Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by jfollows, 10 Feb 2020.
Not a lot worse. Across Castlefield Junction on the eastbound line would probably beat it, though.
Had the MA failed at Crewe it wouldn’t have been able to get far. And unless 319s differ from 455 etc..then you can’t get traction power without an MA.
by putting another 319 on the back or front it should have been able to assist the failed unit easily. 455s would select back to the good unit to get limited power in order to get off the line.
With 319s you can get power without the MA set running but you are on seriously borrowed time as the battery charge for control circuits diminishes. They tried to assist it with a 323 but the two types are are only electrically compatible in a degraded way, they can't run in multiple in normal working. 323s have assisted 319s before occasionally, or vice versa, but this is probably the first time a 323 has assisted a 319 with no MA set and the low battery volts protection activated.
And yes I suspect you are right, another 319 assisting rather than the 323 should've been able to provide the control feed to allow the unit to be driven normally once coupled. By rights a 323 should too but for some reason didn't.
One might think a railway that gave a toss would have all the combinations of failure and their implications to rescue in a table and have tested them.
I've been evacuated twice on SBB metals, once onto the local rescue train that lives at Brugg AG (the train couldn't move, unfortunately the incident was a fatality) and once on the Gotthard line onto an adjacent IR over the ballast after a Cisalpino disgraced itself in a tunnel. The other time I've been involved in an incident was when an RE460 decided to sit down just outside Winterthur and the rescue train dragged the train back into the station after the loco was uncoupled. There we stayed on the train but the internal doors released once the power went off.
I also know people who have self evacuated over the ballast at Brugg depot after falling asleep on the last S12 of the day. Again, once the train was shut down the doors could be opened from inside.
Simple question; have you ever been trapped in a crowded confined space for three hours or more without toilet facilities or refreshments?
More complicated? To hear some of the industry defenders on this thread you'd think that a failed unit 400 yards from one of the UK's major stations was the most complicated situation imaginable.
"They manage to achieve in their very challenging terrain what the UK rail industry fails dismally at in their less challenging terrain" doesn't sound like a great defence of the UK rail industry.
Simple answer, yes.
Someone else that thinks you can just turn off one of the busiest sections of tracks in the region without serious effect. I have covered all this earlier, so please refer to my earlier posts.
I will say one thing though, this isn't about rail industry versus passengers. This is about trying to wrap your understanding around the complexity of dealing with what would be a difficult and lengthy process. Knee jerk reactivity need not apply.
Tell me, do they manage quick evacs every time? Do they never run into problems? Do things never take longer than expected?
I'm going to say to everyone getting bent out of shape over how this was handled, if you honestly believe you could do this better what are you doing here? Clearly there are opportunities in the industry for you to prove yourselves. Don't sit behind your screen frantically typing your annoyance, get out there and make a difference if you feel you can.
This is a pathetic cop-out. I don't think I could do it any better, but when people are being stranded for this length of time, I almost certainly couldn't do it any worse.
I'm a computer programmer by profession. If one of the programs I write does something wrong, I fix it. I don't ask my customers if they could do any better, because that would be exactly the kind of industry versus customer attitude that you claim this isn't. You shouldn't be asking "Could you do any better?", you should be asking "Could we do any better?" The attitude displayed by the industry appears to be one of utter complacency, with any suggestion from people not claiming to be experts being batted away with "Nah, too difficult."
Even where in other countries it isn't too difficult.
Frankly, if we can afford HS2 (sorry!) we can afford Swiss style levels of contingency.
When I started my apprenticeship in the late 70's, the maintenance foreman, (who was a very clever hands-on engineer approaching retirement) had a saying which I've never forgot:
"Can't means don't want"
To rephrase one of the questions asked by the anti-HS2s, is there any length of time that the industry defenders consider unacceptable for passengers to be trapped on a stranded train?
What has any of that got to do with this incident? You talk about kop outs then try to compare your job with dealing with evoking of a contingency plan. For your information I have had some first hand experience with a similar situation, being trapped on a train for over three hours. And having talked to staff directly dealing with I understand that each & every incident has to be dealt with based on the exact circumstances. It is not like patching your buggy code, not even remotely like it.
The rescue of this train was not made a priority. There lies the problem.
It's a pity Grant Shapps was not a passenger, but then again it would not have left the depot in such a state of disrepair.
The cop-out is the constant retort that it's going to be very hard to treat the trapped passengers any better, so why even bother? Even when it's pointed out that a railway that you yourself say is built in much more challenging train has a target of getting customers off a stranded terrain within an hour, your response is along the lines of "Well, do they have a 100% success rate? If not, what's the point of even trying?"
And no, I'm not saying my job is directly comparable. One significant difference is that if my attitude to my customers was anything like the railway's attitude to its customers then I'd be signing on tomorrow.
Do you know that for certain? The moment it's failure was reported I'm sure plans were underway for its rescue. However, as I keep repeating, those in charge have to weigh up all the options. Sure, they could have shut the job down straight away, got staff out and evacuated. But what do you do with all the other trains? What if other passengers started to self-evac? What do you do with all the arriving passengers from the city centre? These all have to be considerations, because one decision can lead to a chain of events that worsens the situation.
Where did I say there is no point trying? You are not reading what I am saying, or possibly not wanting to.
It was heavily implied by
Or did that particular bit of passive-agression have no real point?
You have completely missed the point. Just because SBB have a number of rescue units that are planned to reach failed units in half an hour does not mean that they will evac in that time, or even use them for that purpose. It is entirely possible, depending on the circumstances for evacs to take far longer.
That was my point.
When a thread degenerates to a small group having an argument that can never be resolved, is it time to agree to disagree and move on? Or will it eventually end up like the for/against HS2 at 180+ pages, which I gave up looking at months ago?
Yes, but that is of little to any relevance to my question, which I note you and the other complainant have continuously failed to answer.
Even as a simple signaller I can assure you that it isn't as simple as you think.
Agreed, so long as I am right...
(This is of course a joke, of course I am right... )
The number of variations due to too numerous variables would be too large.
The saying "You can tell a Yorkshireman, but you can't tell him much" comes to mind. Thank goodness for a sense of humour coming in.
Well I am from Yorkshire, though I was born in Liverpool. Oh, wait that makes it worse...