I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
done via the GEML.

And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
of a ROG 37.

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed

Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
> done via the GEML.
>
> And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
> of a ROG 37.
>
> https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed
>
> Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...

I wonder whether that was the same train as this incident on Crown Point
depot, a Flirt accidentally propelled through the buffer stops while being
shunted by a ROG 37 on the other end?

<https://twitter.com/ratemybuffers/status/1533512812114354177>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <t7nv5o$slv$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:42:32 on Tue, 7 Jun 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
>> done via the GEML.
>>
>> And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
>> of a ROG 37.
>>
>> https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed
>>
>> Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...
>
>I wonder whether that was the same train as this incident on Crown Point
>depot, a Flirt accidentally propelled through the buffer stops while being
>shunted by a ROG 37 on the other end?
>
><https://twitter.com/ratemybuffers/status/1533512812114354177>

Seems quite likely. Maybe the driver didn't see the "Stop" sign because
there was a whole train in the way?

Wouldn't you normally have someone with a walkie-talkie in the cab which
struck the buffers, just to say "brake, brake, oh err, broken".
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:45:15 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t7nv5o$slv$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:42:32 on Tue, 7 Jun 2022,
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
>>> done via the GEML.
>>>
>>> And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
>>> of a ROG 37.
>>>
>>> https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed
>>>
>>> Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...
>>
>>I wonder whether that was the same train as this incident on Crown Point
>>depot, a Flirt accidentally propelled through the buffer stops while being
>>shunted by a ROG 37 on the other end?
>>
>><https://twitter.com/ratemybuffers/status/1533512812114354177>
>
>Seems quite likely. Maybe the driver didn't see the "Stop" sign because
>there was a whole train in the way?
>
>Wouldn't you normally have someone with a walkie-talkie in the cab which
>struck the buffers, just to say "brake, brake, oh err, broken".

Given they're called buffer stops for a reason perhaps multiple units should
have some form of buffer hidden under the cowling to prevent this kind of
no doubt expensive penetration.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 15:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:45:15 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t7nv5o$slv$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:42:32 on Tue, 7 Jun 2022,
>>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
>>>> done via the GEML.
>>>>
>>>> And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
>>>> of a ROG 37.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed
>>>>
>>>> Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...
>>>
>>>I wonder whether that was the same train as this incident on Crown Point
>>>depot, a Flirt accidentally propelled through the buffer stops while being
>>>shunted by a ROG 37 on the other end?
>>>
>>><https://twitter.com/ratemybuffers/status/1533512812114354177>
>>
>>Seems quite likely. Maybe the driver didn't see the "Stop" sign because
>>there was a whole train in the way?
>>
>>Wouldn't you normally have someone with a walkie-talkie in the cab which
>>struck the buffers, just to say "brake, brake, oh err, broken".
>
>Given they're called buffer stops for a reason perhaps multiple units should
>have some form of buffer hidden under the cowling to prevent this kind of
>no doubt expensive penetration.
>
They have, it is the end of the underframe which tends to provide a
larger contact area than a couple of bits sticking out (or has
deliberately sacrificial but hidden buffing components to absorb minor
forces). Instead of deforming the end around the areas that the
buffers are bolted onto, you have more chance of dissipating minor
collision forces without localised damage apart from the more
sacrificial outer skin of the cabs etc.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 16:40:33 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 15:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:45:15 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <t7nv5o$slv$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:42:32 on Tue, 7 Jun 2022,
>>>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
>>>>> done via the GEML.
>>>>>
>>>>> And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
>>>>> of a ROG 37.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...
>>>>
>>>>I wonder whether that was the same train as this incident on Crown Point
>>>>depot, a Flirt accidentally propelled through the buffer stops while being
>>>>shunted by a ROG 37 on the other end?
>>>>
>>>><https://twitter.com/ratemybuffers/status/1533512812114354177>
>>>
>>>Seems quite likely. Maybe the driver didn't see the "Stop" sign because
>>>there was a whole train in the way?
>>>
>>>Wouldn't you normally have someone with a walkie-talkie in the cab which
>>>struck the buffers, just to say "brake, brake, oh err, broken".
>>
>>Given they're called buffer stops for a reason perhaps multiple units should
>>have some form of buffer hidden under the cowling to prevent this kind of
>>no doubt expensive penetration.
>>
>They have, it is the end of the underframe which tends to provide a
>larger contact area than a couple of bits sticking out (or has
>deliberately sacrificial but hidden buffing components to absorb minor
>forces). Instead of deforming the end around the areas that the
>buffers are bolted onto, you have more chance of dissipating minor
>collision forces without localised damage apart from the more
>sacrificial outer skin of the cabs etc.

Doesn't seem to have worked in this case. Looks like its been pushed all the
way back to the bogie.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t7nv5o$slv$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:42:32 on Tue, 7 Jun 2022,
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
>>> done via the GEML.
>>>
>>> And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
>>> of a ROG 37.
>>>
>>> https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed
>>>
>>> Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...
>>
>> I wonder whether that was the same train as this incident on Crown Point
>> depot, a Flirt accidentally propelled through the buffer stops while being
>> shunted by a ROG 37 on the other end?
>>
>> <https://twitter.com/ratemybuffers/status/1533512812114354177>
>
> Seems quite likely. Maybe the driver didn't see the "Stop" sign because
> there was a whole train in the way?
>
> Wouldn't you normally have someone with a walkie-talkie in the cab which
> struck the buffers, just to say "brake, brake, oh err, broken".
>

Shunting moves such as this should always have a person supervising the
leading end of the movement, in communication with the driver to control
the movement, whether that be by handsignal, conventional radio, "back to
back" radio [1], or in certain specific locations, trackside light signals.

For whatever reason, in this instance the procedure appears to have failed.

[1] paired radios; confirmation that the movement is ok to continue is
given by the shunter holding down a button, which produces a continuous
beeping at the driver's radio

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <t7quf1$j19$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:48:49 on Wed, 8 Jun 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t7nv5o$slv$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:42:32 on Tue, 7 Jun 2022,
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
>>>> done via the GEML.
>>>>
>>>> And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
>>>> of a ROG 37.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed
>>>>
>>>> Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...
>>>
>>> I wonder whether that was the same train as this incident on Crown Point
>>> depot, a Flirt accidentally propelled through the buffer stops while being
>>> shunted by a ROG 37 on the other end?
>>>
>>> <https://twitter.com/ratemybuffers/status/1533512812114354177>
>>
>> Seems quite likely. Maybe the driver didn't see the "Stop" sign because
>> there was a whole train in the way?
>>
>> Wouldn't you normally have someone with a walkie-talkie in the cab which
>> struck the buffers, just to say "brake, brake, oh err, broken".
>
>Shunting moves such as this should always have a person supervising the
>leading end of the movement, in communication with the driver to control
>the movement, whether that be by handsignal, conventional radio, "back to
>back" radio [1], or in certain specific locations, trackside light signals.
>
>For whatever reason, in this instance the procedure appears to have failed.

I wonder if it's possible the track the train was being shunted along
was expected to be a though track? After all, it appears to have struck
at some speed, and why would you attempt to put the EMU into a siding
which inevitably wasn't long enough?

>[1] paired radios; confirmation that the movement is ok to continue is
>given by the shunter holding down a button, which produces a continuous
>beeping at the driver's radio
>
>
>Anna Noyd-Dryver
>

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t7quf1$j19$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:48:49 on Wed, 8 Jun 2022,
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t7nv5o$slv$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:42:32 on Tue, 7 Jun 2022,
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
>>>>> done via the GEML.
>>>>>
>>>>> And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
>>>>> of a ROG 37.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...
>>>>
>>>> I wonder whether that was the same train as this incident on Crown Point
>>>> depot, a Flirt accidentally propelled through the buffer stops while being
>>>> shunted by a ROG 37 on the other end?
>>>>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/ratemybuffers/status/1533512812114354177>
>>>
>>> Seems quite likely. Maybe the driver didn't see the "Stop" sign because
>>> there was a whole train in the way?
>>>
>>> Wouldn't you normally have someone with a walkie-talkie in the cab which
>>> struck the buffers, just to say "brake, brake, oh err, broken".
>>
>> Shunting moves such as this should always have a person supervising the
>> leading end of the movement, in communication with the driver to control
>> the movement, whether that be by handsignal, conventional radio, "back to
>> back" radio [1], or in certain specific locations, trackside light signals.
>>
>> For whatever reason, in this instance the procedure appears to have failed.
>
> I wonder if it's possible the track the train was being shunted along
> was expected to be a though track? After all, it appears to have struck
> at some speed, and why would you attempt to put the EMU into a siding
> which inevitably wasn't long enough?
>

What makes you think it was going at 'some speed'?

And what makes you think the siding wasn't long enough?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <t7tsc2$rh$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:31:30 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t7quf1$j19$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:48:49 on Wed, 8 Jun 2022,
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t7nv5o$slv$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:42:32 on Tue, 7 Jun 2022,
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
>>>>>> done via the GEML.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
>>>>>> of a ROG 37.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder whether that was the same train as this incident on Crown Point
>>>>> depot, a Flirt accidentally propelled through the buffer stops while being
>>>>> shunted by a ROG 37 on the other end?
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://twitter.com/ratemybuffers/status/1533512812114354177>
>>>>
>>>> Seems quite likely. Maybe the driver didn't see the "Stop" sign because
>>>> there was a whole train in the way?
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't you normally have someone with a walkie-talkie in the cab which
>>>> struck the buffers, just to say "brake, brake, oh err, broken".
>>>
>>> Shunting moves such as this should always have a person supervising the
>>> leading end of the movement, in communication with the driver to control
>>> the movement, whether that be by handsignal, conventional radio, "back to
>>> back" radio [1], or in certain specific locations, trackside light signals.
>>>
>>> For whatever reason, in this instance the procedure appears to have failed.
>>
>> I wonder if it's possible the track the train was being shunted along
>> was expected to be a though track? After all, it appears to have struck
>> at some speed, and why would you attempt to put the EMU into a siding
>> which inevitably wasn't long enough?
>
>What makes you think it was going at 'some speed'?

The amount of damage.

>And what makes you think the siding wasn't long enough?

Because it hit the buffers.
--
Roland Perry

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:45:15 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t7nv5o$slv$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:42:32 on Tue, 7 Jun 2022,
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
>>>> done via the GEML.
>>>>
>>>> And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
>>>> of a ROG 37.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed
>>>>
>>>> Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...
>>>
>>> I wonder whether that was the same train as this incident on Crown Point
>>> depot, a Flirt accidentally propelled through the buffer stops while being
>>> shunted by a ROG 37 on the other end?
>>>
>>> <https://twitter.com/ratemybuffers/status/1533512812114354177>
>>
>> Seems quite likely. Maybe the driver didn't see the "Stop" sign because
>> there was a whole train in the way?
>>
>> Wouldn't you normally have someone with a walkie-talkie in the cab which
>> struck the buffers, just to say "brake, brake, oh err, broken".
>
> Given they're called buffer stops for a reason perhaps multiple units should
> have some form of buffer hidden under the cowling to prevent this kind of
> no doubt expensive penetration.
>
>

Under the (sacrificial) fibreglass cowling, are ridged anti-climber pads
intended to interlock with those fitted to another train and prevent
overriding (you can see them on the front of a class 70 locomotive, or on
the inner ends of some multiple units. However those will obviously only be
effective when both items colliding are fitted with them.

Bearing in mind the preponderance on the network of modern multiple units
fitted with centre couplers, surely your argument should be that the depot
should be fitted with appropriate, modern buffer stops which have a
standard fitment to interlock with the centre coupler, and sliding friction
units to bring the errant train safely to a halt without
damaging/destroying either train or buffers, or in this case both.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 16:40:33 +0100
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 15:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:45:15 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t7nv5o$slv$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:42:32 on Tue, 7 Jun 2022,
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
>>>>>> done via the GEML.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
>>>>>> of a ROG 37.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder whether that was the same train as this incident on Crown Point
>>>>> depot, a Flirt accidentally propelled through the buffer stops while being
>>>>> shunted by a ROG 37 on the other end?
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://twitter.com/ratemybuffers/status/1533512812114354177>
>>>>
>>>> Seems quite likely. Maybe the driver didn't see the "Stop" sign because
>>>> there was a whole train in the way?
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't you normally have someone with a walkie-talkie in the cab which
>>>> struck the buffers, just to say "brake, brake, oh err, broken".
>>>
>>> Given they're called buffer stops for a reason perhaps multiple units should
>>> have some form of buffer hidden under the cowling to prevent this kind of
>>> no doubt expensive penetration.
>>>
>> They have, it is the end of the underframe which tends to provide a
>> larger contact area than a couple of bits sticking out (or has
>> deliberately sacrificial but hidden buffing components to absorb minor
>> forces). Instead of deforming the end around the areas that the
>> buffers are bolted onto, you have more chance of dissipating minor
>> collision forces without localised damage apart from the more
>> sacrificial outer skin of the cabs etc.
>
> Doesn't seem to have worked in this case. Looks like its been pushed all the
> way back to the bogie.
>
>

The rotten, unfit for purpose buffers have indeed failed to do their one
job properly.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t7tsc2$rh$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:31:30 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t7quf1$j19$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:48:49 on Wed, 8 Jun 2022,
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t7nv5o$slv$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:42:32 on Tue, 7 Jun 2022,
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> I wonder why this movement of a Stansted Express liveried FLIRT wasn't
>>>>>>> done via the GEML.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And no, it's not a bi-mode; I was alerted to it by the unmistakable roar
>>>>>>> of a ROG 37.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:45091/2022-06-04/detailed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems to have got bogged down just past Thetford...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder whether that was the same train as this incident on Crown Point
>>>>>> depot, a Flirt accidentally propelled through the buffer stops while being
>>>>>> shunted by a ROG 37 on the other end?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/ratemybuffers/status/1533512812114354177>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems quite likely. Maybe the driver didn't see the "Stop" sign because
>>>>> there was a whole train in the way?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't you normally have someone with a walkie-talkie in the cab which
>>>>> struck the buffers, just to say "brake, brake, oh err, broken".
>>>>
>>>> Shunting moves such as this should always have a person supervising the
>>>> leading end of the movement, in communication with the driver to control
>>>> the movement, whether that be by handsignal, conventional radio, "back to
>>>> back" radio [1], or in certain specific locations, trackside light signals.
>>>>
>>>> For whatever reason, in this instance the procedure appears to have failed.
>>>
>>> I wonder if it's possible the track the train was being shunted along
>>> was expected to be a though track? After all, it appears to have struck
>>> at some speed, and why would you attempt to put the EMU into a siding
>>> which inevitably wasn't long enough?
>>
>> What makes you think it was going at 'some speed'?
>
> The amount of damage.
>

I suspect that it was being propelled at appropriately low speed (5-10mph)
but was, due to the currently-still-unknown-to-us communication problem,
still under power at the point of contact and probably for a few seconds
afterwards, too.

>> And what makes you think the siding wasn't long enough?
>
> Because it hit the buffers.

I suspect that the siding was more than long enough, perhaps even long
enough to fit another item of stock as well. On a depot, it's not generally
practice to leave things 'just in clear' especially on a long siding,
unless you know you'll be needing it again imminently. You'll usually want
stock parked right down at the buffers.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:21:46 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>Bearing in mind the preponderance on the network of modern multiple units
>fitted with centre couplers, surely your argument should be that the depot
>should be fitted with appropriate, modern buffer stops which have a
>standard fitment to interlock with the centre coupler, and sliding friction
>units to bring the errant train safely to a halt without
>damaging/destroying either train or buffers, or in this case both.

I have wondered how the US gets away with only having couplers on their
trains and no buffers meaning in a collision or even just during marshalling
the couplers have to take all the force which can't be ideal.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:21:47 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> They have, it is the end of the underframe which tends to provide a
>>> larger contact area than a couple of bits sticking out (or has
>>> deliberately sacrificial but hidden buffing components to absorb minor
>>> forces). Instead of deforming the end around the areas that the
>>> buffers are bolted onto, you have more chance of dissipating minor
>>> collision forces without localised damage apart from the more
>>> sacrificial outer skin of the cabs etc.
>>
>> Doesn't seem to have worked in this case. Looks like its been pushed all the
>> way back to the bogie.
>>
>>
>
>The rotten, unfit for purpose buffers have indeed failed to do their one
>job properly.

Well they did stop the train. Anyone know what speed it was doing?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:21:46 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Bearing in mind the preponderance on the network of modern multiple units
>> fitted with centre couplers, surely your argument should be that the depot
>> should be fitted with appropriate, modern buffer stops which have a
>> standard fitment to interlock with the centre coupler, and sliding friction
>> units to bring the errant train safely to a halt without
>> damaging/destroying either train or buffers, or in this case both.
>
> I have wondered how the US gets away with only having couplers on their
> trains and no buffers meaning in a collision or even just during marshalling
> the couplers have to take all the force which can't be ideal.
>
>

The couplers are designed to take the entire loading force, tension and
compression.

It's a better solution overall than two hooks, a bit of chain and some
slippery springy things.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:55:37 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:21:46 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Bearing in mind the preponderance on the network of modern multiple units
>>> fitted with centre couplers, surely your argument should be that the depot
>>> should be fitted with appropriate, modern buffer stops which have a
>>> standard fitment to interlock with the centre coupler, and sliding friction
>>> units to bring the errant train safely to a halt without
>>> damaging/destroying either train or buffers, or in this case both.
>>
>> I have wondered how the US gets away with only having couplers on their
>> trains and no buffers meaning in a collision or even just during marshalling
>> the couplers have to take all the force which can't be ideal.
>>
>>
>
>The couplers are designed to take the entire loading force, tension and
>compression.

I wonder how well it works when the track is curved and the vehicles at
an angle.

>It's a better solution overall than two hooks, a bit of chain and some
>slippery springy things.

No reason they couldn't have buffers too as a backup.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:55:37 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:21:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Bearing in mind the preponderance on the network of modern multiple units
>>>> fitted with centre couplers, surely your argument should be that the depot
>>>> should be fitted with appropriate, modern buffer stops which have a
>>>> standard fitment to interlock with the centre coupler, and sliding friction
>>>> units to bring the errant train safely to a halt without
>>>> damaging/destroying either train or buffers, or in this case both.
>>>
>>> I have wondered how the US gets away with only having couplers on their
>>> trains and no buffers meaning in a collision or even just during marshalling
>>> the couplers have to take all the force which can't be ideal.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The couplers are designed to take the entire loading force, tension and
>> compression.
>
> I wonder how well it works when the track is curved and the vehicles at
> an angle.

They lock together to transmit the forces as intended.

>> It's a better solution overall than two hooks, a bit of chain and some
>> slippery springy things.
>
> No reason they couldn't have buffers too as a backup.

They'd never touch each other.

Since the days of Mk 1 coaches, BR has had retractable buffers which are
put in their short position whenever the drop-head buckeye is in use, and
only brought out to their 'long' position when the coupler hook is in use.

You're fighting a battle which was lost over 70 years ago.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:33:51 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> It's a better solution overall than two hooks, a bit of chain and some
>>> slippery springy things.
>>
>> No reason they couldn't have buffers too as a backup.
>
>They'd never touch each other.

Even in a heavy collision?

>Since the days of Mk 1 coaches, BR has had retractable buffers which are
>put in their short position whenever the drop-head buckeye is in use, and
>only brought out to their 'long' position when the coupler hook is in use.
>
>You're fighting a battle which was lost over 70 years ago.

I'm not fighting any battle. Just saying the more compressable force absorbers
you have the better.

On 2022-06-16 15:35:04 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:21:46 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Bearing in mind the preponderance on the network of modern multiple units
>> fitted with centre couplers, surely your argument should be that the depot
>> should be fitted with appropriate, modern buffer stops which have a
>> standard fitment to interlock with the centre coupler, and sliding friction
>> units to bring the errant train safely to a halt without
>> damaging/destroying either train or buffers, or in this case both.
>
> I have wondered how the US gets away with only having couplers on their
> trains and no buffers meaning in a collision or even just during marshalling
> the couplers have to take all the force which can't be ideal.

The Janney coupler used in N.America was introduced about 125 years
ago, so if there was a problem with it, that would have long ago become
apparent.

Robin

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 11:51:37 +0200
Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>On 2022-06-16 15:35:04 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:21:46 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Bearing in mind the preponderance on the network of modern multiple units
>>> fitted with centre couplers, surely your argument should be that the depot
>>> should be fitted with appropriate, modern buffer stops which have a
>>> standard fitment to interlock with the centre coupler, and sliding friction
>>> units to bring the errant train safely to a halt without
>>> damaging/destroying either train or buffers, or in this case both.
>>
>> I have wondered how the US gets away with only having couplers on their
>> trains and no buffers meaning in a collision or even just during marshalling
>> the couplers have to take all the force which can't be ideal.
>
>The Janney coupler used in N.America was introduced about 125 years
>ago, so if there was a problem with it, that would have long ago become
>apparent.

Well there's one obvious problem with it - you can't lose shunt.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 11:51:37 +0200
> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-06-16 15:35:04 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:21:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Bearing in mind the preponderance on the network of modern multiple units
>>>> fitted with centre couplers, surely your argument should be that the depot
>>>> should be fitted with appropriate, modern buffer stops which have a
>>>> standard fitment to interlock with the centre coupler, and sliding friction
>>>> units to bring the errant train safely to a halt without
>>>> damaging/destroying either train or buffers, or in this case both.
>>>
>>> I have wondered how the US gets away with only having couplers on their
>>> trains and no buffers meaning in a collision or even just during marshalling
>>> the couplers have to take all the force which can't be ideal.
>>
>> The Janney coupler used in N.America was introduced about 125 years
>> ago, so if there was a problem with it, that would have long ago become
>> apparent.
>
> Well there's one obvious problem with it - you can't lose shunt.

Doesn’t stop them doing hump shunting.

Sam

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

On 16/06/2022 16:55, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:21:46 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Bearing in mind the preponderance on the network of modern multiple units
>>> fitted with centre couplers, surely your argument should be that the depot
>>> should be fitted with appropriate, modern buffer stops which have a
>>> standard fitment to interlock with the centre coupler, and sliding friction
>>> units to bring the errant train safely to a halt without
>>> damaging/destroying either train or buffers, or in this case both.
>>
>> I have wondered how the US gets away with only having couplers on their
>> trains and no buffers meaning in a collision or even just during marshalling
>> the couplers have to take all the force which can't be ideal.
>
> The couplers are designed to take the entire loading force, tension and
> compression.
>
> It's a better solution overall than two hooks, a bit of chain and some
> slippery springy things.

Due to the narrow gauge railways we mostly visit in North Wales still having
COVID restricted timetables, we had a bit more variety this year, and it was
interesting comparing couplings. The Norwegian chopper coupling is easier to
couple and uncouple, but requires a more careful approach by the locomotive
and gives a bigger jolt to the rolling stock. I was surprised to see
buffered locos approaching carriages without anyone giving careful distance
indications, which is necessary with the chopper couplings, partly because
they have to be manually aligned before the final bump.