WCML disruption - Grayrigg 28/06

[brad465]

Money and how long you can stretch it out until its really life expired. Normally 40 years but plenty soldiering on into their 50s and 60s.

Yes I believed cost was a possibility but as you also say the physical head frame still getting old is why I don't understand the logic here.

 

[LRV3004]

4S43, aka The Tesco Express, has always been too long for many of the loops. There are 1 or 2 it fits in, I think, but it has always been timed at Preston to immediately follow a passenger service where there is a decent gap until the next one so it has a free run to Penrith.

Barton and Broughton loop and Penrith (platform 3) are the only loops between Crewe and Carlisle big enough to accommodate 4S43.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Barton and Broughton loop and Penrith (platform 3) are the only loops between Crewe and Carlisle big enough to accommodate 4S43.

Presumably the Hartford "loop" works as well, plus the extended 4-track sections through Warrington, Wigan and Preston.
Hasn't the design length of loops been 775m for some considerable time (I assume this is sufficient for 4S43)?
It just shows how little WCRM money was spent north of Weaver Jn (though many of the junction layouts were improved).

 

[The Planner]

775m is aspirational, and only normally happens if there is a wider specific scheme such as Southampton to the West Mids, which in itself has taken years.

 

[brad465]

Barton and Broughton loop and Penrith (platform 3) are the only loops between Crewe and Carlisle big enough to accommodate 4S43.

When I travelled back from Penrith the day after the incident, the same service the following day parked in Penrith P3 while a Glasgow Central Pendolino served the station and overtook. The service does also spend a while at "Carlisle N.Y", which I presume is part of Kingmoor yard, for what looks like a driver change.

 

[mcmad]

<snip> the original signal head but replaced the filament bulbs with LED fittings inside (something I've never understood the logic behind).

When you have replaced the bulbs in your house from tungsten to LED did you buy equivalent LED bulbs or brand new fittings?

Why replace a serviceable signal head with the associated testing costs rather than just replacing the bulbs inside with a modern equivalent.

 

[tiptoptaff]

I'm not one to usually make this sort of comment, as I usually try and support the "they've done what they can" mentality. But....

If that had been a unit with an air leak on the rear vehicle, we'd have isolated the vehicle and cleared the line at an appropriate speed depending on fixed bar couplings, 1in5rules etc.

Is there any reason why they couldn't isolate the air/brake on that one vehicle and clear the line, rather than sitting there for hours and hours? Unless I've misread and that's what they did, but it took that long to get in and clear somewhere?

 

[Chingy]

Is there any reason why they couldn't isolate the air/brake on that one vehicle and clear the line, rather than sitting there for hours and hours? Unless I've misread and that's what they did, but it took that long to get in and clear somewhere?

As I understand, it was the last wagon on the train that had the issue.

You must have working brakes etc on the last wagon, you can't isolate the brakes and continue running in this scenario, hence the need for a loco to attach to the rear of the train, as this effectively became the last "wagon" and therefore, the brakes etc could be isolated on the affected wagon.

 

[HSP 2]

As I understand, it was the last wagon on the train that had the issue.

You must have working brakes etc on the last wagon, you can't isolate the brakes and continue running in this scenario, hence the need for a loco to attach to the rear of the train, as this effectively became the last "wagon" and therefore, the brakes etc could be isolated on the affected wagon.

So if the next to last wagon had had the problem with the brakes that could have been isolated and the train could have carried on?

 

[tiptoptaff]

As I understand, it was the last wagon on the train that had the issue.

You must have working brakes etc on the last wagon, you can't isolate the brakes and continue running in this scenario, hence the need for a loco to attach to the rear of the train, as this effectively became the last "wagon" and therefore, the brakes etc could be isolated on the affected wagon.

Thanks, knew there would be a reason for it.

 

[guard1]

I'm guessing with a large air leak on a vehicle (which drops the main res pressure below a set amount) you would have to isolate the main reservoir pipe, brake reservoir and remove the parking brake to turn the wagon into a swinger. However if the (semi-permanent?) coupling fails you would have a runaway wagon so it cannot be done to the final vehicle/wagon in a train formation. Not sure if I'm correct on this (passenger) or is it different for freight vehicles?

 

[Taunton]

There have been air leaks before in the 140 years since Westinghouse invented such brakes. Whyever is there nowadays no ready procedure for handling it. Or if there is, why is the only person able to do it in Ashford or somewhere.

I believe there's a loop just ahead at Tebay. Whatever its length why can't the train get that far, detach the defective vehicles, and carry on?

 

[bengley]

There have been air leaks before in the 140 years since Westinghouse invented such brakes. Whyever is there nowadays no ready procedure for handling it. Or if there is, why is the only person able to do it in Ashford or somewhere.

I believe there's a loop just ahead at Tebay. Whatever its length why can't the train get that far, detach the defective vehicles, and carry on?

It's not that simple. If there is a loss of air the train will automatically stop.

It's then possible to override the safety system which does this but the rule book doesn't allow this without the defective wagon (in this case, on the rear of the train) being 'boxed in'

 

[zwk500]

There have been air leaks before in the 140 years since Westinghouse invented such brakes. Whyever is there nowadays no ready procedure for handling it. Or if there is, why is the only person able to do it in Ashford or somewhere.

Wasn't a loco sent from Carlisle?

I believe there's a loop just ahead at Tebay. Whatever its length why can't the train get that far, detach the defective vehicles, and carry on?

Lesser issues:
1. The loop isn't long enough to hold the train clear of the main line, so you'd still be blocking the line while detaching the vehicle.
2. The security of the goods on board and vehicle itself needs to be considered.
3. Examining the wagon in the loop may require blocking of the main line for staff safety, or be difficult to arrange access to site.
Major issues:
4. The air leak means the brakes are jammed, so you'd have to manually pin them open. As this vehicle was the last of the train, on a steep uphill gradient, should the coupling break with the brakes pinned open there would be nothing to stop it running away.
5. Once the vehicle is in the loop, it would need the handbrake screwed on and therefore completely block the loop to other traffic. Some of the loops in Cumbria function as accesses to quarry terminals, not sure about Tebay.
6. When the time finally comes to recover the vehicle, you need to have a spare loco, driver, and gap in traffic to get the loco the right side of the wagon, and then move the wagon forward.

 

[CW2]

Presumably the Hartford "loop" works as well, plus the extended 4-track sections through Warrington, Wigan and Preston.
Hasn't the design length of loops been 775m for some considerable time (I assume this is sufficient for 4S43)?
It just shows how little WCRM money was spent north of Weaver Jn (though many of the junction layouts were improved).

On the WCRM I spent some considerable time and effort in persuading the DfT to authorize improvements to the loops north of Crewe. I did well with the layout at Hartford, but north of Preston the emphasis was on increasing line speeds. Unfortunately if you increase the turnout speeds you need longer switches which reduces the loop length. With freight revenue being insufficient to fund any new infrastructure, we were very much at the mercy of the DfT for funding any improvements. Man from DfT, He say No!

 

[InOban]

Or rather the man from the Treasury said no to the DfT.

 

[trainophile]

I was on the 1309 from Crewe, should have arrived in Carlisle at 1459, was four hours late! Nothing we could do about it, I was travelling with a friend I hadn't seen since January 2020 so we were happy enough to chat, although the train was pretty full and stuffy.

The did make several announcements about delay repay and how to claim it, so can't fault Avanti.

 

[Falcon1200]

I was on an earlier train, 1110 Euston-Glasgow C (1254 ex Crewe), which was also delayed four hours. Considering that the 4S43 incident started around 1000, and my train was not due at Oxenholme until 1408, such a huge delay was quite frankly astonishing. No doubt there were issues we will never be privy to.