Train uncoupled at Leeds

[coxxy]

I'd guess the plan to reform some sets into 3-car units is probably one reason why replacing internal BSIs with bars hasn't been done yet. When the fleet plan was first announced there was mention on here of the 'boxed-in' /2 cabs being decommissioned and even removed, though that may have just been wibble. Has it been decided or made public which units will become 3-car yet?

According to the franchise agreement it's April 2019 before they are expected to enter service..

 

[brel york]

There would be safety systems in place as I imagine the jumpers took the separation badly lol

 

[northwichcat]

According to the franchise agreement it's April 2019 before they are expected to enter service..

We do know the 150/1s which are to get the centre car will still get a PRM toilet, the /2s which will become centre cars won't.

 

[brel york]

Someone needs to inform angel as they can’t even decide if 57209 is going to be made into a 52 car or wether to send 150207 to gwr instead , looking like the latter , the orders for all the toilets are in place , very costly to change your mind

 

[brel york]

And wabtec has been fitting bar couplers to angel 150s during C4 Work

 

[whhistle]

• He (the driver taking over the train at Reading) was delayed on connecting service because of a points problem.

Both of these are what the railway would term an operational incident, yes.

I'd have said that's a "problem with line-side equipment" rather than an "operational incident".

With the 150 incident, the first that jumps out to me is simply "Train Fault". Although I hate generic terms really.
I was on a flight once where they said there was a "technical fault" with one of the engines. Turned out to be some sort of bird strike had caused some sort of problem and they couldn't find the right paperwork to fill out.

...with the rear car propelled under its own power into the same platform - there are photos online showing the two halves still detached in the platform at Leeds.

So was the "back half" driven from the cab in reverse with a backman then?

 

[ComUtoR]

I'd have said that's a "problem with line-side equipment" rather than an "operational incident".

Replacing one generic phrase with another; which achieves nothing.

So was the "back half" driven from the cab in reverse with a backman then?

What's a 'backman' ?

 

[brel york]

A man stood at the back maybe lol

 

[northwichcat]

Someone needs to inform angel as they can’t even decide if 57209 is going to be made into a 52 car or wether to send 150207 to gwr instead , looking like the latter , the orders for all the toilets are in place , very costly to change your mind

That doesn't change the number of PRM toilets required, only which vehicles get the PRM toilets. Surely if Angel want Northern to send a 150/2 to them to simply things they should be the one selling the idea to Northern and maybe throwing extra something in to get Northern to buy the idea.

 

[brel york]

If you have 50 toilets ordered for fifty 52 cars then you don’t fit them all in 52 cars you haven’t used the full fifty

 

[brel york]

So the 2s become centre cars , what happens to the toilet orders for the 150/2 bearing in mind that at least a third have been fitted with toilets

 

[northwichcat]

If you have 50 toilets ordered for fifty 52 cars then you don’t fit them all in 52 cars you haven’t used the full fifty

Original plan -
Mismatched /2 cars get new toilet.
8 x 150/2s don't get toilet because they become centre cars

What your saying is Angel's alternative -
Mismatched /2 cars become centre cars so need no toilet.
6 x 150/2s don't get toilet because they become centre cars
A 150/2 which transfers from Northern to GWR gets a new toilet

It makes no difference to the number of toilets required, only which vehicles get the toilets.

So the 2s become centre cars , what happens to the toilet orders for the 150/2 bearing in mind that at least a third have been fitted with toilets

Either you're missing the obvious or you're saying Angel have made a massive cock up and ordered toilets for the 8 x car 150/2s which they agreed with Northern would become centre cars a couple of years ago.

 

[coxxy]

Isn't it only an option for Northen to make some 3 car 150's.. have the leasing companies actually announced how many they are going to do?

 

[northwichcat]

Isn't it only an option for Northen to make some 3 car 150's.. have the leasing companies actually announced how many they are going to do?

The franchise agreement states it's a requirement to create 3 car 150s and Northern have requested infrastructure changes to the Penistone and Knottingley lines to use 60m trains.

 

[coxxy]

Fair enough.. when I read it it reads somethig along the lines of the franchise being permitted to do so.. must admit I read it as they have the choice to do it but fair enough

 

[superkev]

May be of interest.
https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/low-cost-train-maintenance-provider-under-the-spotlight/
Only private contractors make mistake eh.
K

 

[northwichcat]

May be of interest.
https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/low-cost-train-maintenance-provider-under-the-spotlight/
Only private contractors make mistake eh.
K

I wonder what they would say if the works were still owned by a record producer who's also a train enthusiast?

I think it was on another forum where someone working for train maintenance for another TOC said the first thing to do is check that Northern inspected the unit properly after receiving it back.

“RMT will not allow the deadly serious issues raised by the Leeds incident to be swept under the carpet.”

As the RAIB will be investigating it doesn't matter what the RMT will or won't allow, the RAIB report will be the only one that matters.

 

[700007]

A Chug 2 became a Chug 1.

*dives for cover*