AlterEgo
Veteran Member
I would have used the four letters more wisely than that.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Train uncoupled at Leeds
- Thread starter Bantamzen
- Start date
- Status
I would have used the four letters more wisely than that.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TheSel
Member
Would have been better if they HAD detained themselves. DeTRained, perhaps? 
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Detaining or detraining?
westcoaster
Established Member
Is it an auto bsi coupler on a 150 instead of a fixed bar coupling, between coavhes.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Well according to the Yorkshire Post this evening they walked to platform 7!! They must have got lost en route...
Yes, believe northern were/are plannig on changing this to rigid bar couplers at some point..
Again on social media, there has been quite a bit of speculation. One consensus is that they are being converted as part of the overhaul whilst others reckon the coupler on the inside connection looks like a BSI *from the photo*
185143
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 4,546
You mean like the Sandhills signallers did on Boxing Day 2016 when 507002 was in the dirt at Kirkdale...?
'OOPS'
Chris M
Member
Perfectly plausible - part of the journey would just have been via the passenger footbridge at the station.Well according to the Yorkshire Post this evening they walked to platform 7!! They must have got lost en route...
Yeah northern's 150's are BSI in the middle with the exception of the 150's they currently have in service that have come from GWR. Quite worrying when you look at some in a platform and can basically see the locking arm held in by what basically looks like a jubilee clip..
Like I said I know the plan is for them all to be rigid bar rather than BSI but Northern don't exactly seem to be in a hurry Doug anything at present...
Really?
pdq
Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 805
It's made it onto Look North (or their FB page, at least): Carriages described as 'partially separated'.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
They can’t both be correct. The railway is very hot on “one version of the truth”, so someone’s used the wrong delay reason there.
The ordinary person would, in general, understand why a train becoming uncoupled would be an incident.
High Dyke
Established Member
Oh so that's the replacement Northern stock... At least it has more access doors than a pacer.
It's now got one at the end as well!Oh so that's the replacement Northern stock... At least it has more access doors than a pacer.
I think what you mean is that there has been a recent attempt to be 'hot' on this, after being rather lukewarm on it for years, with varying degrees of success. Journey check and NRE still often report rather different things.
High Dyke
Established Member
Eccles1983
On Moderation
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 841
They are both correct.
An incident has happened due to a fault with a part of the train.
And a layman wont always know what a coupler does in relation to the delay. As was proven when I was asked at man vic "why dont they just put them back together" when I explained that a coupler had failed.
And before working on the railway I wouldnt of known why a coupler failure is significant.
A train fault or incident would of been sufficent.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
You can't please everyone. However much detail you go into, there will be plenty of people dissatisfied. Some prefer to know all the nitty-gritty about an incident (either to be better informed or just plain nosy, or else) while others hate details and prefer to just be told in the simplest form, and/or an estimate of how long the delay is likely. Some others just don't really care. (Yes, these people do exist.)
There is no correct answer to this and I don't profess to know the solution. There are arguments for and against on both sides.
There is no correct answer to this and I don't profess to know the solution. There are arguments for and against on both sides.
Not my photo, but this pretty clearly shows what happened. I'd say it was just broken more than broken down, definitely more than 'partially seperated'!
Edit: Not sure of the provenence of this photo, this may be part of the recovery effort as other photos don't seem to show the units as being anywhere near as seperated.
Edit: Not sure of the provenence of this photo, this may be part of the recovery effort as other photos don't seem to show the units as being anywhere near as seperated.
Attachments
chrisdmadd
Member
Its a metal strap that stops any external forces interfering with the arm. Ran without them for many years but using that is a belt and braces idea.
So nothing worrying about it at all.
chrisdmadd
Member
That portion of the unit is being driven back to the station, theres a driver in the cab and EBS is raised, so clearly post incident.
The brakes will have stopped this unit a matter of feet apart.
I’ve corrected that for you there.
Chances are there will be some hurrying on the horizon now.
Anyone know where this comes from? It's not railway telegraph code, I think it might have come out of the armed forces at the time of national service or earlier.
GW43125
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,049
I always thought they could do with a few more 153s... 
I posted a link to the same photo and it was said this was mid-recovery
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
I'd guess the plan to reform some sets into 3-car units is probably one reason why replacing internal BSIs with bars hasn't been done yet. When the fleet plan was first announced there was mention on here of the 'boxed-in' /2 cabs being decommissioned and even removed, though that may have just been wibble. Has it been decided or made public which units will become 3-car yet?
Detrained, auto correct struck...!
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
As I’ve said, while they’re both descriptive, they cannot both be “canon”. The railway works hard to ensure only one delay reason is given from the outset where possible. Therefore one is not the agreed reason.
The “unofficial” reason given by TPE did not reference a coupler as a piece of equipment.
It said the train had become uncoupled. A layperson understands that trains are coupled together.
Of course you get people asking “why can’t they just couple them back together”, but hopefully this isn’t a difficult question to answer.
Of course if you just say “incident” then the obvious question is “what sort of incident then?”. Is it a bomb on a train? A train past a red signal? Someone thrown up in the loo? Driver fell asleep? What is the railway trying to hide?
In the modern era of social media and drone footage you are not going to be able to hide the truth from people. They will find it out. There’s already several pictures of the stricken unit on social media.
Usually the truth is very boring, as it was today. You may as well just give the truth to people rather than a sanitised standard boilerplate.
- Status