• 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!

Delayed due to failure of Tesco daventry - coatbridge DRS service (17/12)

themiller

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
1,380
Location
Cumbria, UK
Two thoughts come to mind:
1 Are the actual container weights used or is an average used? In other words, would it make a difference if all of the containers were loaded with baked beans rather than a mix of baked beans and paper tissues?
2 The train weight was established some years ago before the review of coupler strength enabled extra wagons being added to the train. Was the train load reviewed as well?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Class15

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2021
Messages
4,100
Location
North London or Mildmay line
I think single 88s are more suitable for less steeply graded routes such as Tilbury to Daventry or Daventry to Trafford Park, but that geographical limitation seriously limits their usefulness as a freight loco when the WCML from London to Scotland is the main artery for electric freight.
I cannot understand why one of the Tilbury to Daventry trains (4M07/4L27) uses a class 66 when it seems to be perfect for an 88?
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,300
I cannot understand why one of the Tilbury to Daventry trains (4M07/4L27) uses a class 66 when it seems to be perfect for an 88?
Balancing a loco? (Alternative would be to haul it dead in train) Or the result of a triangular diagram?
 

Adrian Barr

Member
Joined
2 Jul 2020
Messages
743
Location
Doncaster
Two thoughts come to mind:
1 Are the actual container weights used or is an average used? In other words, would it make a difference if all of the containers were loaded with baked beans rather than a mix of baked beans and paper tissues?
2 The train weight was established some years ago before the review of coupler strength enabled extra wagons being added to the train. Was the train load reviewed as well?

The actual container weights are provided by the terminal to the train operator, and these are entered into TOPS.

The TOPS system adds the weight of the containers on each wagon to the wagon tare weight and checks each wagon is not overloaded. This is highly unlikely with the usual 45ft containers on 4S43 - if they are a legal weight for road haulage they should be fine on a train - but is possible for example when loading heavily laden 20ft containers (which can weigh more than 30 tons each) to wagons which can carry three of them.

The TOPS system then adds the gross weights of the wagons on the train together, and checks this does not exceed the maximum weight for the loco type on that route. This is most likely limited by the 1400 tons trailing weight given in the "loads book" for a single class 88 northbound over Shap and Beattock, rather than a coupling strength restriction. A pair of class 90s or a 66 will typically have a timing load of 1600 tons for an intermodal train on the same route, although northbound Freightliner services between Basford Hall and Coatbridge are usually lighter than the domestic intermodal services running north from Daventry.

The total train weight on 4S43 (or any other intermodal) can vary from day to day depending on the precise mix of containers and their contents, yes. If 4S43 had all containers stuffed full of pallets of baked beans it could end up being too heavy for the loco to pull and needing to have wagons detached, but this should be taken into account when they are planning which containers to load to each train.

Some trailing weights (i.e. not including loco) noted on 4S43 on a few random dates over the last year or so have been 1236, 1244, 1249 tons. When 4S43 failed on 17th December it had 20 wagons weighing 1334 tons behind a single 88. I think 20 twin wagons (IKA and IDA) is usually the maximum length, but it often runs with slightly fewer wagons than that. From the small sample of old consists I've seen, the highest load I noted for a single 88 was 1371 tons in July last year, quite close to the 1400 ton limit.

I cannot understand why one of the Tilbury to Daventry trains (4M07/4L27) uses a class 66 when it seems to be perfect for an 88?

Now that you mention it, 88003 ran light from Gresty Bridge to Daventry on Monday as 0K44 and has been working the 4L48 to Tilbury and 4M77 return every day since then.

As per above post, I suspect the normal use of 66s is based around the loco diagrams - for example 66424 worked 4M77 on 8th July followed by 4V44 to Wentloog. I'm not sure how these diagrams usually work; some of the Wentloog trains are being retimed and diverted at the moment (via Bletchley, Oxford, Swindon and Bath Spa) which may have altered the usual diagrams this week and resulted in an 88 being dedicated to the Tilbury service.
 

themiller

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
1,380
Location
Cumbria, UK
The actual container weights are provided by the terminal to the train operator, and these are entered into TOPS.

The TOPS system adds the weight of the containers on each wagon to the wagon tare weight and checks each wagon is not overloaded. This is highly unlikely with the usual 45ft containers on 4S43 - if they are a legal weight for road haulage they should be fine on a train - but is possible for example when loading heavily laden 20ft containers (which can weigh more than 30 tons each) to wagons which can carry three of them.

The TOPS system then adds the gross weights of the wagons on the train together, and checks this does not exceed the maximum weight for the loco type on that route. This is most likely limited by the 1400 tons trailing weight given in the "loads book" for a single class 88 northbound over Shap and Beattock, rather than a coupling strength restriction. A pair of class 90s or a 66 will typically have a timing load of 1600 tons for an intermodal train on the same route, although northbound Freightliner services between Basford Hall and Coatbridge are usually lighter than the domestic intermodal services running north from Daventry.

The total train weight on 4S43 (or any other intermodal) can vary from day to day depending on the precise mix of containers and their contents, yes. If 4S43 had all containers stuffed full of pallets of baked beans it could end up being too heavy for the loco to pull and needing to have wagons detached, but this should be taken into account when they are planning which containers to load to each train.

Some trailing weights (i.e. not including loco) noted on 4S43 on a few random dates over the last year or so have been 1236, 1244, 1249 tons. When 4S43 failed on 17th December it had 20 wagons weighing 1334 tons behind a single 88. I think 20 twin wagons (IKA and IDA) is usually the maximum length, but it often runs with slightly fewer wagons than that. From the small sample of old consists I've seen, the highest load I noted for a single 88 was 1371 tons in July last year, quite close to the 1400 ton limit.
Thanks for that comprehensive explanation.
 

D1511

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2023
Messages
1,199
Location
WCML N
Just for a bit of variety, it is 4M27 that has failed on the southbound approach to Beattock today. Currently sitting on 9M50 in the platform at Carstairs awaiting a decision on whether we're returning to Glasgow or Edinburgh. :rolleyes:
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,300
Just for a bit of variety, it is 4M27 that has failed on the southbound approach to Beattock today. Currently sitting on 9M50 in the platform at Carstairs awaiting a decision on whether we're returning to Glasgow or Edinburgh. :rolleyes:
Great (not!) Anybody know what is hauling it and what the train weight is?
 

D1511

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2023
Messages
1,199
Location
WCML N
9M50 returning to Edinburgh to form 9M52, so another costly delay repay bill caused by DRS failing to allocate adequate motive power.
Can't they be mandated by NR to double head all Daventry services over Beattock? The continued disruption is intolerable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

1Z99, presumably loco to assist 4M27, just passing Lockerbie.
Why a class 1 code? To give an impression of urgency?! :s
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,284
Location
Glasgow
Why a class 1 code? To give an impression of urgency?!
Rescue locos usually are given 1Z99 by default, presumably exactly because a Class 1 has the highest priority generally (there are exceptions) and then Zulu for "Special working".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

9M50 returning to Edinburgh to form 9M52, so another costly delay repay bill caused by DRS failing to allocate adequate motive power.
Can't they be mandated by NR to double head all Daventry services over Beattock? The continued disruption is intolerable.
And the rescue loco is a 68, so hopefully it is an adhesion issue and not locomotive fault.
 

D1511

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2023
Messages
1,199
Location
WCML N
9M52 is now also cancelled, so I will be 4 hours late today because of this bollocks.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
3,851
Location
Northampton
I've long left involvement but it was the case that there was then a document titled 'Freight Trains Load Book' ('FTLB') which listed, as its name suggests, the maximum load by loco class over each section of route. When a consist was input into TOPS the system checked that the load conformed to the FTLB for the class concerned. It could only be departed if it did.

Has the system changed? If it is still the same in principle, then if Network Rail - who now manage TOPS - accept the train onto the network as conforming do they not bear
some responsibility?
 

D1537

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
2,027
Location
North Yorkshire
I am supposed to be travelling from Oxenholme to Glasgow today, and I note that Avanti have already spun one northbound Glasgow service at Preston ... sigh
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,284
Location
Glasgow
I've long left involvement but it was the case that there was then a document titled 'Freight Trains Load Book' ('FTLB') which listed, as its name suggests, the maximum load by loco class over each section of route. When a consist was input into TOPS the system checked that the load conformed to the FTLB for the class concerned. It could only be departed if it did.

Has the system changed? If it is still the same in principle, then if Network Rail - who now manage TOPS - accept the train onto the network as conforming do they not bear
some responsibility?
The train is very likely within weight, but what was often happening with 4S43 was that the single 4-axle 88 couldn't tackle the exposed gradients of Shap or Beattock in poor rail conditions and was slipping to a stand.

We haven't heard whether adhesion or a locomotive failure is to blame this morning.
 

D1511

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2023
Messages
1,199
Location
WCML N
Given it's 88010, and looking at the damp misty weather, my guess would be rail adhesion again.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
3,174
Location
Dumfries
Looks like 4M27 is finally on the move, with 1M07 just behind.

I assumed it would be getting looped at Beattock summit, but it’s been given the through road so clearly not!
 

GordonT

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,678

D1511

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2023
Messages
1,199
Location
WCML N
We haven't heard whether adhesion or a locomotive failure is to blame this morning.
Actually, I see it lost 10 minutes between Carstairs and Abington, so I suspect a loco problem

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Looks like 4M27 is finally on the move, with 1M07 just behind.

I assumed it would be getting looped at Beattock summit, but it’s been given the through road so clearly not!
Any sensible human would assume that, but sometimes signallers are anything but......
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,284
Location
Glasgow
Actually, I see it lost 10 minutes between Carstairs and Abington, so I suspect a loco problem
Seems to be on the move now, with 1M07 following behind.

1M84 0909 Glasgow to Manchester Airport has also departed Glasgow Central 20L.

Hopefully later workings which have stock will now leave on or near booked time.
 

GordonT

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,678
Looks like 4M27 is finally on the move, with 1M07 just behind.

I assumed it would be getting looped at Beattock summit, but it’s been given the through road so clearly not!
Would it definitely fit in loop?
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,401
Location
Northampton
Why a class 1 code? To give an impression of urgency?! :s
Rescue locos usually are given 1Z99 by default, presumably exactly because a Class 1 has the highest priority generally (there are exceptions) and then Zulu for "Special working".
1Z99 is mandated in the Rulebook and the TPRs to be used for a traction unit going to assist a failure. I have seen 0Z99 and 5Z99 used for locos and units involved in responding to a failure but not actively attending (e.g. returning back from the failure itself, or having been stood down after initially being tasked). I have also occasionally seen 1Z98 use when a 2nd rescue is tasked in the same area to avoid signaller confusion.
1785228263187.png
 

D1537

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
2,027
Location
North Yorkshire
Would it definitely fit in loop?
Yes, it's booked to be looped there, and it would definitely fit in Lockerbie Up Loop (because it's booked to be looped there for 1M07 to pass it) but it's gone past that as well!

Unless the extra length of the 68 makes it too long, which I doubt.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,284
Location
Glasgow
Would it definitely fit in loop?
It's scheduled to use Beattock Summit Loop it, so it must fit that.

1Z99 is mandated in the Rulebook and the TPRs to be used for a traction unit going to assist a failure. I have seen 0Z99 and 5Z99 used for locos and units involved in responding to a failure but not actively attending (e.g. returning back from the failure itself, or having been stood down after initially being tasked). I have also occasionally seen 1Z98 use when a 2nd rescue is tasked in the same area to avoid signaller confusion.
View attachment 208383
Thanks, I've seen 0Z99 a few times but of course as you say that's more for a light engine.
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
6,500
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
Why a class 1 code? To give an impression of urgency?!

No, to ensure that it's importance is recognised and that it is regulated accordingly.

When Railtrack/Network Rail Section Controller for the WCML in Scotland I said, countless times, that bi-directional signalling would allow a far better service to operate in such situations...

Moderator note: to discuss bi-directional signalling north of Preston, please use the following thread:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Huntergreed

Established Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
3,174
Location
Dumfries
I’m at Carlisle trying to get to Preston and it has been we’ve all been told to get on the delayed 10:35 to Manchester Airport. Given how many people are expecting to travel south I would be surprised if everyone gets on (given it’s a 5 Car 397).

1M07 has just arrived and is terminating here so all passengers will need to change here and also attempt to get on the 10:35.
 

GordonT

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,678
I’m at Carlisle trying to get to Preston and it has been we’ve all been told to get on the delayed 10:35 to Manchester Airport. Given how many people are expecting to travel south I would be surprised if everyone gets on (given it’s a 5 Car 397).

1M07 has just arrived and is terminating here so all passengers will need to change here and also attempt to get on the 10:35.
Grim.
 

Top