Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 17:35 28 Mar 2024
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Passengers pleaded with knifeman during attack
* Family anger at sentence on fatal crash driver, 19
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1917)
Bideford, Westward Ho! and Appledore closed (link)

Train RunningCancelled
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
Short Run
14:49 Plymouth to Cardiff Central
15:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:15 Plymouth to London Paddington
15:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
15:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:30 London Paddington to Taunton
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
Delayed
12:15 Penzance to London Paddington
13:59 Cardiff Central to Penzance
14:15 Penzance to London Paddington
14:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
14:36 London Paddington to Paignton
15:03 London Paddington to Penzance
16:03 London Paddington to Penzance
Additional 17:17 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 17:52:12 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[133] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[132] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[53] Return of the BRUTE?
[44] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[41] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[32] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Class 150/1 Revenue Protection  (Read 17883 times)
phile
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1382

Language spoken Welsh as well as English


View Profile Email
« on: July 16, 2011, 10:01:07 »

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

Recently I travelled on 14 00 Cardiff to Taunton formed by 153 (leading) and 150/1 (rear), sitting in the 153 with no Revenue Protection, the Conductor in the 150/1 at the rear, of course.
Logged
northwesterntrains
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 324


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2011, 10:57:23 »

The same thing happens on Northern, TPE (Trans Pennine Express) and LM (London Midland - recent franchise).  Sometimes there's an additional conductor in the front unit, who's just checking and selling tickets - other times it's just the conductor in the rear.  With Northern they usually throw people out of the rear unit and lock it out-of-use if the service gets quieter later on.  One conductor did that on a service I was travelling on once, which was a 2.25 hour journey being operated by a 142+156 and he threw everyone off the 156 on to the 142.  Angry
Logged
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4574


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2011, 11:45:35 »

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

Doesn't that constitute torture!
Logged
inspector_blakey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3574



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2011, 18:17:04 »

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

I can only assume that the difference is accounted for by the passcom system - it's a passenger/driver intercom on the turbo fleet and a straight brake application on the 'west' DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) stock. However as noted by the RAIB (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) in a report dealing with a passenger being trapped in a train door (so just for the record it's out there in the public domain already), if anyone activates the emergency door release on a moving turbo that will directly elicit an full brake application.
Logged
vacman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2530


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2011, 22:25:17 »

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

In Exeter more RPI (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context))'s and ATE's were taken on last year due to the introduction of 150/1's.
Logged
Worcester_Passenger
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1702


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2011, 06:10:46 »

The same thing happens on Northern, TPE (Trans Pennine Express) and LM (London Midland - recent franchise).  Sometimes there's an additional conductor in the front unit, who's just checking and selling tickets - other times it's just the conductor in the rear.  With Northern they usually throw people out of the rear unit and lock it out-of-use if the service gets quieter later on.  One conductor did that on a service I was travelling on once, which was a 2.25 hour journey being operated by a 142+156 and he threw everyone off the 156 on to the 142.  Angry
I've had a similar experience on Northern. A 142+153, with the 153 locked out of use. Fortunately not such a long journey (Lancaster to Skipton - 1:15). Not that the conductor did any of this "checking and selling tickets" of which you speak!
Logged
Super Guard
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1308


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2011, 18:05:43 »

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

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

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

Any opinions made on this forum are purely personal and my own.  I am in no way speaking for, or offering the views of First Great Western or First Group.

If my employer feels I have broken any aspect of the Social Media Policy, please PM me immediately, so I can rectify without delay.
Maxwell P
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 116



View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2011, 09:38:40 »

Interesting posts ref guards in front sets on non gangwayed multiple unit trains.  Further west, instructions are that guards must work trains from rear unit and that 'train hopping' is specifically prohibited.  This is ostensibly to minimise risk if units become divided, enabling guards to apply brakes in the rear unit.
Logged
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2754



View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2011, 20:03:51 »

i think we have been here with the pacers several times on the forum, shame its such a pain to swap them around as a 4 car set made up of a 150/2 between a split 150/1 would fix that, mind you would that mean rewiring like on 153999
Logged
Maxwell P
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 116



View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2011, 09:43:39 »

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

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

Now that the 150/1 series is being fitted with intermediate door key panels, they are as easy to work for a guard as the 150/2s.  In some ways, they are better, drop light in the vestibule and bigger cabs for example. The problem arises when these sets run in multiple. No matter how guards are instructed to work, there will always be scope for fare avoidance and/or anti social behaviour in such cases.
Logged
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18894



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2011, 10:15:51 »

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

Unless there's a guard and an ATE.
Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
Maxwell P
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 116



View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2011, 09:43:17 »

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

Unless there's a guard and an ATE.

ATEs are rarer than Argyle victories.
Logged
inspector_blakey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3574



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2011, 14:58:06 »

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

I understand the logic here, but given that passenger trains have all been legally required since the late 1800s to have a continuous brake which will apply automatically on both portions in the event of a train division, isn't that a little unnecessary? Wink
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2011, 15:07:44 »


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

I agree the brake issue seems a little far fetched.  It does mean that their is a staff member in each portion though to help passengers and/or protect the line if a train is devided.  Units do detach from each other from time to time. 
Logged
inspector_blakey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3574



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2011, 15:20:10 »

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

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

It seems like a deeply illogical rule IMHO (in my humble opinion).
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page