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!
From the brake isolation point of view the number of vehicles with brakes isolated is not a simple calculation. Locomotives and single vehicle units such as class 153 will have duplicate systems for redundancy purposes i.e to avoid a single point failure. In this case only one bogie will normally be isolated so 50% brake force will be available.
…which is why I said that the rule book sets the principles that are interpreted and applied to specific situations. In this respect, the calculation remains straightforward.
But given that the general ratio of unbraked to braked that decides whether or not specific restrictions apply is 1 in 5, the duplication of brake systems on single vehicle trains such as locos and Cl153s is unlikely to change any of that. It’s just a redundancy to ensure that a train with a brake fault can still be moved without the need to summon assistance.
…which is why I said that the rule book sets the principles that are interpreted and applied to specific situations. In this respect, the calculation remains straightforward.
But given that the general ratio of unbraked to braked that decides whether or not specific restrictions apply is 1 in 5, the duplication of brake systems on single vehicle trains such as locos and Cl153s is unlikely to change any of that. It’s just a redundancy to ensure that a train with a brake fault can still be moved without the need to summon assistance.
Duplication of brake systems on vehicles that can be operated on their own is necessary to avoid a single point failure that would result in complete loss of brake force. A single point failure (I.e without a duplicate back up system) on a single vehicle train that could render the automatic brake inoperative is unacceptable as it could result in a runaway.
This is now off-topic from the definition of a vehicle which I have already described.
Duplication of brake systems on vehicles that can be operated on their own is necessary to avoid a single point failure that would result in complete loss of brake force. A single point failure (I.e without a duplicate back up system) on a single vehicle train that could render the automatic brake inoperative is unacceptable as it could result in a runaway.
Pacers don’t have bogies and yet the document effectively states that everything that runs on the railway should have bogies, which is true, but due to the misguided existence of the Pacers and the insistence in the 1980s that no better quality vehicles were to be built, had to make an exception for them.
If such a thing exists that is of such poor quality to not even constitute being a “vehicle” then it would have to be considerably worse than any 4 wheeled Pacer, which while just about able to qualify as “vehicles” cannot claim to be “bogie vehicles” which all rail vehicles should be.
I put to you this. If you were to build a simple frame and attach to it plain flat blocks similar to the ones visible in the attached image, but with the addition of flanges to allow it to sit stationary on rails without detailing and then coupled it to a locomotive and dragged it to another location (presumably causing significant damage to the track in the process) would it be able to call itself a “vehicle” despite not being “wheeled” if that is one of the criteria or even having any moving parts?
1. No it doesn't.
2. No it isn't.
3. Those of us who worked for Regional Railways recognise the role Pacers played in keeping the business in existence.
4. Saying it again doesn't make it any more correct.
5. You would be wasting everybody's time, including your own.
The Pacers were crucial at the time in order to replace life-expired first generation DMUs at low cost. In turn they allowed RR to order the various Sprinters which were a significant upgrade. That we still have rail services to certain rural locations is in part due to the Pacers.
And they are, quite clearly, railway vehicles.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There was a whole train of them standing in Crewe station on Monday loaded with ballast.
Wagon types MKA, MEA, MHA, MPA, MTA are all 4 wheelers (that's about 1,350 wagons).
20 FPA container wagons.
80 SSA scrap wagons and 80 CDA hoppers.
Then there are c.270 OBA/OCA open goods wagons.
etc.
And that's just in the British series - also plenty of international 4 wheelers that operate in the UK.
And again they are, quite clearly, railway vehicles.
I support everything 6Gman says. I don’t know why 507020 thinks railway vehicles must have bogies.
4 and 6 wheel vehicles have run on the railway since railways were invented.
The Pacers were crucial at the time in order to replace life-expired first generation DMUs at low cost. In turn they allowed RR to order the various Sprinters which were a significant upgrade. That we still have rail services to certain rural locations is in part due to the Pacers.
I’m not debating the importance of the Class 14x vehicles to the railway in the 1980. Despite being significantly more expensive to build and operate than Class 150s or 156s, they satisfied Mrs Thatcher’s sadistic aims of “a fate worse than death” for the north and south west of England and Wales in that rather than the complete closure of lines to deprive people entirely, journeys on them were to be made torturous for passengers instead. They also satisfied a desire for British Leyland to continue production of its obsolete 1960s designed National bus.
There was a whole train of them standing in Crewe station on Monday loaded with ballast.
Wagon types MKA, MEA, MHA, MPA, MTA are all 4 wheelers (that's about 1,350 wagons).
20 FPA container wagons.
80 SSA scrap wagons and 80 CDA hoppers.
Then there are c.270 OBA/OCA open goods wagons.
etc.
And that's just in the British series - also plenty of international 4 wheelers that operate in the UK.
And again they are, quite clearly, railway vehicles.
I support everything 6Gman says. I don’t know why 507020 thinks railway vehicles must have bogies.
4 and 6 wheel vehicles have run on the railway since railways were invented.
So do I though, as it is clearly a very informed viewpoint. I was simply stating that on at least one occasion, all railway vehicles were divided into the distinct groups of “bogie vehicles” and “Class 14x vehicles” and suggesting that if there is another inferior tier below the bogieless vehicles, that it may not constitute a vehicle at all. Short wheel base 4 and 6 wheel vehicles ran on the railway before the invention of articulated bogies allowed the use of longer vehicles.
I was simply stating that on at least one occasion, all railway vehicles were divided into the distinct groups of “bogie vehicles” and “Class 14x vehicles” and suggesting that if there is another inferior tier below the bogieless vehicles, that it may not constitute a vehicle at all.
And again you are wrong. The phrasing in that document is intended to convey nothing more than an exception for Pacers on a line that otherwise isn't cleared for non-bogey vehicles. Your take on it is akin to putting two and two together and confidently declaring the answer to be ten million.
And again you are wrong. The phrasing in that document is intended to convey nothing more than an exception for Pacers on a line that otherwise isn't cleared for non-bogey vehicles. Your take on it is akin to putting two and two together and confidently declaring the answer to be ten million.
Yes and from doing so I am no longer under the illusion that there is a way to stop something from being a vehicle like that. As long as you put 2 and 2 together, whether that’s 2 axles on a bogie at either end or 2 wheels on either end of an axle directly on an underframe, you have a vehicle. I think my new definition answers the question of what is a vehicle.
I was simply stating that on at least one occasion, all railway vehicles were divided into the distinct groups of “bogie vehicles” and “Class 14x vehicles” and suggesting that if there is another inferior tier below the bogieless vehicles, that it may not constitute a vehicle at all.
Compare the phrase "women and children first". Clearly this does not imply that all people are one or the other - on the contrary, it only makes sense if there are also people who are neither women nor children.
Likewise, the quoted passage does not imply that all railway vehicles fall into one or other of the two categories "bogie vehicles" and "14x vehicles". The phrase "bogie vehicles and class 14x vehicles" implies that there are at least three categories of vehicle - bogie vehicles, class 14x vehicles (to both of which the rules in question apply), and other bogieless vehicles, to which different rules apply. (It is also implicit that a Class 14x unit is made up of one or more "vehicles").
It is precisely because vehicles exist which are neither Pacers nor bogied that it is necessary to specify that the rule does not apply to those other vehicles. If the third category did not exist, or was not defined as a vehicle, it would not be necessary to distinguish from them.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
