Stalled Freight On The Lickey [16/01]

[Jord]

I was reading the new issue of Railways Illustrated and come accross this (Shortened by me):

"Trouble on the Lickey as Ccoal train stalls"

On January 16th there was a Freight hauled by 66164 that "Stalled" on the Lickey while being banked by 66056, both drivers tried to get it moving but it in fact went backwards, 60092 (removed from 6M96, left in the Up Goods Loop at Bromsgrove) tried to push it from the rear but then it still slipped backwards, then 66214 was sent from Washwood Heath then the train reached Blackwell summit at 1620 - 444 minutes late.

I've not seen any other info on this so does anybody have any more info on what was wrong with 66164? or any pictures taken of it?

Also what exactly does "Stalled" mean, the same as when a car stalls the engine just shuts down? or just another way of saying "Failed".

Or why couldn't they just coast back down into the loop at the bottom of the incline where the Banker attatches?

Cheers, Jord

 

[westcoaster]

stalled means coming to a stand, maybe because of low rail adhesion so it was slipping , also the likey has catch/ spring points fitted so you can not go back unless these are clamped and secured out of use otherwise you will de-rail, thought it was a steel coil train involved.

 

[Jord]

Ah right ok,

In the write up from Pip Dunn he was on about Catch points, the train was actaully on the catch points but i didn't realise what they were.

 

[westcoaster]

had a look the train was a coal train and it slipped to a halt.

 

[Respite]

I was reading the new issue of Railways Illustrated and come accross this (Shortened by me):


what was wrong with 66164?

It had the prefix "66" thus was a shed!

Also what exactly does "Stalled" mean,

Usually stalled refers to slipping to a halt or trying to pull to much current through the traction motors & having to shut down to avoid massive damage to them.

why couldn't they just coast back down into the loop at the bottom of the incline where the Banker attatches?

That is almost as bad as the woman who complained that the driver of a train she was on should of seen the obstruction on the line & steered around it..........To sum it up, the rule book, our bible would have to be really brought into use for that move. A very complex situation having to put in wrong direction working just like that. MOM's may have needed to be brought out to clip up catch points (If there is any left there, railtrack had a habit of removing as much safety items as possible to save shareholders money.) Maybe another train was already at the next signal section behind & then what behind that.

 

[Nym]

It had the prefix "66" thus was a shed!

Usually stalled refers to slipping to a halt or trying to pull to much current through the traction motors & having to shut down to avoid massive damage to them.


That is almost as bad as the woman who complained that the driver of a train she was on should of seen the obstruction on the line & steered around it..........To sum it up, the rule book, our bible would have to be really brought into use for that move. A very complex situation having to put in wrong direction working just like that. MOM's may have needed to be brought out to clip up catch points (If there is any left there, railtrack had a habit of removing as much safety items as possible to save shareholders money.) Maybe another train was already at the next signal section behind & then what behind that.

Another train couldn't have been behind it though if they sent a 60 up after it, are there any cases where in near normal conditions a train cannot physicaly get up the hill from a stop? ie. Mass*g*Sin(Theta) > Maximum Tractive Effort?

Adding in bad conditions, and I've had this problem in BVE on a shed (not to say it's the same or anything but...) Letting the brakes off has a delay, as does the throttle and traction motors coming up, the timings are instinctive and you just have to know them. What gradient is it? and how many coal wagons would there have been on it? and how much do the coal wagons weigh? The're might just not have been enougb power in the 2 sheds to drag it up the bank in the first place, and they just built up enough momentum on the flatter part to get them up that first bit, then it run out....? Can happen, the Eurostar at full tilt could clim the eifel tower on momentum alone...

So it could have been any number of things, all I can say is that the tourque curves of somthing like 2 or 3 37s or 2 59s is a lot more suited to this kind of work, rather than the 66's lazy torque curve, everything is in higher revs on that thing! and you can't rev the fupp out of it before letting the clutch out
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Maybe they should electrify that small section and have a proper loco at the bottom to pull it up on electric, such as a 92 . that could pull all the locos in this country and everything else up the bank without breaking a sweat

 

[Respite]

But the 60 was uncoupled from another freight in the loop at the bottom, so there could of been all sorts behind that in the next signal sections & usually is. When I worked as a signalman at Stourbridge PSB we had all the diversions from the lickey on nights when there was work going on. It used to be quite a regular stream of traffic both north & south with a banker provided at stourbridge. As for not enough tractive effort, well all trains are checked with there loadings for the route's travelled. This is of course based on what the tonnage should be for a healthy loco. Control used to pickup on overweight trains going over routes & also some of the keener signalmen would as well.

As for powering up, I'm sure the yinger (66) can be powered up whilst the brakes release & timed just right to obtain full amperage at release of all the wagon brakes. I agree that 66's have a lazy torque curve though & I just find them quite crap engines all round to be fair. 56's used to rock on the lickey (As well as old hill bank on stourbridge's patch). Even though a 56 takes ages to spool up that hefty turbo, once it does they are off like **** through a goose with loads of torque. I remember asking a driver of a Llanwryn to Bescot steel that I held at Stourbridge, if he thought his 56 would be alright up old hill bank with 400 tons over the limit for the class. Although this 56 was work battered,stained & belching out clag all over the place he said no worries to taking it as long as I gave him a run over cradley heath crossing & up the bank. He made it with no worries, infact he said he cleared the summit at over 40mph when I saw him later that week. All that from a 20+ year old loco being run into the ground by EWS, cant see 66's ever managing that kind of accolade.

Oh & as for having a 92 as a banker.........really, is that wise!

 

[Nym]

But the 60 was uncoupled from another freight in the loop at the bottom, so there could of been all sorts behind that in the next signal sections & usually is. When I worked as a signalman at Stourbridge PSB we had all the diversions from the lickey on nights when there was work going on. It used to be quite a regular stream of traffic both north & south with a banker provided at stourbridge. As for not enough tractive effort, well all trains are checked with there loadings for the route's travelled. This is of course based on what the tonnage should be for a healthy loco. Control used to pickup on overweight trains going over routes & also some of the keener signalmen would as well.

As for powering up, I'm sure the yinger (66) can be powered up whilst the brakes release & timed just right to obtain full amperage at release of all the wagon brakes. I agree that 66's have a lazy torque curve though & I just find them quite crap engines all round to be fair. 56's used to rock on the lickey (As well as old hill bank on stourbridge's patch). Even though a 56 takes ages to spool up that hefty turbo, once it does they are off like **** through a goose with loads of torque. I remember asking a driver of a Llanwryn to Bescot steel that I held at Stourbridge, if he thought his 56 would be alright up old hill bank with 400 tons over the limit for the class. Although this 56 was work battered,stained & belching out clag all over the place he said no worries to taking it as long as I gave him a run over cradley heath crossing & up the bank. He made it with no worries, infact he said he cleared the summit at over 40mph when I saw him later that week. All that from a 20+ year old loco being run into the ground by EWS, cant see 66's ever managing that kind of accolade.

Oh & as for having a 92 as a banker.........really, is that wise!

7000bhp! with that gearing! I've seen how quick that thing can pull 94 60ft superheaver tanker containers!

 

[Techniquest]

From a standing start, with an immediate 1 in 37 gradient directly in front of you after the platforms at Bromsgrove?!

 

[Mintona]

But electrifying the Lickey and using a 92 as a banker could well be a good idea.

 

[Respite]

Can't see NR bothering to just electrify the Lickey though, I mean why would they. If they just juiced the bank itself imagine the hassle of towing dead 92's to get to it. If they wired up to the lickey how many trains could actually use it! Not a practical or money well spent idea really.

 

[Mintona]

Electrifying Bromsgrove to Barnt Green would mean 92s could get there...if they came off the WCML via Coventry (the way Pendolinos go and via New Street and Selly Oak).

Then you could extend the Cross City south to Bromsgrove too! Save the commuter trains from Gloucester and Worcester getting too full at Bromsgrove!

 

[ChrisCooper]

If at any point in the future the current banking arrangements are inadequate, for example trains become longer or heavier, or pathing issues mean that they need to be got up faster, the best option would be to have a number of dedicated banking locos with low gearing and high weight, to give lots of adheasion and tractive effort, with the most sensible option being modifying existing locos (66s). The other option would be just to run the bankers in pairs, or have them top and tail (one on the back as now, with another on the front). I can't see one incident of a train getting stuck is going to change the banking arrangements though.
Electrics wouldn't be that great, since not only would it be very expensive, they wouldn't have any real advantage over diesels. For banking, tractive effort is more important than roar power, infact, 81-91s would be useless since they have quite low tractive effort, and their maximum power and TE is at quite high speed, plus they are too light to for decent adheasion. I'm not exactly sure how good 92s would be, not having the stats for them.

 

[O L Leigh]

While stats and figures are nice to discuss when you're sitting at a PC, tractive effort means diddly-squat if you've got greasy rails.

A particular class of loco may usually be able to romp up the bank with no bother under ideal conditions, but when things start getting a bit naughty it isn't always possible to give it the beans like normal because doing so would result in spinning up the wheels and applying almost no tractive effort to the rail at all. Under such situations it becomes a balancing act between applying enough power to keep the train moving forwards but not so much that you just spin your wheels. If the adhesion is particularly poor, a driver could find that the maximum amount of power that can be applied to the rail is not sufficient to keep the train speed up. It would then become a matter of momentum as to whether or not the train would be able to breast the summit before grinding to a halt.

one TN

 

[Jord]

Is this similar to 37410 + (37417 DIT) on Miles Platting on December 1st?

There driver couldn't keep it on full power as it would just slip to a stop that's why he kept opening her up/shutting her off? (and skillfully done to get her up... just!)

If i am imagining this rightly, the driver would open it up while the coaches were pushed together by a couple of inches with the momentum, then because with the power on the coaches would stretch (between all the couplings) further apart therefore have to shut it off and when it's shut off the coaches would come back together (between the couplings) by a couple of inches therefore the driver can open her up (so it's creating like a bouncing effect between all the coaches?

I am really crap and typing things, i know what i'm going on about i just can't get it together properly as ever, so i wouldn't blame you if you aint got the foggiest what i'm going on about here to be honest.

 

[O L Leigh]

It's OK. I think I know what you mean. It wouldn't be very pleasant for the punters to drive the train that way and it would certainly put a strain on the couplers. Whether or not it would work I just don't know, but I can certainly see the theory behind the practice.

Technically, such "bouncing" is known as a snatch. If you can get a sufficiently violent snatch so that the train is essentially trying to travel faster than the loco (which would normally lead to the couplers being compressed), the driver can take power on the loco while there is no load on it. Therefore it is really only moving it's own weight and not that of the train until the couplers have come under tension again. Do it violently enough and you could set up another snatch and repeat the process again. However, it would take a very deft touch on the power handle and a delicate sense of timing to get it right, especially when you consider how long it can take for a loco to spool up.

Whether it would be sufficient to restart a stalled train or prevent a stall is a moot point. What is certain is that you would be putting the couplers under great strain and risking one failing. I would imagine that it would be considered better practice to apply as much power as is possible to keep the train moving, even if it means that you're crawling along at less than a walking pace. Once you stop it will be far harder to get the thing moving again.

Then again, I've only ever driven MU stock where setting up a snatch isn't an option, so I could be talking out the top of my head.

one TN

 

[Jord]

Technically, such "bouncing" is known as a snatch. If you can get a sufficiently violent snatch so that the train is essentially trying to travel faster than the loco (which would normally lead to the couplers being compressed), the driver can take power on the loco while there is no load on it. Therefore it is really only moving it's own weight and not that of the train until the couplers have come under tension again. Do it violently enough and you could set up another snatch and repeat the process again. However, it would take a very deft touch on the power handle and a delicate sense of timing to get it right, especially when you consider how long it can take for a loco to spool up.

That's what i was on about ^ just couldn't get it out right, couldn't think of the word "tension" & "snatch" etc but thanks anyway.

It would be nice if the driver from the incident & "The Festive Yorkshiremen" were both interviewed by a railway magazine then we would find out for real what happened on the lickey and what you have to do to get a 37 to get 12 coaches and a dead 37 up Miles Platting, i seem to remember the driver of "The Princepality Freighter" railtour was interviewed about not questioning the signalman for not taking us over the somethingorother flyover, so why not interview both of these drivers.

Anyway thanks again for clearing that one up oneTN.

 

[O L Leigh]

I think my preferred option would be to stop well short of the bottom of the bank and explain to the signaller the situation and that I would need a clear run right to the very top of the hill. Only once I'd got assurance of this would I give the train the lot to get as much speed as possible before reaching the foot of the hill. Then I'd just keep my foot in as much as possible and hope that the combination of momentum and power would keep me going until I was over the top.

one TN

 

[Jord]

I think my preferred option would be to stop well short of the bottom of the bank and explain to the signaller the situation and that I would need a clear run right to the very top of the hill. Only once I'd got assurance of this would I give the train the lot to get as much speed as possible before reaching the foot of the hill. Then I'd just keep my foot in as much as possible and hope that the combination of momentum and power would keep me going until I was over the top.

one TN

If this is on about the 37 thing, a mate told me that the tour was held at Salford for 30 minutes as the driver requested for a green to give him a head start to get to the top but come Manchester Victoria he had to stop for a red peg where he was held while NR decided whether to let him go or not, but oneTN do you know the consequencys if the driver said he could get it up the bank but then he couldn't and came to a stop while on the bank? would the driver be blamed for saying he could do it but then couldn't or would it be NR's fault for letting him go in the first place? or is it not a case of it being somebodys fault?

Anyway i better be off to bed... i'll read the reply in the morning.

Cheers, Jord.

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't think they would be too hard on him. Unless he/she has any direct experience of getting this type of train up that particular bank it would be difficult to say for certain that it would go up. However, every driver would give it their best shot and I'm sure they would actually relish the challenge.

As for this particular trip, it does sound like the signaller stitched the driver up good and proper. If he/she had asked for greens to give them a fighting chance and been given assurances that their request would be met, it seems pretty harsh for the train to be brought to a stand at a red at a location where an attempt on the hill could be jeopardised. If there was any doubt that the train could proceed as requested, it should not have been allowed to move from Salford until Nitwit Rail could be sure that the matter was beyond doubt.

Incidentally, what did happen in the end? Was it pushed over from behind or did the signaller allow the driver to set-back for another shot?

When our units were based at Hornsey, we would often have trouble getting our ECS into LST. The problem was that Graham Road Curve (the link between the NLL and the WA lines) was impossibly steep and we would often get stopped at a red at the top. When the signal eventually cleared you would need to put down almost full power just to get the train moving again, but if things were a bit naughty you could find yourself stalled on the chord. It wasn't uncommon for a driver to have to set-back into Dalston and take a good run-up in order to get their train up the chord and onto the WA lines into LST.

one TN

 

[Respite]

I had the classic one where I was stopped just before longsite on the way in to Manchester. I was asked to do a test brake at a signal for reported low rail adhesion. I asked the signalman if he was going to clear the signal incase, he ensured it would be off. Came around the corner, 50% brake on the 175, locked up & had a big red signal in my face. Talk about 50p/20p moment! Signallers huh, don't trust them.

Shane
11 years in signalboxes.:-P

 

[O L Leigh]

Swines.

I'd brought an 8 car Cl317 up from Enfield Town one Sunday morning. Had had an uneventful trip up as far as Hackney Downs so was feeling all was well with the world. Because of the platform length at Hackney the 8 car board is right up on the signal, so I duly rolled up to the peg and released the doors. The problem with being so close to the peg is that you can't actually get a clear view of it unless you hang out the window. However, I wasn't bothered too much about it because it had been green when I came into the platform.

Station duties complete, I hit the door close button, observe the interlock light, let off the brake and take power. Decide that I probably should observe the signal again just to be sure, so shoot a casual glance out the side window. F*** me!!! It's a red 'un!!!! How did that happen? Slam the brake into full service and bring the train to a stop. Regain control over breathing, then press the "Call" button on the CSR. While waiting for the siggie to pick up the phone I stand up in the cab and press my forehead against the windscreen to see how close I'd come to SPAD-ing the signal only to see that the TPWS grids had almost completely disappeared under the front of the train.

When the siggie finally answers and I put it to him that he's put the road back on me without any warning, he casually informs me that he's lost protection on the points ahead of me. I'm shedding my load because I've come within an ace of having a SPAD because he hasn't applied the rules properly and he's treating it like it's no biggie.

I've only been passed out 2 years and yet I could relate more stories about being stitched up by my friend, the signaller.

one TN

 

[Jordy]

Incidentally, what did happen in the end?

He just went for it in the end, as you can see in this video!

 

[Tomnick]

...

When the siggie finally answers and I put it to him that he's put the road back on me without any warning, he casually informs me that he's lost protection on the points ahead of me. I'm shedding my load because I've come within an ace of having a SPAD because he hasn't applied the rules properly and he's treating it like it's no biggie.

Did he mean that he'd lost detection on the points ahead of you? In that case, I suspect that the signal might have replaced itself! I appreciate that it wouldn't have made the situation any better for you, but it's possible that (this time!) the blame might be misplaced if it were put on the signalman. It doesn't excuse the fact that he didn't make you aware of the replacement - assuming that he was aware of it himself, of course - or seem a little more concerned for yourself!

 

[AlexS]

Not sure the line between Birmingham and Barnt Green would like a 92 running down it at any rate! Lots of suburban buzz boxes drawing off the power already!

 

[O L Leigh]

Did he mean that he'd lost detection on the points ahead of you? In that case, I suspect that the signal might have replaced itself! I appreciate that it wouldn't have made the situation any better for you, but it's possible that (this time!) the blame might be misplaced if it were put on the signalman. It doesn't excuse the fact that he didn't make you aware of the replacement - assuming that he was aware of it himself, of course - or seem a little more concerned for yourself!

Maybe you are right. However, the conversation I had with him strongly suggested that he'd put the road back rather than it going back automatically, or at the very least already knew about it.

one TN
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not sure the line between Birmingham and Barnt Green would like a 92 running down it at any rate! Lots of suburban buzz boxes drawing off the power already!

The juice would probably go into the Electro-Tug and leave the MU's short rather than the other way around.

The guy taking our traction course at Hornsey related a tale of taking a bunch of GN trainees out onto ECML in a Cl317 for their brake handling training. They were coming back up from Peterborough but the unit was really struggling. After a little while, the trainer told the signaller that they were going to have to stop and check it over for faults. Just then, a GNER Eurostar went hurtling by them on the Fast and through the next neutral section. Suddenly all the power came back and the unit began to pick up speed.

one TN

 

[Metroland]

Did he mean that he'd lost detection on the points ahead of you? In that case, I suspect that the signal might have replaced itself! I appreciate that it wouldn't have made the situation any better for you, but it's possible that (this time!) the blame might be misplaced if it were put on the signalman. It doesn't excuse the fact that he didn't make you aware of the replacement - assuming that he was aware of it himself, of course - or seem a little more concerned for yourself!

You might not be aware of 'points dropping out' on a large or busy panel straight away, drivers often forget signallers are dealing with 10-30 trains at a time, compared to their one. You are right in saying that if the detection is lost then the signal will go back to danger, I don't see any rules being broken here. I realise this is distressing for the driver, and I would say some signallers do not appreciate what it's like for drivers to have the road thrown back on them. Equally so, some drivers do not appear to be aware of the workload of the signalling staff, or even some of the finer working points of the signalling system. I have witnessed quite senior inspectors confused over the location of overlaps and the working of signals at stations.

Both drivers and signallers should be spending at least 1 week in each others post to gain a better appreciation of some of the problems and solutions IMHO.

 

[Respite]

Both drivers and signallers should be spending at least 1 week in each others post to gain a better appreciation of some of the problems and solutions IMHO.

Does 11 years in a signalbox count before I managed to escape from the box into a cab!

Losing detection is very common in PSB's, especially SSI type boxes (Havent dealt with IECC so maybe thats the same) where the electrical locking tests itself & comfirms the positions of the points. Also as our rail network is run into the ground........ sorry slip of the tongue, I mean maintained by notwork fail, there are many times when detection is lost due to badly setup detector boxes & the like. At Birmingham New street, entering from New St North tunnel, the last peg before the platforms sometimes reverts to danger due to another train knocking the A end of a set of points when you are routed over the B ends. This puts the signal back in front of you & hey presto, a cat C spad.
I think the thing that One TN was most on about was the signallers attitude to what had happened, whatever had caused it. As a driver that one spad could ruin your career if you had a few other minor blemishes on your license. Certainly would screw up your chances of moving to a good TOC for quite a while.

 

[Metroland]

Not sure about run into the ground, but there is some bone idle S&T staff who need sacking that can't set up detection properly, especially on clamp locks, which has generally been my experience rather than worn out equipment. One of the reasons IMHO that the industry should liberalise training, stick in performance related pay and clear out some of the dead wood - which thankfully is in the minority. It's still very hard for most people to get into the industry and hard to sack people. I suppose our friend Mr Crow wouldn't like that sort of 'progress'. At least railwaymen are luckily insomuch as they have their training paid for, unlike most staff from road and air transport, who tend to pay for their own. There is absolutely no reason why Drivers, Signallers, S&T and other staff should not be able to do college courses, or gain license/qualification in a simulator situation or using preserved railways, which happens in say Airline transport, with only traction handling/box/route knowledge being paid for by the TOC/NR. Anyway, I digress.

In think in the circumstances it *could* be counted as a technical SPAD, although clearly it doesn't relieve the driver of observing the platform starting aspect, even though the signal has gone back. I sympathise with the situation.

Clearly this is Liverpool St IECC area, and IECCs tend to have bigger control areas that traditional panels, with the Automatic route setting talking over a lot of donkey work. It may have been he was looking at another area or filling in paperwork, but without all the evidence we won't know. This doesn't either of course relieve the signaller of asking the driver if he is fit to continue and making a log of the event, although loss of detection is not uncommon at all, the detection is very sensitive.

 

[class 313]

Is this similar to 37410 + (37417 DIT) on Miles Platting on December 1st?

There driver couldn't keep it on full power as it would just slip to a stop that's why he kept opening her up/shutting her off? (and skillfully done to get her up... just!)

The driver more than likely did have 37417 with the power handle on full wack. Its the wheel slip monitor on the 37s that cuts the power when the wheels start to slip, IMO there was some moments where the driver did a bit of wrist action but most of it was 37410...