Collision Iminent Emergency Brake

[Nym]

I think you miss my point, Nym! i hope you do well in your GCSE's!

This is purely not needed, how old do you think I am and with what experience?

Theres a hint at the Avatar "IET/IEEE in training" I did fine in my GCSEs thanks, and A Levels, and DTC-ADC and every other course I've done.

Perhaps you've missed the true meaning of what I'm getting at in that post, the matter of what can and can't be done with somthing that is engineered, modelable, and predictable; is not a matter for discussion. It is a matter of fact, and when this fact has come from an expert in the feild, why would anyone try to dispute it?

I hope you don't run out of snippets of big words before what is now decending into personal attacks runs out.

Somone who has never worked in a safety critical post can only hypothisise at to what it is like to do so, that being Train Driver, responsible for your passengers, or any one of some of the jobs I have trained for and done in the past.

Now, either the corners are being taken slower than they are in a car (doubt it; I'm sure drivers here can provide us with the numbers), or the corners have a much larger radius than the worst we'd see on the roads. If it's the latter, then that translates to a much better sightline.

I can see your point there, but trains brake much slower than cars, so if for example the curves are 10 times straighter and the negative accelaration 10 times slower, you're in the same situation.

Also, if you're driving a car on a curvey road you shold never drive at a speed that would mean that you can't stop before the last bit of road that you can see. (Sorry, DTC training coming out here)

 

[strange6]

Dragging this back to cars... how often, in car on a B-road (or Welsh A-road, same thing!) do you find yourself pressed towards the outside of a corner at 50-60mph? Fairly often, yes?

Now, how often have you had the same experience on a train? Let's assume we're talking about something a bit quicker than a local service - people have mentioned 185s before, they can get up to a fair lick between stations, can't they? Even been pressed against the wall?

Now, either the corners are being taken slower than they are in a car (doubt it; I'm sure drivers here can provide us with the numbers), or the corners have a much larger radius than the worst we'd see on the roads. If it's the latter, then that translates to a much better sightline.

You're correct. That's why there have never been any serious high speed collisions of trees around rail corners and that's why Mr leigh can't provide any evidence as such! But he's a train driver and you're not so you don't know what you're talking about, even tjhough it's common sense! I've had enough of this thread, point proven I think!

 

[OxtedL]

Guys, cool it or PM a mod.

Does cant on the railway also reduce the "centrifugal" (avoid that word like the plague) force? Just wondering.

 

[strange6]

This is purely not needed, how old do you think I am and with what experience?

Theres a hint at the Avatar "IET/IEEE in training" I did fine in my GCSEs thanks, and A Levels, and DTC-ADC and every other course I've done.

Perhaps you've missed the true meaning of what I'm getting at in that post, the matter of what can and can't be done with somthing that is engineered, modelable, and predictable; is not a matter for discussion. It is a matter of fact, and when this fact has come from an expert in the feild, why would anyone try to dispute it?

I hope you don't run out of snippets of big words before what is now decending into personal attacks runs out.

Somone who has never worked in a safety critical post can only hypothisise at to what it is like to do so, that being Train Driver, responsible for your passengers, or any one of some of the jobs I have trained for and done in the past.



I can see your point there, but trains brake much slower than cars, so if for example the curves are 10 times straighter and the negative accelaration 10 times slower, you're in the same situation.

Also, if you're driving a car on a curvey road you shold never drive at a speed that would mean that you can't stop before the last bit of road that you can see. (Sorry, DTC training coming out here)

So you think 'experts' are always correct do you? That's arrogance beyond belief! I'll leave you to argue with yourself because, quite frankly, you're quite blinkered in to how you see things so it's no use argueing with you. Hope you do well in your training!

 

[HugePilchard]

I can see your point there, but trains brake much slower than cars, so if for example the curves are 10 times straighter and the negative accelaration 10 times slower, you're in the same situation.

Not sure if I made it clear, but I wasn't really referring to braking when I made that post. The point I was trying to make is that lower lateral forces on the passengers = longer curves = better sightlines for the driver before they apply the brakes, and hence more of a chance to hit the big red button and get out of the cab.

 

[Nym]

So you think 'experts' are always correct do you? That's arrogance beyond belief! I'll leave you to argue with yourself because, quite frankly, you're quite blinkered in to how you see things so it's no use argueing with you. Hope you do well in your training!

Where did I say that experts are always correct?

And don't try taking the high ground on the argument by posting a nice concluding post like that. If you want to not be able to read black on white properly and understand what I am actually saying, several times; then I don't see how this is my problem.

And yes, cant does reduce such forces, but it's better to model it as angular 2d motion to have it make sense, ie, rather than all of the force used to turn the train round the corner being applied lateraly across the horizon, part of it is applied downward onto the railhead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not sure if I made it clear, but I wasn't really referring to braking when I made that post. The point I was trying to make is that lower lateral forces on the passengers = longer curves = better sightlines for the driver before they apply the brakes, and hence more of a chance to hit the big red button and get out of the cab.

Ah, OK, more time to get out of the cab yes, but there are still, as OLL said, blind curves on the railway, and you still take them at linespeed.

 

[strange6]

Where did I say that experts are always correct?

It is a matter of fact, and when this fact has come from an expert in the feild, why would anyone try to dispute it?
That's what you said!

 

[jon0844]

It must be impossible for a train driver to always see as far as the stopping distance. To do that, the train would have to crawl or all lines would be dead straight (and lit up at night). In fog, trains wouldn't run at all. If a driver was expected to see within the stopping distance, why not ditch expensive signalling equipment?

I would therefore guess, without being a driver, that there would be situations where you might suddenly see something far ahead that you know you'd not be able to avoid, but can still react to and, if necessary, get away from.

I can't see how anyone could be so convinced that this wouldn't be the case. If a train might take a mile to stop, that's quite a lot of time. Think how quick you could actually move if you have to, just count seconds: 0... 1... 2... - I bet you'd get quite some way. In just 4 or 5 seconds, you may well get out of your seat and through a door (if it's easy to open) so if there's nothing you can do once the emergency braking is started, why shouldn't a driver bail?

 

[strange6]

It must be impossible for a train driver to always see as far as the stopping distance. To do that, the train would have to crawl or all lines would be dead straight (and lit up at night). In fog, trains wouldn't run at all. If a driver was expected to see within the stopping distance, why not ditch expensive signalling equipment?

I would therefore guess, without being a driver, that there would be situations where you might suddenly see something far ahead that you know you'd not be able to avoid, but can still react to and, if necessary, get away from.

I can't see how anyone could be so convinced that this wouldn't be the case. If a train might take a mile to stop, that's quite a lot of time. Think how quick you could actually move if you have to, just count seconds: 0... 1... 2... - I bet you'd get quite some way. In just 4 or 5 seconds, you may well get out of your seat and through a door (if it's easy to open) so if there's nothing you can do once the emergency braking is started, why shouldn't a driver bail?

You're absolutely correct in what you say! I don't deny the facts
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah, OK, more time to get out of the cab yes, but there are still, as OLL said, blind curves on the railway, and you still take them at linespeed.

Which is very often at low speed for the more tighter curves!

 

[Nym]

Which is very often at low speed for the more tighter curves!

Lets see, leaving tamworth northbound thanks to the fencelines and the curve it's 2000ft visability, and 125EPS...

 

[Sapphire Blue]

As long as the guard in the back cab doesn't spill tea over his Metro, due to the excessive g-forces, I don't see a problem!

 

[Nym]

This is why somone at BR started developing a centripical compensating coaster, but then budget cuts saw the project cancelled.

 

[pendolino]

It must be impossible for a train driver to always see as far as the stopping distance. To do that, the train would have to crawl or all lines would be dead straight (and lit up at night). In fog, trains wouldn't run at all. If a driver was expected to see within the stopping distance, why not ditch expensive signalling equipment?

Absolutely. If it was always possible to stop from line speed within the distance you can see ahead, there would be no need for rules like this when passing a signal at danger with the signaller's authority:

d) Train speed
You must proceed at a safe, reduced speed based on:
• the train’s braking capability
• the distance ahead which you can see is clear, allowing for:
- darkness, fog or falling snow
- curvature of the line
- anything else affecting your view.

That's why there have never been any serious high speed collisions of trees around rail corners and that's why Mr leigh can't provide any evidence as such!

I have come round blind bends at line speed and hit branches or trees on the line. Luckily the branch/tree involved has never been big enough to cause a problem, but this is purely down to luck - next time it might be an entire large tree rather than just a branch.

But equally, I can think of plenty of locations (long straight stretches of track with high linespeeds) where if I had to use the emergency brake and I felt the train was not going to come to stand in time to avoid hitting an obstruction (particularly during leaf fall/low adhesion when braking distances can increase dramatically), I would have time to exit the cab if absolutely necessary.

Although whether I would actually do this instead of sitting there frozen to the chair shouting 'SH*************************T!!!!' while the passengers immediately behind the cab wonder what on earth is going on, is another matter. Luckily I've never been in that situation.

Edit: just another point regarding visibility: at night, in the pitch black and possibly pouring rain, at high speed and on track with LED signals, you can see pretty much nothing at all for some distance as you approach the signal, except for a big green blob (or yellow, but hopefully not red) rushing towards you. Especially on stock where the headlight/markers are as effective as a couple of candles. Quite unnerving at first, nothing at all like driving a car.

 

[O L Leigh]

I've never said a bailout is impossible? Where have I said that?

Well, there was this...

Anyway, by the time you suss out an iminent collision is going to happen, it would be too late to do anything about it, never mind attempt to run out the cab

...and then you said...

However, considering railway bends are not exactly that bendy and the line speeds through them are not exactly high, I very much doubt you would have to run out of the cab if ever you saw such an object.

...so perhaps you DID actually say those things after all.

As for jogging your memory, how do you reconcile...

Mr Leigh; I respect you and what you do. If you tell me something factually correct from your own experience then who am i to argue?

...with...

You're correct. That's why there have never been any serious high speed collisions of trees around rail corners and that's why Mr leigh can't provide any evidence as such! But he's a train driver and you're not so you don't know what you're talking about, even tjhough it's common sense! I've had enough of this thread, point proven I think!

Irrespective of anything else, you are beginning to exhibit all the hallmarks of a forum troll. We can have this chat by PM if you'd prefer, but I think I'd actually like the rest of the membership to recognise the extent of your hypocrisy.

Oh, and please don't try and say I failed to get some joke or other. You can't say one thing and then the complete opposite and only claim this when you get pulled up over it.

O L Leigh

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Strange6, you are starting to embarrass yourself now. It might be a good idea to accept what people are telling you who are trained and do the job for a living. It would be rather like if I started telling you about what nuclear reactors could and couldn't do?

 

[1V53]

I can think of many limited visibility 70-80mph curves with user worked crossings on or after them on eg the Cambrian line. There have been fatal (to the car driver) incidents where the (train) driver had virtually no time to react. There have also been similar where a situation unfolds ahead (oh sheet the car is pulling onto the line.... Blast horn.... See car stop.... Blast horn apply emergency brake blast horn again either see car driver bail out or look terror stricken.... Bail out of cab and brace yourself for the impact.

It doesn't matter how straight the line is, if someone suddenly drives onto the track or dangles a large object from a bridge or a tree blows down, the visibility for one or two miles is meaningless.

 

[TDK]

From Newtons laws of physics, I very much doubt you could apply an emergency brake like that and run off in the opposite direction unless you were some kind of Superman who could defeat inertia by running against it. What happens if you're in a car and the driver slams on? You go straight out of the windscreen! (Forward direction) hahaha It would be incredible training if people learned to do what he did lol

Lack of knowledge and experience mate - I could do it easily and I am not superman

 

[Trainbuff]

To take this back towards the original post. I know that Voyagers can get very full so I am not going to debate whether passengers are in the way or not but there are a few points here.
1. The Driving Cab on these trains is a 'crunple zone'
2. The areas directly behind the cabs must be kept clear at ALL times
3. The area that must be kept clear is called 'The Drivers Burst-through'

If the driver did run past the passengers I think that not many would react quick enough. In any case the goal of the Driver would simply be to get to the saloon of the coach, this being the strongest area on the train.

I hope this is of help

 

[185]

I'm feeling the love on this thread

 

[strange6]

Lack of knowledge and experience mate - I could do it easily and I am not superman

This is getting very boring. Once again, I did correct myself in a later posting by realising that the momentum of a fast moving 200T train could not stop itself very easily and therefore would not produce that many G's when breaking. We all have 'brain not engaging moments' and this was one for me. So lets not keep bringing this silly arguement up again and again for the sake of self- inflating one's ego. Thanks
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm feeling the love on this thread

It's a very silly thread my friend but that's the nature to these internet forums. Make one mistake, and instead of getting courteous replies back pointing out your mistake, you can get arrogant responses back from people who should know better. That's life. Still, I'm off to France for a week now so I couldn't care less!

 

[GB]

strange6 - It's a very silly thread my friend but that's the nature to these internet forums. Make one mistake, and instead of getting courteous replies pointing out your mistake, you can get arrogant responses back from people who should know better. Still, that's life

While the video is rather silly I don't really think the concept of what a driver does in such a situation is and I think its a fair question to ask.

You have to admit, one or two of your posts have been rather condescending.

 

[O L Leigh]

Still, I'm off to France for a week now so I couldn't care less!

So we'll ALL get a bit of a break, then. Lovely!!

Enjoy your trip.

O L Leigh

 

[bluenoxid]

I am on my phone but will one shot blasters proposed for Pacers make this bailing a reality.

 

[TDK]

So lets not keep bringing this silly arguement up again and again for the sake of self- inflating one's ego. Thanks

I honestly do not need to inflate my ego Strange and you should already know that - however this is a forum for discussing railways and if a post is submitted and it is incorrect it does need to be corrected or unfortunately the only information ever put on this forum would be inaccurate.

 

[bengley]

 

[bluenoxid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-udUw13vdE

 

[scotsman]

Monsieurs, regardez s'il vous plait?

Err, quick reactions? Exit cab by choice? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ny9Fjg8yBc

On a barely related tangent, my idol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkVqR-0Tgs0

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Also, if you're driving a car on a curvey road you shold never drive at a speed that would mean that you can't stop before the last bit of road that you can see.

Unless it's a one way road, you should drive no faster than the speed which would allow you to stop in half the distance you can see.

 

[66526]

Anyway, by the time you suss out an iminent collision is going to happen, it would be too late to do anything about it, never mind attempt to run out the cab

Not neccaseraly

 

[Nym]

Unless it's a one way road, you should drive no faster than the speed which would allow you to stop in half the distance you can see.

OK, it was a major contraction of a 3 week driving course. It also means that you should be staying on your own side of the road, and that stament relates to coming up against a stationary object, or ambush, or broken down vehicle, etc.