Coupling and uncoupling with passengers on board

[dk1]

Ah for the old days of BR when the Newcastle and Leeds portions of a certain cross country service were joined at Sheffield.

One portion was drawn out of it's platform and then shunted forward and coupled onto the rear of the other portion.

Possibly the only instance in Britain where there was daily booked haulage by 08 shunter!

Oh I don't know, certain sleepers where booked for pilot haulage way into the 90s. Once they stopped the windy new generation where always going to be weary of trying it again once more. Such an embarrassing shame.

 

[Llama]

You know what? Until this thread I'd never realised that it mattered which unit was moved in a terminal platform to do the coupling. You learn something every day!

At our TOC it isn't absolutely prohibited to couple or split from the unit at the block end, but it normally would be the last resort to do so due to unit faults, proximity to another unit or a signal at the 'outer' end. Drivers should be well aware of the risk of a pull-away test failing, and a unit should never be brought to within 2m/6'6" of a block end so if you know you are booked to split and drive the units into the platform yourself and that the rear of the train might be very tight to the signal, common sense would be to leave yourself a few extra feet.

We had an afternoon job until recently which saw us bring three units into Manchester Piccadilly in an afternoon. On arrival we were booked to split one unit off, however a unit was booked to arrive into the same platform only a couple of minutes after arrival of our empty stock train. Therefore splitting the unit off was either going to be towards the block end or towards the other unit. The smartest thing to do was stop a bit further from the block end then split towards it, but it wasn't ideal and we did raise our concerns, I believe that since May 2018 the same empty stock hasn't run.

 

[swt_passenger]

Just throwing into the mix, (based on similar previous discussions), that some trains do not do a pull away test? Is it the Dellner/Scharfenberg types that have had the requirement engineered out?

 

[LowLevel]

For about 150 years locos were changed, vehicles added by a pilot loco, emus joined up, etc, without any issue. No PA (because there wasn't one) to sit down, no locking of doors (because you couldn't), and what is more, in the train you never seemed to even feel it. This included emus which were driven directly on arrival into contact with the unit ahead, no prior stop, with passengers ready to alight. Never a problem.

If someone can tell me that reversing a steam loco from a cab with no rear lookout onto a train, often at night, with just a gentle kiss, is somehow easier than driving an emu with all mod cons, I will be interested to hear it.

I couple steam and diesel locos to trains regularly and I'm a dab hand at shunting rakes of swingers. I've driven diesel locos on to stock under supervision as well.

As long as you're switched on to what is happening and can use your noodle to allow for coupler tension and the train weight dragging the loco on the latter, all 3 are much easier than trying to couple 2 class 153s with slow to release brakes and a throttle that is basically 'on' or 'off' at low speeds!

 

[Bikeman78]

I got talking to a guard this evening about why it was that LNR can couple and uncouple at Northampton with passengers on board, but not at Euston. She told me that the reason was that at Northampton the train is uncoupled by driving it forwards,

Does anyone have any more specifics on this?

This sounds like nonsense! The only way to split two units is from one of the middle cabs. Whichever one you choose, the unit in question will have to move backwards, even if it's only a few inches.

 

[Bikeman78]

Policy on SWR is that all coupling/uncoupling of 455 units should not be done with passengers on board. You will see train crew and platform staff emptying out trains at Waterloo prior to coupling and uncoupling. It doesn't happen too often anyway.

Many years ago, when most off peak trains were four cars, the second train used to arrive arrive at Waterloo and attach to the set on the blocks before the doors were released. I think the set on the blocks would have been empty because they wouldn't announce the outbound working until after the units had attached.

 

[Wombat]

When I attempted coupling with passengers on board I was told in no uncertain terms by the BTP that my behaviour was completely inappropriate.

(Sorry)

 

[GW43125]

Just throwing into the mix, (based on similar previous discussions), that some trains do not do a pull away test? Is it the Dellner/Scharfenberg types that have had the requirement engineered out?

You sure about that? Every single electrostar and desiro coupling I've been in has done a pull-away.
The whole point of the pull-away is so you know it's together. If it's not gone together properly you could have a repeat of those 334s in Scotland over Christmas.

 

[HH]

Is the uncoupling conscious or unconscious?

 

[swt_passenger]

You sure about that? Every single electrostar and desiro coupling I've been in has done a pull-away.
The whole point of the pull-away is so you know it's together. If it's not gone together properly you could have a repeat of those 334s in Scotland over Christmas.

It isn’t at all obvious if it happens on Desiros. I’m only repeating what someone has said in the past though.

 

[scotraildriver]

The 334 incident was nothing to do with coupling procedure. Our 385s don't require a pull away test.

 

[muz379]

We MUST NEVER couple from the train at the buffers. Part of the coupling procedure is a pull away test, if you do it from the unit at the buffers and it splits you will collide with the buffers. All coupling in Scotland done from the far away unit.

Interesting , what happens (if it ever does) if you have so many units in a platform that you are also close up to the signal , so your pull away test is either towards a red or a set of buffers ?

At my toc there are no hard and fast rules like that , drivers are told to have situational awareness and consider the pull away test failing with the subsequent risk of a collision with another train/buffers or a spad . in some circumstances it might be an idea to stop further away from buffers if you have platform space to play with and know you are going to be coupling or uncoupling .

When I attempted coupling with passengers on board I was told in no uncertain terms by the BTP that my behaviour was completely inappropriate.

(Sorry)

I wouldn't worry , the BTP are not experts in rail operations , I would be more mindful of what the operating manual at your TOC says about the matter .

 

[scotraildriver]

Interesting , what happens (if it ever does) if you have so many units in a platform that you are also close up to the signal , so your pull away test is either towards a red or a set of buffers ?

At my toc there are no hard and fast rules like that , drivers are told to have situational awareness and consider the pull away test failing with the subsequent risk of a collision with another train/buffers or a spad . in some circumstances it might be an idea to stop further away from buffers if you have platform space to play with and know you are going to be coupling or uncoupling .




I wouldn't worry , the BTP are not experts in rail operations , I would be more mindful of what the operating manual at your TOC says about the matter .

Sometimes that can happen in Edinburgh. You phone the signaller and ask to have the signal taken off while you uncouple. If he says no it doesn't happen. End of.

 

[muz379]

Sometimes that can happen in Edinburgh. You phone the signaller and ask to have the signal taken off while you uncouple. If he says no it doesn't happen. End of.

Ahh thats fair enough , although I guess if the pull away test does fail and the train goes past the signal its then a load of faff , then again ive never known of a pull away test failing and if it does then both units are straight off to a shed for further investigation anyway .

 

[185143]

Ahh thats fair enough , although I guess if the pull away test does fail and the train goes past the signal its then a load of faff , then again ive never known of a pull away test failing and if it does then both units are straight off to a shed for further investigation anyway .

I have! 155+153 at Man Vic, did the pull away test and uncoupled. Tried again and same thing occurred. Control told the crew to leave the dogbox and run short formed. This was about 6 years ago.

 

[muz379]

I have! 155+153 at Man Vic, did the pull away test and uncoupled. Tried again and same thing occurred. Control told the crew to leave the dogbox and run short formed. This was about 6 years ago.

I would personally be somewhat reluctant to take it out into service in these circumstances , what if it failed and needed assisting in a location from which a train could only be brought onto it from the end with the failed coupler . Same reason I dont think units should be out in service with non multi stickers because of a failed coupler .

 

[dk1]

I would personally be somewhat reluctant to take it out into service in these circumstances , what if it failed and needed assisting in a location from which a train could only be brought onto it from the end with the failed coupler . Same reason I dont think units should be out in service with non multi stickers because of a failed coupler .

We would have been in a dire situation in East Anglia if we'd have gone down the road (or line) of not allowing units to run simply because they have non-multi restrictions last year. At one point around 40% of the 170 fleet had at least one if not both ends out of use.

I was a complete failure with a 153 in the middle of nowhere and it wasn't until that moment I even realised both ends had non-multi window labels attatched. On speaking with control they reassured me it was only because the heights hadn't been checked after recent tyre turning as needed for traffic & they where more than happy for it to be bashed up to whatever end assistance was provided from.

 

[driver9000]

You sure about that? Every single electrostar and desiro coupling I've been in has done a pull-away.
The whole point of the pull-away is so you know it's together. If it's not gone together properly you could have a repeat of those 334s in Scotland over Christmas.

No pull test required on 185s or 350s. It's proved through the computer and the 334 incident was nothing to do with the way the units had been coupled.

 

[swt_passenger]

No pull test required on 185s or 350s. It's proved through the computer and the 334 incident was nothing to do with the way the units had been coupled.

Presumably explaining my never seeing it on a 450 or 444 either, which is why I made the earlier point, which GW43125 thought was wrong.

 

[bengley]

Indeed you can't even do a pull away test on a 185. As soon as the units couple together (automatic, no need to press a button) the cab is dead.

Same goes for 700s - once the units are together you can't do a pull away

 

[swt_passenger]

Indeed you can't even do a pull away test on a 185. As soon as the units couple together (automatic, no need to press a button) the cab is dead.

So should we now conclude that whatever the reason for LMR’s local procedures at Euston, (as Bletchleyite was originally questioning), risk due to a pull away test is not one of them...

 

[SamYeager]

When I attempted coupling with passengers on board I was told in no uncertain terms by the BTP that my behaviour was completely inappropriate.

(Sorry)

I wouldn't worry , the BTP are not experts in rail operations , I would be more mindful of what the operating manual at your TOC says about the matter .

:facepalm: Straight over the poster's head I see.

 

[Tomnick]

I have to say, I really don't understand the fuss nor do I understand the overly-prescriptive procedures that some drivers have to work to! We regularly couple to units with passengers on at our place, and although it's preferred that we do so from an empty unit, it's acceptable to couple from the unit with passengers on if necessary (e.g. after a couple of unsuccessful attempts from the other unit). At the most, an announcement to tell the punters what's happening and advise them to sit down or hold tight. I'd rather not do the pull test against buffer stops or a signal at danger, but sometimes it's the best option, either leaving more room against the stops (if you couple from that unit, you'll give yourself a bit more room behind as you move onto the other unit in any case) or getting the signal cleared first - there wouldn't be much point doing a pull test if there wasn't any risk at all of them coming apart. I'd much rather be trusted to use my training and assess the specific risks for myself than to blindly follow a procedure that can't possibly fit every single situation.

The same for splitting - consider the risks and do it in what you judge to be the most sensible manner? I don't think any generic procedure can cover all permutations of splitting a rake three or four ways with other vehicle in front and/or a signal at danger behind, and if you don't think carefully about what you're doing, you'll end up inadvertently coupling back to what you've already split! It's also common at our place to be splitting a train with another one dropping in behind, but of course that one should stop 6' short (and the *maximum* movement when uncoupling is 2') so there shouldn't be an issue there.

 

[ComUtoR]

I have to say, I really don't understand the fuss nor do I understand the overly-prescriptive procedures that some drivers have to work to!

Any time you get stupidity overly-prescriptive procedures on the railway it's generally because something brown hit the spinning thing. Our change to only making movements on the unit furthest from the buffers came about because there was a buffer stop collision. We have had a couple of SPADs due to units splitting past a signal, and we have had a runaway vehicle during a split.

Drivers will stop a little short when splitting to allow room. That equates to less room for permissive working as units still much further from the buffers. We have new units and new couplers so old simple procedures get crowbarred into overly complex new ones.

We have multiple unit sizes which adds more complication to the mix.

 

[muz379]

Any time you get stupidity overly-prescriptive procedures on the railway it's generally because something brown hit the spinning thing. Our change to only making movements on the unit furthest from the buffers came about because there was a buffer stop collision. We have had a couple of SPADs due to units splitting past a signal, and we have had a runaway vehicle during a split.

Drivers will stop a little short when splitting to allow room. That equates to less room for permissive working as units still much further from the buffers. We have new units and new couplers so old simple procedures get crowbarred into overly complex new ones.

We have multiple unit sizes which adds more complication to the mix.

I do think sometimes there is a rush to legislate after incidents like that when in all honesty how many splits took place that week/month/year without a buffer stop collision . As a result you then leave everyone else having to get their head round new prescriptive procedures when in many cases they had been successfully splitting and coupling for years without issue using their own noodle .

 

[whhistle]

I do think sometimes there is a rush to legislate after incidents like that when in all honesty how many splits took place that week/month/year without a buffer stop collision.

It's like self-driving cars.
If a few have an accident, why are the media all over them, yet (probably) hundreds of car accidents happen every day and nobody really cares.

 

[Parallel]

I have! 155+153 at Man Vic, did the pull away test and uncoupled. Tried again and same thing occurred. Control told the crew to leave the dogbox and run short formed. This was about 6 years ago.

I’ve been on a 158 that tried to couple with another 158 at Machynlleth about 4 times. Eventually they did couple but not without some difficulty.

 

[185]

On arrival at a station, every day at 1705 we used to announce 'please bear with us, the doors will open a few seconds after stopping, please remain seated whilst we couple up' (to an ECS portion). Then one day, one of the platform staff from Northern came running out shouting "that's a collision! ....etc".

This demonstrates that all the rules vary TOC by TOC, regardless of one firms safety department considering it good practice while the other sees it as a major disaster.

 

[Llanigraham]

I’ve been on a 158 that tried to couple with another 158 at Machynlleth about 4 times. Eventually they did couple but not without some difficulty.

Ditto at Shrewsbury.
Even had a pair that didn't want to uncouple once.

 

[Tomnick]

On arrival at a station, every day at 1705 we used to announce 'please bear with us, the doors will open a few seconds after stopping, please remain seated whilst we couple up' (to an ECS portion). Then one day, one of the platform staff from Northern came running out shouting "that's a collision! ....etc".

This demonstrates that all the rules vary TOC by TOC, regardless of one firms safety department considering it good practice while the other sees it as a major disaster.

Coupling before releasing the doors shouldn't be a big drama. I can understand why some TOCs might not like it (e.g. the slightly increased risk because passengers are more likely to be moving around etc., and the 'customer service' risk of passengers being delayed, missing connections etc.) but a collision it is not. The only thing that'd make it a "collision" (across the board too, not just a TOC-specific thing as far as I'm aware!) would be coming straight onto the other unit without stopping at all, but then it's not really something for platform staff to be worrying about...