Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 19:35 28 Mar 2024
* Easter getaways hit by travel disruption
- 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 (1992)
MOD Kineton tour, branch line society (*)

Train RunningCancelled
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
18:08 London Paddington to Frome
18:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
19:23 Reading to Gatwick Airport
19:24 Newbury to Bedwyn
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
19:35 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
19:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
20:16 Frome to Westbury
20:49 Newbury to Bedwyn
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
21:16 Bedwyn to Newbury
21:53 Newbury to Bedwyn
22:25 Bedwyn to Newbury
22:47 Newbury to Bedwyn
Short Run
15:03 London Paddington to Penzance
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 London Paddington to Plymouth
17:50 Gloucester to Salisbury
18:19 Reading to Gatwick Airport
18:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
18:54 Reading to Gatwick Airport
18:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
19:04 Paignton to London Paddington
19:06 London Paddington to Bedwyn
19:13 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
19:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
20:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
20:42 Bedwyn to London Paddington
21:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
Delayed
13:59 Cardiff Central to Penzance
14:15 Penzance to London Paddington
16:03 London Paddington to Penzance
16:15 Penzance to London Paddington
Additional 17:17 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
Additional 17:26 Castle Cary to Penzance
19:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
19:54 Reading to Gatwick Airport
19:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
23:04 Reading to Bedwyn
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, 19:45:11 *
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: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Class 150/1 Revenue Protection  (Read 17884 times)
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2754



View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2011, 18:29:13 »

the other point is that a single 2 car pacer split at newton abbott didnt it the other year? (even more rare) and what about trains with doo working in multiple
Logged
gaf71
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 305


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2011, 20:55:53 »

the other point is that a single 2 car pacer split at newton abbott didnt it the other year? (even more rare) and what about trains with doo working in multiple
No. They were split originally by the driver with the signallers permission, to try and sort out a coupling problem (I believe ). It was on the re-coupling, and the subsequent movement that the 'split' occurred.
Logged
gaf71
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 305


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2011, 20:57:35 »

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).
And an open end gangway door!
Logged
inspector_blakey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3574



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2011, 21:16:56 »

Good point.

Putting my devil's advocate hat on, taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the guard should never leave the rear car of any train to ensure that they will always be in the back portion should it divide...!
Logged
readytostart
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 607


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2011, 09:55:10 »

Good point.

Putting my devil's advocate hat on, taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the guard should never leave the rear car of any train to ensure that they will always be in the back portion should it divide...!

One issue no-one has mentioned (or if they have I have scanned over) is the issue of PassComms. Should a PCA be activated in a multiple unit formation (where it's activation will solicit an immediate brake application) and there is a through gangway connection then the guard will be able to reach it and reset allowing a brake release. Should it happen in the rear portion of a formation with no gangway connection then the guard is potentially at risk by needing to go trackside to access the unit (and in theory should therefore take their entire kit including high visibility vest when swapping between units). Obviously if it is in the front portion then the driver will be able to reach it and reset. In more modern units then the driver has a available an over ride 'mushroom' or plunger which will allow them to override the brake application and stop the train in a more suitable place.
At XC (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) there are specific requirements for multiple units in passenger service, as there are certain alarms which are not relayed to the driver (such as call for aid points in the accessible toilets). Minimum staffing requirements are a Train Manager and any other member of staff trained to interrogate the Train Management System to find the location and take action on the activation of any alarm (usually a member of catering staff tho RPIs (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) have been used on occasion). If there are two such members of staff available and are located in different units then the Train Manager can 'hop' sets to carry out revenue duties as appropriate. If two Train Managers are present (which would be as rostered for a service booked a double set) then the guard would be in the rear unit and the assisting TM(resolve) in the front. If there is only one TM and no other suitable member of staff then one unit (usually the rear, depending on any reversals en-route) would need to be locked OOU (out of use).
Logged
Maxwell P
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 116



View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2011, 11:24:48 »

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).


For my part I was guilty of an over-simplification in my OP (Original Poster / topic starter). The following is a moderately technical explanation which goes part way towards explaining the rule. 


Firstly, the physical barrier presented by non-gangwayed stock means that some local authorities prefer a guard in the trailing set to cope with any unforeseen circumstances.  As such, there will be a train crew member in each portion of the train. I should however emphasise that current safety features are tried and proven and that the positioning of guards is an 'extra layer' as it were.

For example, unit doors are so wired that brake release cannot be obtained until all are shut. (TIS(resolve) or Traction Interlock Switch). Similarly, should a door open in traffic, the train will be brought to a halt.  This can be bypassed when dealing with faults that would otherwise incapacitate a train.  When the TIS is isolated, brake release can be obtained without doors being closed and doors can open in traffic without the train being halted.  In such cases, the guard will need to make sure that all doors are held closed by air pressure following every stop. The driver would do this in leading unit and the guard in the trailing portion.


In another scenario:-

In normal circumstances, an electrical circuit, (Train Wire) runs around the train, passing through the various train brake circuits and the handles in each cab.  The Train Wire draws power from the rearmost battery in the trailing vehicle.  Break the circuit, (perhaps by division of the train) and brakes are activated throughout ALL portions of the train.  (Activation of the Passcomm also breaks the circuit so stopping the train). So far so good.

However, there are very rare fault-based occurrences which permit drivers to isolate this system.  Rules state that pax must be evacuated from rear unit if practicable, (difficult, dangerous and not a viable option with non gangwayed stock when not platformed).  The guard must then ride in the leading cab of the trailing unit to apply the handbrake, should the train divide, as the train wire has in effect, been 'switched off.'  Thus, all remotely controlled brake handles, (normally 'live' for emergency brake application), are rendered inoperative, excepting that in the cab from which the train is being driven

Obviously in above circumstances, the train would be taken out of service at the first practicable location.

I totally empathise with Inspector Blakey's viewpoint ref interconnected units though and cannot offer a better explanation. I can only surmise that a guard in the rear unit is viewed as a means of maximising the benefits of an already considerable safety system.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 12:11:31 by Maxwell P » Logged
phile
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1382

Language spoken Welsh as well as English


View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2011, 17:14:20 »

We seem to have gone off the original issue, but I was wondering if there were any services that were actually diagrammed for 150/1 coupled to another unit.   I appreciate it is easy to deviate from the actual thread but, all the same. the points raised have been interesting.
Logged
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2754



View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2011, 18:28:57 »

well its inevitable i would imagine as it was/is with the pacers
Logged
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17865


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2011, 01:05:15 »

The occasional 'repetition, hesitation or deviation' is not necessarily a transgression on this forum, phile!  Wink Cheesy

I agree: this topic has developed into a very interesting debate about some wider related issues - and that's just what the Coffee Shop forum is all about!

CfN.  Grin
Logged

William Huskisson MP (Member of Parliament) was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830.  Many more have died in the same way since then.  Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.

"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner."  Discuss.
phile
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1382

Language spoken Welsh as well as English


View Profile Email
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2011, 08:47:57 »

HelloChris E.   Comments accepted and apologise if gone too far.
Logged
vacman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2530


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2011, 13:16:37 »

We seem to have gone off the original issue, but I was wondering if there were any services that were actually diagrammed for 150/1 coupled to another unit.   I appreciate it is easy to deviate from the actual thread but, all the same. the points raised have been interesting.
the 150/1's are diagrammed as a "150" along with the 150/2's and there are plenty of 150+150 diagrams (StIves for example), plenty of 150+153 diagrams, plenty of 14x+14x diagrams, there is even a saturdays 14x+150 diagram and numerous 14x+153 diagrams so the answer is yes  Grin
Logged
Sprog
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 109


View Profile Email
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2011, 13:54:10 »


 For my part I was guilty of an over-simplification in my OP (Original Poster / topic starter). The following is a moderately technical explanation which goes part way towards explaining the rule. 


Firstly, the physical barrier presented by non-gangwayed stock means that some local authorities prefer a guard in the trailing set to cope with any unforeseen circumstances.  As such, there will be a train crew member in each portion of the train. I should however emphasise that current safety features are tried and proven and that the positioning of guards is an 'extra layer' as it were.

For example, unit doors are so wired that brake release cannot be obtained until all are shut. (TIS(resolve) or Traction Interlock Switch). Similarly, should a door open in traffic, the train will be brought to a halt.  This can be bypassed when dealing with faults that would otherwise incapacitate a train.  When the TIS is isolated, brake release can be obtained without doors being closed and doors can open in traffic without the train being halted.  In such cases, the guard will need to make sure that all doors are held closed by air pressure following every stop. The driver would do this in leading unit and the guard in the trailing portion.


In another scenario:-

In normal circumstances, an electrical circuit, (Train Wire) runs around the train, passing through the various train brake circuits and the handles in each cab.  The Train Wire draws power from the rearmost battery in the trailing vehicle.  Break the circuit, (perhaps by division of the train) and brakes are activated throughout ALL portions of the train.  (Activation of the Passcomm also breaks the circuit so stopping the train). So far so good.

However, there are very rare fault-based occurrences which permit drivers to isolate this system.  Rules state that pax must be evacuated from rear unit if practicable, (difficult, dangerous and not a viable option with non gangwayed stock when not platformed).  The guard must then ride in the leading cab of the trailing unit to apply the handbrake, should the train divide, as the train wire has in effect, been 'switched off.'  Thus, all remotely controlled brake handles, (normally 'live' for emergency brake application), are rendered inoperative, excepting that in the cab from which the train is being driven

Obviously in above circumstances, the train would be taken out of service at the first practicable location.

I totally empathise with Inspector Blakey's viewpoint ref interconnected units though and cannot offer a better explanation. I can only surmise that a guard in the rear unit is viewed as a means of maximising the benefits of an already considerable safety system.
/

Almost there, but you are using the wrong termonology and wrong operating princicapals.

The train wires, of which there are 42 on DMUs (Diesel Multiple Unit), are resonsible for through-control in a multiple-unit formation, wether there are two vehicles or ten. The train wires (TWs) are passed between vehicles via the autocoupler contact boxes as found on the driving or cab ends of DMU vehicles, or by 42-way jumpers and recepticles, as found on the intermeidiate or non-driving ends of DMU vehicles.

Each trainwire is invidually numbered and has a singal use, except the lights on/off TWs, which are also used to transmitting PA (Public Address) signals, and several are spare or nt=ot used. As you correctly state, the logic of the trainwires is that the rear vehcile of an electrcially joined multiple-unit formation provides the feeds through the trainwires.

Now lets adress the errors!

The TIS (traction interlock switch) is a normally sealed switch that enables the   Traction Interlock circuit on the vehicle in question to be overridden, allowing traction power to be obtained despite the loss of interlock either through a fault or a door not being able to be shut properly.

Traction Interlock is TW36 and passes through only two relays per vehicle which make/break the trainwire depending on the state of the inerlock on that individual vehicle.

Brake release is determined by TW4 'Brake Continuity', which relies on several crucial interlocks, including suffcient air pressure to control brakes (Main Resovoir Governor), correct coupling of both of the vehicles autocouplers (through a microswitchs operated by the movment of the coupling pin and a couple-proving relay), Drivers brake controller (if the brake controller in any cab in a unit formation is put into Emergancy, brake continuity is broken) and a couple of other switches and relays.

The electrcial systems interconnecting with the trainwires are often very complex and practifcally fail-safe, for example, Operating a Passcom for example does not directly break TW4, but instead breaks a circuit that deenergises a relay called PER (Passenger Emergancy Relay) that then brakes TW4 and thus removess brake continuity and gives an emergancy brake application.

Like the TIS for the traction circuit, there is also an override availiable for the brake continuity circuit, called an EBS (Emergency Bypass Switch) (Emergacny Bypass Switch). This is a get out of jail switch that can be operated in the event of a fault conditon or TW4 fault that prevents brake release. Operating this flag switch in the driving cab, removes the main function of the trainwire, and renders the brake controllers in other cabs, the Passscoms and the coupling interlocks redundant, but still retains the MRG (Main Resovoir Govorner) protection so that the brakes cannot be released if there is not suffceint air pressure to re-apply them.

I must emphasis that the EBS is what its name states, an emergancy last resort and as the OP correctly stated, there are specific conditions in which the EBS and also the TIS can be operated on a mainline service train and strict procedures that must be followed by the traincrew while the EBS/TIS is operated, such as sagain the OP has given examples of.

Hope this expliand things a litte bit and i have not chucked too much technical stuff in.
Logged
Sprog
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 109


View Profile Email
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2011, 14:20:48 »

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.

There is no technical reason why a 150/1 could be split in half and a 150/2 set placed betewen the vehicles. All of the units have an 'emergency' 42-way jumper recepticle on the cab end (Drivers side), that the 42-way jumper on the non cab-end would simply plug into making an electrcially coupled formation. The only issue preventing it happening today would be that the majority of FGW (First Great Western) 150/2s have had this front 42-way disconnected as they have been the cause of electrcial faults in the past caused by water ingress due to never being used and being exposed to harsh conditions, but these are easily replaceable & reconnectable with a day spent on depot. We had to do eaxactly the same process to the 158s when they were made 3-car units. That is the beauty of DMUs (Diesel Multiple Unit), they can just keep being banged together as long as they are all working ok.

The same applies for 153999, which is a hybrid formation of a 153 and half of 150221 that was unaffected by the fire it suffered at Plymouth. The 150/2 vehicle is simply coupled to the 153 and then the 42-way jumper plugged into the 'emergency' recepticle on the cab front. As the 153 fleet belongs to Exeter, i am not sure if the 153s have had their 42-way receptices disconnected aswell, but it may have been replaced before the vehicles were joined, or the 153 specifically choosen as the 42-way was still connected & working.

The only downside to running multiple unit formations around in this fashion is thagt there is only one 42-way jumper between semi-permaently coupled vehicles, insteasd of the usual two (one per side), so 50% redundancy is instantly lost in the event of damge to the jumper, however 158/3s carry an extra-long emergency jumper which allows the opposite recepticle to be used in the event of a fault, although this is rare. 153999 may have a similiar arrangment.

Personally i would split a few of our 150/2s and place single cars in between the 150/1s, making 3-car suburban/short distance units with extra capacity but without loosing too much flexibility. This has been done sucessfully by LM (London Midland - recent franchise) for 10 years plus.

Logged
phile
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1382

Language spoken Welsh as well as English


View Profile Email
« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2011, 17:21:09 »

Hello Vacman.   You say that 150/1s and 150/2s are diagrammed as just 150s.    There was a post on another Forum in May at start of Summer Timetable by a member who claimed to have seen the FGW (First Great Western) May Diagrams and quoted the routes over which 150/1s and 150/2s separately were diagrammed to work over.    Or perhaps do you mean that the two are merely treated as just 150s when allocated to Diagrams.
Logged
Maxwell P
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 116



View Profile Email
« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2011, 12:54:52 »


 For my part I was guilty of an over-simplification in my OP (Original Poster / topic starter). etc etc yada yada

Almost there, but you are using the wrong termonology and wrong operating princicapals.

The train wires, of which there are 42 on DMUs (Diesel Multiple Unit), are resonsible for through-control in a multiple-unit formation, wether there are two vehicles or ten. The train wires (TWs) are passed between vehicles via the autocoupler contact boxes as found on the driving or cab ends of DMU vehicles, or by 42-way jumpers and recepticles, as found on the intermeidiate or non-driving ends of DMU vehicles.

Each trainwire is invidually numbered and has a singal use, except the lights on/off TWs, which are also used to transmitting PA (Public Address) signals, and several are spare or nt=ot used. As you correctly state, the logic of the trainwires is that the rear vehcile of an electrcially joined multiple-unit formation provides the feeds through the trainwires.

Now lets adress the errors!

The TIS(resolve) (traction interlock switch) is a normally sealed switch that enables the   Traction Interlock circuit on the vehicle in question to be overridden, allowing traction power to be obtained despite the loss of interlock either through a fault or a door not being able to be shut properly.

Traction Interlock is TW36 and passes through only two relays per vehicle which make/break the trainwire depending on the state of the inerlock on that individual vehicle.

Brake release is determined by TW4 'Brake Continuity', which relies on several crucial interlocks, including suffcient air pressure to control brakes (Main Resovoir Governor), correct coupling of both of the vehicles autocouplers (through a microswitchs operated by the movment of the coupling pin and a couple-proving relay), Drivers brake controller (if the brake controller in any cab in a unit formation is put into Emergancy, brake continuity is broken) and a couple of other switches and relays.

The electrcial systems interconnecting with the trainwires are often very complex and practifcally fail-safe, for example, Operating a Passcom for example does not directly break TW4, but instead breaks a circuit that deenergises a relay called PER (Passenger Emergancy Relay) that then brakes TW4 and thus removess brake continuity and gives an emergancy brake application.

Like the TIS for the traction circuit, there is also an override availiable for the brake continuity circuit, called an EBS (Emergency Bypass Switch) (Emergacny Bypass Switch). This is a get out of jail switch that can be operated in the event of a fault conditon or TW4 fault that prevents brake release. Operating this flag switch in the driving cab, removes the main function of the trainwire, and renders the brake controllers in other cabs, the Passscoms and the coupling interlocks redundant, but still retains the MRG (Main Resovoir Govorner) protection so that the brakes cannot be released if there is not suffceint air pressure to re-apply them.

I must emphasis that the EBS is what its name states, an emergancy last resort and as the OP correctly stated, there are specific conditions in which the EBS and also the TIS can be operated on a mainline service train and strict procedures that must be followed by the traincrew while the EBS/TIS is operated, such as sagain the OP has given examples of.

Hope this expliand things a litte bit and i have not chucked too much technical stuff in.

Any shortcomings in my post result from my inability to adequately paraphrase the basic technical paperwork that I have access to.  I was trying to come up with a reason for the particular method of working discussed above without sending most readers to sleep.  As such, I am indebted to the above poster for his errudite and much more in depth, (than I could have hoped to provide), explanation.
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