Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
That happens anyway, at locations with far longer 'barrier down' times due to frequency of service or approach speed of trains. The number of occasions where a train occupying the road crossing would coincide with the arrival (and delay to) a 'blues and twos' response can probably be counted using the hairs on Kojaks head.
I use the level crossing at North Sheen maybe twice a month. In the last six months I have seen two emergency vehicles have to wait at the crossing (and a third just get through before the amber light came on)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
On the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, would it not be possible to use longer stock and skip stop those stations where there is a problem? It may even be possible to provide a service in one direction only at some of them, with passengers "circulating" where necessary
Am I the only person who sees all of these regular "why don't they just use longer trains" suggestions and assumes that LNWR/Network Rail probably already considered that and have a very good reason for not going down that route?
Slightly off topic, but in such instances why doesn’t the train pass the platform end? Have the front 2 off the platform and the rear 2 on the platform?
I'm only aware that Class 720s (and maybe Class 755s) are authorised to do this. Is any other current stock allowed to do this? I'm not aware of any other current stock types that are.
I'm only aware that Class 720s (and maybe Class 755s) are authorised to do this. Is any other current stock allowed to do this? I'm not aware of any other current stock types that are.
755s do have automatic selective door opening
presumably everything that uses any type of SDO does at least occasionally use it, so that adds Thameslink 700s at least
Slightly off topic, but in such instances why doesn’t the train pass the platform end? Have the front 2 off the platform and the rear 2 on the platform? They used to do it in the past. Although I also remember at Lincoln St Marks sitting on the level crossing at Market Rasen the from 6 coaches were off the platform with only the rear 2 (and power car) on to avoid blocking the foot crossing.
Not all SDO systems allow this, and there may be issues around where the new stopping points would be needed to be moved to allow it, but it is an option that has been used so I assume it's been considered by the ops team and they do have a reason for not doing it.
755s do have automatic selective door opening
presumably everything that uses any type of SDO does at least occasionally use it, so that adds Thameslink 700s at least
The question is more about locking forward or locking back doors. Class 720s can lock both ways but can Class 755s? I don't know. Most current fleets I can think of, as far as I know, lock backwards but can't lock forwards.
The question is more about locking forward or locking back doors. Class 720s can lock both ways but can Class 755s? I don't know. Most current fleets I can think of, as far as I know, lock backwards but can't lock forwards.
I'm only aware that Class 720s (and maybe Class 755s) are authorised to do this. Is any other current stock allowed to do this? I'm not aware of any other current stock types that are.
TfW's retrofitted SDO on its MKIVs allows it in both directions, as well the ASDO on the 197s. It's used at Nantwich and Wem to deal with the level crossings there, with the front of the train stopping some way beyond the end of the platform.
TfW's retrofitted SDO on its MKIVs allows it in both directions, as well the ASDO on the 197s. It's used at Nantwich and Wem to deal with the level crossings there, with the front of the train stopping some way beyond the end of the platform.
Without any inside knowledge would the Mark IV system be similar to the FGW HSTs that locked forward or back from specific panels depending upon each station (or indeed platform) requirements?
Without any inside knowledge would the Mark IV system be similar to the FGW HSTs that locked forward or back from specific panels depending upon each station (or indeed platform) requirements?
From what I understand it is indeed similar - the guard can choose to open all doors between where they're standing and either the loco end or the DVT end of the train as appropriate - so they are required to move about the train to be in the right position at each station.
From what I understand it is indeed similar - the guard can choose to open all doors between where they're standing and either the loco end or the DVT end of the train as appropriate - so they are required to move about the train to be in the right position at each station.
The $64.000 question !!!
If WMR don't have enough 196s to spare them now, but will in three years time, where will WMR lose them from ? AFAIK there are no new fleets on order with WMR after 196s and 730s are delivered, but there are new stations and routes opening in that time which will require more diesel trains in the Birmingham area. They are already working on the stations on the Camp Hill line I believe.
So to clarify - would 23m vehicle DMUs be able to operate Bletchley - Bedford so long as they have SDO - by running off those short platforms?
The $64.000 question !!!
If WMR don't have enough 196s to spare them now, but will in three years time, where will WMR lose them from ? AFAIK there are no new fleets on order with WMR after 196s and 730s are delivered, but there are new stations and routes opening in that time which will require more diesel trains in the Birmingham area. They are already working on the stations on the Camp Hill line I believe.
Aside from the fact the 196s had their SDO isolated,I think you would have issues at stations with a signal at one end of the platform and a level crossing at the other, if there are any?
Take it from me (I worked on the design), the engines in the WMTL units are the same as the engines in the TfW units, so I don't know where this particular nugget of misinformation came from!
The difference on the TfW units is that the engines are mapped differently because they perform on a different duty cycle compared to those on the WMT units. Whereas the WMT units used to rev up and down rather vigorously, the engines on the TfW units are able to operate at more of a steady state because in simple terms they are charging the batteries rather than providing power directly to the motors (though in reality the control of the power is not quite that simple). This 'steady state' mapping of the TfW engines should, in theory, treat them to a more relaxed lifestyle than those of the WMT fleet and hence they should be more reliable and last longer*
*Note that the engines on the TfW units were re-mapped by Ricardos, who are pretty much the bees knees when it comes to understanding and tuning diesel engines. This work was started by Vivarail but completed by TfW, I believe.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes they are Ford. Some confusion may have arisen because a few years ago Vivarail were talking about introducing a Caterpillar engine. But that never happened for various reasons.
Would the engine (plus battery) configuration used on the TfW Borderlands 230s prove (or have proved) beneficial for the WMT Marston Vale 230s ?.
I cannot help wondering if it is more likely TfW would snap up the currently/now unused WMT 230s !. That is once TfW get their 230s satisfactorily implemented.
Below taken from the TfW Borderlands Class 230 thread.
Would the engine (plus battery) configuration used on the TfW Borderlands 230s prove (or have proved) beneficial for the WMT Marston Vale 230s ?.
I cannot help wondering if it is more likely TfW would snap up the currently/now unused WMT 230s !. That is once TfW get their 230s satisfactorily implemented.
I'm only aware that Class 720s (and maybe Class 755s) are authorised to do this. Is any other current stock allowed to do this? I'm not aware of any other current stock types that are.
3-car 158s used to do it at Deighton back when they called there ("Grand Tour" days) but I think they were local door only. The 3-car stop boards were a few metres beyond the platform end. The platforms have been extended now though.
TfW have bought any diesel genset-related spares which were at Bletchley. The WMT units still have their gensets attached and they will be sold with the units. It remains to be seen whether the gensets on the WMT units will be sold on to TfW but they probably will be, given the intention of the buyer of the WMT units to convert them to battery power at a later date.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Below taken from the TfW Borderlands Class 230 thread.
Would the engine (plus battery) configuration used on the TfW Borderlands 230s prove (or have proved) beneficial for the WMT Marston Vale 230s ?.
I cannot help wondering if it is more likely TfW would snap up the currently/now unused WMT 230s !. That is once TfW get their 230s satisfactorily implemented.
A diesel-battery config on the WMT units could well have been beneficial. So too might have been the Ricardo improvements implemented on the gensets of the TfW units via a software mod (see latest Modern Railways magazine). This software mod has helped stop the DPFs getting clogged up. But we'll never know whether that might have led to better reliability on the Marston Vale line. Shame....
TfW have bought any diesel genset-related spares which were at Bletchley. The WMT units still have their gensets attached and they will be sold with the units. It remains to be seen whether the gensets on the WMT units will be sold on to TfW but they probably will be, given the intention of the buyer of the WMT units to convert them to battery power at a later date.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
A diesel-battery config on the WMT units could well have been beneficial. So too might have been the Ricardo improvements implemented on the gensets of the TfW units via a software mod (see latest Modern Railways magazine). This software mod has helped stop the DPFs getting clogged up. But we'll never know whether that might have led to better reliability on the Marston Vale line. Shame....
Having read the majority of this thread, ignoring the 230's the sensible solution is 3x 150/1's, but is the delay to getting these subleased due to the WMT 196's not entering service. If they are displacing 170's to EMT, then EMT 156's to Northern?
Where will the 150's be maintained? It's a long slog to Tyseley and do they have the space?
Having read the majority of this thread, ignoring the 230's the sensible solution is 3x 150/1's, but is the delay to getting these subleased due to the WMT 196's not entering service. If they are displacing 170's to EMT, then EMT 156's to Northern?
Where will the 150's be maintained? It's a long slog to Tyseley and do they have the space?
The distance from Tyseley was what made a microfleet with easy to change engines at Bletchley one of the temptations of 230s.
I would be going for units that are common with the rest of the fleet at Tyseley BUT unfortunately the options for what fits on the Marston Vale are quite limited.
Because Bedford on the Midland Main Line is at the other end of the Marston Vale line I have to wonder if 150s (or 153s) from the Nottingam direction are not less inconvenient ?.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
