had had an emergency stop operation and hadn't
> been restarted). Next time I'm there I'll try to remember to check.
It wasn't the high fence just a temporary barrier.
>
> Incidentally several times recently, Newport station platforms 2/3 have
> been out of use due to broken lifts.Yep. Not on that occasion but I've unexpectedly used the other two
platform recently.

On 14/03/2022 12:35, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> On 14/03/2022 11:41, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 14/03/2022 10:48, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Broken as in present but not operational, or the two which are
>>>> currently
>>>> fenced out of use for refurbishment works?t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've no idea except there were two on the platform my Cardiff service
>>> was departing from.  I'd be surprised if there was any refurbishment
>>> works going on as they appeared to have electrical power as their lights
>>> were illuminated at platform level.
>>>
>>
>> So, present and looking like they should be working? Rather than
>> surrounded
>> by 6 foot high blue wooden fence? In which case yes you're right, they
>> were
>> just broken (or perhaps, had had an emergency stop operation and hadn't
>> been restarted). Next time I'm there I'll try to remember to check.
> It wasn't the high fence just a temporary barrier.
>>
>> Incidentally several times recently, Newport station platforms 2/3 have
>> been out of use due to broken lifts.

Oops. That didn't come out well. I've used the other two platforms
unexpectedly recently.

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
news:t0n6gt$9a9$7@dont-email.me...
>> 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.
>>
>
> So would driving at 125mph in 50yd visibility fog; so would driving at
> 125mph with a stopping distance of potentially over a mile, on curves with
> under 1/4 mile visibility; so would driving 125mph in torrential rain.
>
> Such judgements are easy to make with hindsight; the driver had driven
> over
> that section of line a couple (?) of hours earlier with no apparent signs
> of problems. I suspect that the decisions made would be very different
> today.

And if lessons have been learned from the crash about the advisability of
driving at full speed when there are known to be landslips in the area, then
that's a good thing. With many crashes, there isn't one single point of
failure; there is often a combination of several failures which all have to
be "lined up" adversely in order to allow the crash to occur.

"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rrfu2h5p9qfggqg91j2ikc4vog8o2lq278@4ax.com...

>>My input at this time, pending further reflection on the matter, is that
>>we
>>are expected to drive all the time such that we can't stop in the distance
>>we can see to be clear; there's total trust in those responsible for
>>ensuring that the way ahead is clear, and those responsible for advising
>>us
>>when it might not be considered so.
>>
> This is entirely true in normal circumstances. Should the driver not
> be expected to make a judgement whether the circumstances are
> 'abnormal' and to react accordingly?

Exactly: a skilled driver drives at the lesser of two things: the speed
limit, and what he considers safe for the conditions. Should the driver have
been driving at full line speed, or should he or "control" have chosen a
lower speed when there are known to be other landslips in the area?

Normally drivers place their absolute trust in the signalling system to know
whether there is an obstruction (failed train ahead, car stuck on level
crossing) but in the case of landslips and fallen trees, those cannot be
detected unless there is an array of boulder-detection wires or there
happens to be CCTV. I wonder whether one of the outcomes of Stonehaven is a
greater use of "drive in the distance you can see to be clear" in abnormal
weather conditions where there may be obstructions that the signalling
system cannot be aware of.

The problem comes when a signaller chooses to ignore a track circuit or
"section occupied" signal lever collar that indicates an occupied section
because he thinks it is a false positive... Seer Green.