Sprinters - need to replace on safety grounds?

[AlastairFraser]

Or just shut the railway during October and November as it is too unsafe.

Why would you do that? The RHTT shouldn't be that hard to run - especially on a line like this with a version of ETCS. Maybe an upgraded automated version of the RHTT should be trialled here as a way to reduce costs in order to increase treatment frequency.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Why would you do that?

I think you've missed the sarcasm in the quoted post, which is basically inferring that while it's important to be mindful of adhesion issues to prevent a repeat of this, we also need to be careful about not losing our heads too much to the point where we're hardly running any services despite it being perfectly safe to.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I think you've missed the sarcasm in the quoted post, which is basically inferring that while it's important to be mindful of adhesion issues to prevent a repeat of this, we also need to be careful about not losing our heads too much to the point where we're hardly running any services despite it being perfectly safe to.

I did spot it, I just think the idea that we should sacrifice safety stupid. There's a way to balance both safety and the need to serve passengers at the same time.

 

[Lurcheroo]

These ones are going to be replaced soon with 197s anyway, and Northern are progressing a 15x replacement programme. No doubt the cabs provide more protection, but are 197s any better in low adhesion?

A combination of the powered axles using a hydraulic retarded in the gearbox to provide braking force, the ability to select a fully variable amount of brake force (0-100%) and having sanding Available at all points of braking compared to the ‘stepped’ brake control of the sprinters and only having sanding in step 2 and above, as well as the 197’s having variable rate sanders compared to the 158’s fixed rate sanders, and finally a more advanced WSP system all add up to make them a bit more controllable.

 

[172007]

I did spot it, I just think the idea that we should sacrifice safety stupid. There's a way to balance both safety and the need to serve passengers at the same time.

Let's put this thread and comments into a road perspective.

All vehicles without forward radar wich autobrake the vehicle should be banned within 5 years including classic cars with owners recompensed with a token cash gesture form HM government

Or, in times of mist and fog or very heavy rain (say in the westher forecast) all cars without forward facing auto braking radar will be banned on the motorway network with ANPR to heavily fine non compliant vehicles.

It would reduce the amount of collisions and road injuries and deaths overnight. It's a winner.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Oct 2024 ==

Let's put this thread and comments into a road perspective.

All vehicles without forward radar wich autobrake the vehicle should be banned within 5 years including classic cars with owners recompensed with a token cash gesture form HM government

Or, in times of mist and fog or very heavy rain (say in the westher forecast) all cars without forward facing auto braking radar will be banned on the motorway network with ANPR to heavily fine non compliant vehicles.

It would reduce the amount of collisions and road injuries and deaths overnight. It's a winner.

You can't remove trains on ifs and buts just like you can't necessarily remove them from the Network due to the occasionall failing, what 2 in 30 years for 158's amd low adhesion

 

[AlastairFraser]

Let's put this thread and comments into a road perspective.

All vehicles without forward radar wich autobrake the vehicle should be banned within 5 years including classic cars with owners recompensed with a token cash gesture form HM government

Or, in times of mist and fog or very heavy rain (say in the westher forecast) all cars without forward facing auto braking radar will be banned on the motorway network with ANPR to heavily fine non compliant vehicles.

It would reduce the amount of collisions and road injuries and deaths overnight. It's a winner.

It's reasonable to expect that fitting of improved sanding systems to a small amount of older DMUs at least is within the UK railway industry's capability, while it is not reasonable to expect that forward facing radar linked to an autobraking system could be practically fitted to all vehicles over a short time period.

 

[duffield]

Would it be wrong of me to point out that if the damn lineside trees were cut down there wouldn’t be much of a problem in the first place?

Other posters have pointed out that even if you ignore environmental considerations, and somehow get round the land ownership problems (a lot of problem trees are on private land - imagine the expense of having to negotiate with the owners of hundreds of properties, and the difficulties of dealing with those who won't cooperate), you still have the issue that some of those "damn trees" may be holding embankments and cutting slopes together with their roots. Just chopping them down could result in some pretty disastrous consequences. Given the uncertain internal construction and condition of some of these structures and the variability of tree roots it may not even be possible to tell if removing the trees would destabilise a given structure or not until you do it. Very extensive, expensive and disruptive stabilisation work might be needed if you removed all the trees and even trying to put a figure on such works on a country wide basis would probably be pure speculation.

Of course some flat areas where the trees are on railway land may be good candidates for removal, but as a general solution I'd favour things like fitting decent sanders as likely to be more cost effective and quicker than any total, wholesale network-wide tree removal (which might not be either legally possible or permitted by the government anyhow).

 

[AlastairFraser]

Other posters have pointed out that even if you ignore environmental considerations, and somehow get round the land ownership problems (a lot of problem trees are on private land - imagine the expense of having to negotiate with the owners of hundreds of properties, and the difficulties of dealing with those who won't cooperate), you still have the issue that some of those "damn trees" may be holding embankments and cutting slopes together with their roots. Just chopping them down could result in some pretty disastrous consequences. Given the uncertain internal construction and condition of some of these structures and the variability of tree roots it may not even be possible to tell if removing the trees would destabilise a given structure or not until you do it. Very extensive, expensive and disruptive stabilisation work might be needed if you removed all the trees and even trying to put a figure on such works on a country wide basis would probably be pure speculation.

Of course some flat areas where the trees are on railway land may be good candidates for removal, but as a general solution I'd favour things like fitting decent sanders as likely to be more cost effective and quicker than any total, wholesale network-wide tree removal (which might not be either legally possible or permitted by the government anyhow).

Indeed, and as I pointed out before, even if you removed trees within the lineside boundary, leaves from a considerable distance outside can still be blown onto the railway.

 

[Trainbike46]

In the Netherlands, some of the passenger trains on known problem routes are fitted with with Sandite equipment, that leave a sand-metal-starch gel on the rails, which apparently help with grip for all trains on the route. Would such a solution be feasible in the UK for routes with known leaf-fall problems?

 

[AlastairFraser]

In the Netherlands, some of the passenger trains on known problem routes are fitted with with Sandite equipment, that leave a sand-metal-starch gel on the rails, which apparently help with grip for all trains on the route. Would such a solution be feasible in the UK for routes with known leaf-fall problems?

I believe most UK units currently operating on the network already have a version of this system - the issue is that the system's capacity to deal with continuous stretches of railway where leaf-fall is an issue is insufficient with the systems fitted to older units.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would it be wrong of me to point out that if the damn lineside trees were cut down there wouldn’t be much of a problem in the first place?

Chop all the trees down and you lose the structural integrity of the embankment. Tree roots are great at binding an embankment and they're also great at absorbing water from prolonged rainfall.

So you won't get wheelslides but you will get landslides. I'm not quite sure that's an improvement!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Bring back locomotive haulage, they're more sure-footed and cooler as an added bonus!

 

[Meerkat]

Chop all the trees down and you lose the structural integrity of the embankment. Tree roots are great at binding an embankment and they're also great at absorbing water from prolonged rainfall.

So you won't get wheelslides but you will get landslides. I'm not quite sure that's an improvement!

This isn’t true, certainly not in all cases/geologies.
For example IIRC trees suck water out of clay in the summer, but not in the winter, making expansion and shrinkage issues worse.
Isnt the ideal low scrub that binds the soil together without upsetting the underlying fill?