GC class B1
Member
This report raises some interesting points regarding training and assessment of drivers and risk assessment of operations. As I have a particular interest in train braking I have considered whether the loco braking was acceptable and whether the SPAD would have avoided had the locomotive braking performance been compliant with GM/RT2045.
From clauses 43 to 46 I have calculated that the deceleration rate in Emergency was less than 5%g. In addition this was on a rising gradient and iI would expect a higher deceleration rate.
Clause 98 states that the loco stopped in 1140 metres from 75MPH and this was consistent with curve A1 of GM/RT2045. I don’t agree with this as curve A1 is for Full Service braking and the loco was braking in Emergency. The stopping distance in Emergency should be no more than 1110 metres taking into account the shorter brake propagation rate. I would expect the stopping distance to be less than this if the loco brakes were in good condition. It is also not clear whether this stopping distance has been corrected for gradient.
From clauses 43 to 46 I have calculated that the deceleration rate in Emergency was less than 5%g. In addition this was on a rising gradient and iI would expect a higher deceleration rate.
Clause 98 states that the loco stopped in 1140 metres from 75MPH and this was consistent with curve A1 of GM/RT2045. I don’t agree with this as curve A1 is for Full Service braking and the loco was braking in Emergency. The stopping distance in Emergency should be no more than 1110 metres taking into account the shorter brake propagation rate. I would expect the stopping distance to be less than this if the loco brakes were in good condition. It is also not clear whether this stopping distance has been corrected for gradient.