Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by Mag_seven, 17 May 2016.
Employers should "provide protection from falling objects" - for example, a heavy chain.
Well that is mental. Just wear a hard hat or something and be careful.
I should probably leave this, but I've done enough work for Health and Safety organisations to know: a) People get horribly injured at work so often it's not funny and b) The reasons are often completely banal and avoidable. Sorry, I'll get off my hobby horse.
I should point out that it is good practice to try and avoid sending fitters down below the coaches with hi-vis and helmets at the design stage; CAF have essentially designed the risk of injury out of the coupling with the use of Dellners (which also conveniently transfer the required ETS through the train without the need for connecting nearly as many jumper cables).
Besides, a hard hat is next to useless against a pair of buffers crushing an engineers' skull laterally.
The Dellners do not transfer the train supply on the sleepers. If they did, they wouldn't need ETH jumpers.
One point: the existing stock, Class 92s excepted, has auto-couplers as they have Buckeyes. The Class 73s did too before they were retro-fitted with Dellners. Only major difference is the air connections, which are presumably auto on the Dellners. It does beg the question why drop-head Buckeyes have not been fitted on the new stock with the Class 92s modified as well.
Can we talk about the locos on the loco thread, the coaching stock on the coaching stock thread and the showers, blankets and breakfast on the general wibble thread.
92044 on Carstairs tonight; 018 in Edinburgh for 1M16 so that leaves 028 for 1M11
92020 was out today with its Pantogtraph up paired with 92032 at Crewe, 032 had it's pan down
Both 020 and 032 had pans up coming out of the ETD into the station.
032’s was just down momentarily as the driver swapped pans on 032 to run the locos back to the ETD.
020’s first run on the mainline under her own power since April 2001!!
Ah ok, sorry, I only saw it for a few seconds, must have been the small amount of time it was down.
Will all the 92s in the CS pool receive the Midnight Deal livery?
Or even Midnight Teal.........
Other than 92006 at Brush only those locos that have received CS livery so far will be receiving it.
92014 off the garston car job 66787 now taken over.
Ran off on Saturday to Crewe... https://flic.kr/p/QxmsZt
Then to Wembley on Sunday where it's now on B Exam.
92010 on 1M16 was in bother overnight with loss of air at Beattock Summit; 90048 was made ready to assist but in the end wasn’t needed and the train is currently running about half an hour late around Shap.
That loco has failed twice in the past few weeks or so, something not right with it.
Was failed at Waverley last Wed night and Mon night and replaced by the Carstairs engine both times. Worked OK Thu and Sun night.
Signallers unusually generous to 1M16 and left if on the Fasts in front of a LIV-EUS Pendo (1R05) - arrived Euston 8L vs public timetable.
92020 has worked its first revenue-earning return trip since being reinstated. It ran light to Garston Car Terminal Yesterday to work the empty cartic wagons down to Dagenham on 6L48: https://flic.kr/p/RpimT6
It then worked back to Garston overnight with the loaded train on 6X41: https://flic.kr/p/T2pS6u (pic by TimboM)
The aforementioned 92006 has today been released from Brush and was hauled to Crewe H.S. from where it should undergo some test runs over the next few days.
And here she is... and yes, that is 92006 moving under her own power on the mainline for the first time in 13 years after panning up first time and booting up without so much as a grumble.
Great video tim whats the next plans for it a run out on the cars soon?
Test runs to start with - all being well will be out on the WCML over the coming days. Stafford and/or Preston are possibitlies for tomorrow.
May not get to go on the cars as last I heard there was an issue with the diesel shunter at Dagenham, so needs to be 66s so they can go into the sidings themselves and haul their own trains out.
So there's a chance it may go direct to the Beds once its "passed" its testing.
92033 in teal livery was stabled at Preston in the RES sidings yesterday morning. Any ideas why?
Awaiting collection by 006 very shortly...
It’ll then go to Crewe (with 006) for some TLC and also to act as insurance for the 006 test runs (not that 006 seems to need bay so far).
Don’t think my question deserves a new thread:
In the failed CS brakes thread I’ve read multiple times that a running brake test wouldn’t probably have pointed the problem out since when doing it Class 92 applies its rheostatic brake. Simple question: can’t the driver apply air-brakes force only? Even better, like we do down here, apply only the coaches air brakes excluded those of the loco? Thanks
92, as is common on all ex BR AC locos you can isolate the rheostatic brake (and/or re-gen though not used) or not. That’s a depot, fault finding or prep job.
When driving you then have the auto air brake which is loco and any trailing vehicles. In the case of the loco brake it will be rheostatic blended with friction as required, especially at low speed where the current drops off.
In addition there is the loco straight air brake, which as it says is loco friction brake only.
Why is re-gen not used?
92s can do this, but (if at all) only when working HS1/Tunnel.
There's no re-gen when running on Network Rail - my assumption would be that the OHLE / power supplies aren't set up to cope with it (or at least no-one wanted to spend the money on ensuring it was / taking the risk if it wasn't).
Surely the OHLE is set up to cope with all the other train types that use regen braking though?
Surely the WCML can cope with a 92 as they have Pendolini regenerating - or do they not?