kidnapped 4 hours on failed ATW 158

[merlodlliw]

is this a general problem or is ATW prone to brake failures, Wag Express
etc, it just seems to happen a lot with the Welsh stable, or so it seems.

 

[Techniquest]

Please change the thread title. This was not a hostage situation, so how anyone could be 'kidnapped' I do not know.

I'm told the line was eventually cleared at 2255, an awful long time. I am also surprised ATW did not provide any complimentary refreshments during the extreme delay.

 

[ChrisMcFall]

IIRC theres nowhere to provide refreshments at SHR?

 

[Techniquest]

With Shrewsbury being one of the bases for the trolley stuff, it should have been possible to provide something!

 

[ChrisMcFall]

By the time the LM train would have came back, surely any sort of Trolley depot/facility would have been closed.

And im sure if there was a trolley on the ATW 158, FOC refreshments would have been offered.

 

[tbtc]

Its been done before (on the same stretch of line as the failure) outside my signalbox whilst I was on duty between a non-gangwayed Central Trains 150/1 unit & a ATW 158 when the propshaft partially fell off the 150.
The 150 could'nt be moved until a fitter arrived from Birmingham (3 HRS later) to remove the propshaft completely.

Plus our rule book does allow for it.

That's why I love forums like this - you hear how the experts see things (and not some bad journalist with sensationalist words like "kidnapped") - great to hear the reality of the situation

 

[O L Leigh]

There is an emergency connection pipe on the headstock to fit the shraeder pipe to incase the star valve is missing or the adaptor coupler is in use, whether this would have been useful in this situation I couldnt say but from what I have read then it seems unlikely.

Ah, sorry. Perhaps I wasn't being clear. I wasn't referring to the emergency schrader connection to feed air into a duff unit, but to an air isolation cock that would prevent air being lost through the star valve in the connector block.

Tightlocks have an isolation cock on the air pipe that runs from the unit into the back of the connector block. This isolates the air supply to the star valve connector should it become stuck or otherwise faulty and leak.

It also has the benefit that you can use it to isolate the air systems on units in multiple. Therefore, if you have to assist a unit with a massive air leak, you can isolate the star valve connector so that the assisting unit's air isn't transferred into the failed unit and lost through the leak. This would have been what I assumed the LM and ATW driver would have done in this instance in order that the assisting unit could still propel the failed unit dead with it's brakes isolated.

When the Uncouple button is pressed the air connection does remain attached until the units are taken apart, when they are split you can hear a small amount of air escape.

Thanks for confirming that, but it is actually the nature of the electrical connection that I don't understand.

As I've said, this is now at least the second instance of an assisting DMU becoming stranded with the failed unit because the two were electrically connected by mistake (and in the other incident a loco eventually had to be sent for), and I'm struggling to understand how this can be possible. Running through all the train-stopping faults that I can think of I cannot come up with a single one that would be transferred to an assisting unit to such an extent that it would render it also a failure and in need of assistance.

This is why I'm pursuing this, because I really can't believe that BR didn't think of this when selecting the BSI autocoupler for it's DMU stock way back in the 1980's. There has to be an air isolation cock either somewhere on the coupler itself or between it and the main res pipe. Likewise there has to be a way of electrically seperating the units, even if it requires the driver to uncouple and bang on again.

Or am I getting this totally wrong...? Does the BSI automatically make the electrical connections irrespective of what the driver does? Is the only way to prevent it making these connections to physically prevent the connectors from making contact? I would find this strange in the extreme if this was the case.

Sorry for all the questions. I guess I'm just a bit thick.

O L Leigh

 

[merlodlliw]

This may interest a few of you,

More about that failed train at Wellington from the North Wales website newsboard dated 15th May Here's a report from another passenger who was stranded between Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton in the failed Arriva Trains Wales 158 on 9 May (See last update):
'I was travelling on the 15:30 Aberystwyth - Birmingham on 9 May. It failed about halfway to Wellington at about 17:40. 'No air’ they said. After an hour or two they brought up a London Midland class 170 behind to give us a push but it didn't work, and in any case we could not be transferred to that unit as it has no end gangway. So they sent it back again and eventually got another 158 from Salop which did work. We were all ushered through to that unit although at that stage we didn’t know whether we were going back to Salop or forward to Wellington. It went forward to Wellington arriving at 22:10 where it was to be terminated.

'The air conditioning was not working in the failed unit, it was very hot, there were about 100 passengers on board. Eventually the conductor opened the emergency windows. There were no refreshments on board. Most passengers remained calm throughout although there was some minimal abuse to the conductor when she came through to tell us what (she thought) was going on. However she handled it well.

'As we approached Wellington, claim cards were handed out and we were told that another train would take passengers on to Birmingham. As it wasn't clear how long we would have to wait I decided to give up the journey. This was the worst delay I have personally experienced in all the thousands of train journeys I have made in the last half century.'


apologies for putting this in wrong thread prior. full story www.nwrail.org.uk

 

[driver9000]

Ah, sorry. Perhaps I wasn't being clear. I wasn't referring to the emergency schrader connection to feed air into a duff unit, but to an air isolation cock that would prevent air being lost through the star valve in the connector block.

Tightlocks have an isolation cock on the air pipe that runs from the unit into the back of the connector block. This isolates the air supply to the star valve connector should it become stuck or otherwise faulty and leak.

It also has the benefit that you can use it to isolate the air systems on units in multiple. Therefore, if you have to assist a unit with a massive air leak, you can isolate the star valve connector so that the assisting unit's air isn't transferred into the failed unit and lost through the leak. This would have been what I assumed the LM and ATW driver would have done in this instance in order that the assisting unit could still propel the failed unit dead with it's brakes isolated.



As I've said, this is now at least the second instance of an assisting DMU becoming stranded with the failed unit because the two were electrically connected by mistake (and in the other incident a loco eventually had to be sent for), and I'm struggling to understand how this can be possible. Running through all the train-stopping faults that I can think of I cannot come up with a single one that would be transferred to an assisting unit to such an extent that it would render it also a failure and in need of assistance.

This is why I'm pursuing this, because I really can't believe that BR didn't think of this when selecting the BSI autocoupler for it's DMU stock way back in the 1980's. There has to be an air isolation cock either somewhere on the coupler itself or between it and the main res pipe. Likewise there has to be a way of electrically seperating the units, even if it requires the driver to uncouple and bang on again.

Or am I getting this totally wrong...? Does the BSI automatically make the electrical connections irrespective of what the driver does? Is the only way to prevent it making these connections to physically prevent the connectors from making contact? I would find this strange in the extreme if this was the case.

Sorry for all the questions. I guess I'm just a bit thick.

O L Leigh

There isnt a dedicated cock for the air connection to the BSI, operating the cock for the shraeder valve has the effect of shutting off the supply to the coupler head and diverting it to the emergency pipe, but my TOCs instructions are not to use this for isolating the air supply.

Transferring faults between units is an annoying thing with the BSI, the system takes its feed from the rearmost start battery and if it cant find that then it will dump the brake because its been fooled into thinking the train has split (much the same when couple is accidentally pressed) I admit even in this situation Im puzzled because uncoupling normally clears the fault, there was a modification programme a few years ago to improve the relays and this stopped a lot of fault creation/transfer on coupling but some rogue couplers still exist, particularly frustrating on coming to a unit thats been split and finding your half 'thinks' its still coupled because the relays havent been reset by pressing Uncouple in that cab, despite the mod being designed to take care of that.....

The electrical connection to the BSI isnt made until the Couple button is pressed, the relays being open and no electric passing to the block until then.

Ive not had too many problems with the BSI, and the problems I have had were due to the pins being dirty or coming apart enough on tight pointwork just enough to cause the brakes to apply.

I hope this makes sense, my mind is slightly fuzzed by a few glasses of good wine

 

[O L Leigh]

Ah, being slightly fuzzy due to a good wine is a fine state to be in.

Thanks for posting more. It's helped to clear my own mind on the matter, as I only "sign" traction with Tightlocks and so have a good understanding of coupling faults but a poor understanding of how these translate onto traction with other coupler types.

I'm sure our TOC instructions regarding the air cock at the back of the Tightlock is much the same as yours. However, we have the benefit of not making an air connection until the Couple button has been pressed. In fact, there is an "Air Only" position on the drumswitch lever to make an air connection without the electrical connection for certain assistance scenarios. The cock is really just there to deal with any air leaks in the connector block. However, unless turning the equivalent cock on a BSI is likely to create a fault elsewhere or cause some other trauma, I would have been inclined to use it anyway if it was going to help get me out of a bad situation.

Although the principles on which Tightlocks and BSI's work are different, it's reassuring to read we get the same problems even if the causes are different. Every now and then you get a drumswitch that doesn't get thrown into the correct position which can result in some fun and games. However, if the drumswitch isn't responding to the Couple/Uncouple buttons we can at least get down and throw it manually.

O L Leigh

 

[merlodlliw]

This is the reply I recieved from the Minister today,regarding the problems with ATWs 158 when the brakes locked on and passengers had no refreshment or air conditioning for over 4 hours. For your info.



Eich cyf/Ein cyf/AT/02684/09

27 May 2009


Dear

I refer to your email of 16 May 2009 regarding the Arriva Trains Wales (ATW) service DMU problems on the Shrewsbury - Wolverhampton line on 9 May. Your email address list included the Deputy First Minister and Minister for the Economy & Transport, Ieuan Wyn Jones, and I have been asked to reply.

ATW has confirmed that the train in question developed a fault en-route - not at a platform where customers could be moved by alternative transport. The unique nature of the fault meant that on-train crew nor an assisting unit could release the brakes and move the ATW train.

We are concerned that passengers expectations were not met on this occasion, and I am aware that this incident has been discussed at high level within ATW, who take on board the point that facilities were not available for customer welfare.

Clearly the particular train service was far from satisfactory.

With regards to your comments about the Welsh Assembly Government supporting ATW’s proposed Aberystwyth – London Marylebone service. The Deputy First Minister has consistently said that this is a commercial venture by ATW, which would not receive any public subsidy. To the extent that there are any competition rules, they will fall to the ORR for consideration and a ruling.

Any Train Operating Company is free to run commercial services in addition to franchised services if they do not impinge on franchised services. ATW are currently doing this with the extension of franchised Maesteg – Gloucester services to Cheltenham as a commercial operation.


Yours sincerely,




Mark Price
Integrated Transport Division
Welsh Assembly Govt
sent by e mail

 

[ukrob]

I'm not sure if this post is 'for our info' or it is a new thread to discuss your dislike of class 158s in - why couldn't you put this in the existing thread? Apologies if it has been locked, I've not checked.

 

[dan_atki]

Merged.

merlodlliw, please keep this topic to one thread only.

 

[TDK]

As I said before, the driver of the LM unit could just have banged on mechanical only. Then the ATW driver could have isolated all the brakes on his unit so that the LM unit could shove it out the way. Sure it may have been pushing against the parking brake, but there might have still been enough main res pressure to hold that off.

Its a pity they did'nt do that as it would of saved a lot of time & messing about.

Maximum speed of 5mph with a swinger I believe so maybe it may have not been practical?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

First time i have heard of this kind of situation involving the arriva class 158's i have found them to be very reliable although i will say that they do need their interiors refreshed,that said i think the class 153's are in a very bad state and even noticed that arriva were using class 143 pacers on the swansea - pembroke dock workings (poor passengers)

ATW 158's are far from reliable especially in the summer months with overheating, in fact all 158's have this problem due to the design and position of the radiator. A combination of pollen clogging up the rads and also high temps causes the engines to revert to idle. As for brake problems this is rare as a failure reason for a 158, there are a few things that can cause this but from the report it looks like loss of main res air was the problem. As 158's are 2 individual coaches with both an engine & compressor under each coach I am surprised the problem was not rectified by isolating the coach with the fault and draining the air from this coach. Without knowing the exact fault on the set it is difficult to comment with an accurate quote.

 

[O L Leigh]

Maximum speed of 5mph with a swinger I believe so maybe it may have not been practical?

It's what I've been advocating for weeks. Pushing an unbraked train along at 5mph is not ideal, but it's better than leaving the line blocked.

ATW 158's are far from reliable especially in the summer months with overheating, in fact all 158's have this problem due to the design and position of the radiator. A combination of pollen clogging up the rads and also high temps causes the engines to revert to idle. As for brake problems this is rare as a failure reason for a 158, there are a few things that can cause this but from the report it looks like loss of main res air was the problem. As 158's are 2 individual coaches with both an engine & compressor under each coach I am surprised the problem was not rectified by isolating the coach with the fault and draining the air from this coach. Without knowing the exact fault on the set it is difficult to comment with an accurate quote.

Have you read the rest of this thread...?

Isolating a single coach within a unit does not rectify the problem. When the main res pressure falls below a certain level it trips the low main air governer (LMAG) on that vehicle which breaks the brake continuity circuit and causes the emergency brake application. Even if you isolate the air leak by isolating the faulty vehicle from the rest of the train you cannot re-make the brake continuity circuit because the LMAG on that vehicle will remain tripped until the main res pressure is restored. This means you will never get the brakes off that unit and will require assistance from another unit.

O L Leigh

 

[TDK]

It's what I've been advocating for weeks. Pushing an unbraked train along at 5mph is not ideal, but it's better than leaving the line blocked.



Have you read the rest of this thread...?

Isolating a single coach within a unit does not rectify the problem. When the main res pressure falls below a certain level it trips the low main air governer (LMAG) on that vehicle which breaks the brake continuity circuit and causes the emergency brake application. Even if you isolate the air leak by isolating the faulty vehicle from the rest of the train you cannot re-make the brake continuity circuit because the LMAG on that vehicle will remain tripped until the main res pressure is restored. This means you will never get the brakes off that unit and will require assistance from another unit.

O L Leigh

You need to raise the EBS in the good vehicle to break train wire 4,you will then get brake release in the leading as the MRG in the rear will not affect the leading cab. The train will then be able to proceed at 5mph

 

[O L Leigh]

Successfully raising the EBS to get the train moving depends on a lot of things, most notably which vehicle has suffered the failure. If it's the leading vehicle it won't help much EBS-ing the rear cab because this will require a wrong-direction movement. Then you also have to consider what other systems on that vehicle require main air to operate (e.g. doors) and what effect isolating the supply will have on them.

However, I think the killer concern is the ratio of braked to unbraked vehicle within the train. On a 2 car DMU that ratio will be 1 to 1, which is not particularly impressive. As a driver I certainly wouldn't like to drive a train with that ratio of braked to unbraked, especially as the Rule Book does not stipulate a maximum speed of the movement as a consequence of raising the EBS. Plus there are the other requirements pertaining to the use of the EBS, such as the requirement to detrain the passengers at the first opportunity.

I will concede that it is at least theoretically possible to get a train in these sorts of difficulties moving by raising the EBS, but in the situation described above it is not possible to ascertain whether this was a practical possibility. Admittedly DMU stock has the advantage of a compressor under every powered car (or so I'm lead to believe) where EMU stock can have as few as a single main compressor for an entire 4 car unit. Rip out the main res pipe between vehicles on an EMU like a Cl317 and you could potentially end up EBS-ing a unit and getting a ratio of braked to unbraked of a lousy 1 to 3.

O L Leigh