|
bobm
|
 |
« on: September 14, 2015, 07:02:33 am » |
|
Sunday night's 17:07 from Manchester Piccadilly to Plymouth has spent the night at Dawlish after a large wave disabled the electrics just before 21:45.
Attempts to move it by using another Voyager on a service from Glasgow didn't succeed after the brakes couldn't be released on the original train.
Passengers were eventually evacuated around 02:00.
Engineers have managed a temporary repair and it is hoped to get the train back to Exeter shortly. In the meantime there have been some alterations to stopping services between Exeter and Newton Abbot.
I knew my ^5.90 First Class advance from Teignmouth to Plymouth on the failed train was too good to be true!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TaplowGreen
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2015, 08:53:47 am » |
|
..............is this an example of "train surfing" which I've been hearing about?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2015, 09:09:40 am » |
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 09:32:46 am by grahame »
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2015, 09:17:54 am » |
|
Not sure of the relevance to XC▸ /Dawlish in that post Graham :-)
Some paths to tweedbank have been allocated to exceursion trains in the first two weeks? of the new timetable, after which the full timetable is being run.
Now, maybe these posts can be moved to the right thread? :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2015, 09:29:33 am » |
|
Not sure of the relevance to XC▸ /Dawlish in that post Graham :-)
Some paths to tweedbank have been allocated to exceursion trains in the first two weeks? of the new timetable, after which the full timetable is being run.
Now, maybe these posts can be moved to the right thread? :-)
Yeah ... looks like a finger error on my part. I'll re-post up north! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2015, 12:46:06 pm » |
|
I suppose being all electronic controls they don't have "Strings" to release the brakes and move unfitted. Progress.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2015, 09:00:12 pm » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 6248
The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2015, 09:15:56 pm » |
|
The railway equivalent of the Dubious Goals Panel, with a touch of the Monty Python. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Now, please!
|
|
|
|
Western Pathfinder
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2015, 10:09:47 pm » |
|
The railway equivalent of the Dubious Goals Panel, with a touch of the Monty Python. Time to invoke the Duckworth Lewis rule maybe !. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2015, 10:36:28 pm » |
|
The railway equivalent of the Dubious Goals Panel, with a touch of the Monty Python. When there's lots of money changing hands, these are the desperate (and rather sad for the maturity and integrity of the industry in my opinion) lengths that parties involved will go to. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2015, 11:01:45 pm » |
|
So what Ingress Protection (IP) rating is a the electrical equipment on a train supposed to have?
IP66 should have made it resistant to heavy seas or strong jets of water which would seem to be the minimum for a train.
The next step up would be IP67 housing which should have resisted temporary immersion.
However, something tells me that they are probably only protected to IP65 - protection from low pressure water jets from all directions.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2015, 12:45:41 pm » |
|
Its the *salt* that is the problem I think
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2015, 09:49:43 pm » |
|
Its the *salt* that is the problem I think
But surely if the water cannot get in nor can the salt that is in solution. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JayMac
|
|
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2015, 09:59:24 pm » |
|
I think the salt content is irrelevant. If a couple thousand gallons of fresh water splashed over a 220/221 roof the set would still do a 'computer says no'.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
a-driver
|
|
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2015, 11:59:38 pm » |
|
I think the salt content is irrelevant. If a couple thousand gallons of fresh water splashed over a 220/221 roof the set would still do a 'computer says no'.
Voyagers run through the train wash at depots which includes roof jets and it doesn't cause a problem. I know it's not the same volume but it is still a substantial amount of water at high pressure The only modification they've had done to date I think is just a software update which should have resulted in only the affected engines shutting down. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
