The extent of the damage in the Berkshire crash was caused by two
major factors apart from the speed of the train and the limited view
of the hero driver.

These we

1/ the rear power car, still under full power, caused much of the
crumpling and jack knifing, and

2/ the train would probably have remained upright if the points just
further on hadn't completely derailed it.

These two factors were not the fault of the suicidal car driver but
rather Railtrack's and First Great Western's.

Yet throughout the world we now have high speed passenger trains
pushed from the *rear* by high powered engines. There will be more
such crashes.

SB

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:09:38 -0800, S.Byers wrote:

The extent of the damage in the Berkshire crash was caused by ...
1/ the rear power car, still under full power,

FO back under your stone, troll.

In article , S.Byers wrote:

Yet throughout the world we now have high speed passenger trains
pushed from the *rear* by high powered engines. There will be more
such crashes.

So, we just get rid of rear engines, and all the problems will be solved?

Presumably you'd like there to a single track from each possible destination
to each other possible destination, thereby removing all those nasty
dangerous points, too.

If you're looking for someone to blame, blame the idiot in the car. The
incident was his fault, not the railway companies'.

Brian
--
* * * * ** * * ** ** * *
* ** * * ** * * * *
* * * * * *

"Brian Widdas" wrote in message
...
In article , S.Byers
wrote:

Yet throughout the world we now have high speed passenger trains
pushed from the *rear* by high powered engines. There will be more
such crashes.

So, we just get rid of rear engines, and all the problems will be solved?

Please don't feed the trolls!

"S.Byers" wrote in message
om...
The extent of the damage in the Berkshire crash was caused by two
major factors apart from the speed of the train and the limited view
of the hero driver.

These we

1/ the rear power car, still under full power, caused much of the
crumpling and jack knifing, and

2/ the train would probably have remained upright if the points just
further on hadn't completely derailed it.

These two factors were not the fault of the suicidal car driver but
rather Railtrack's and First Great Western's.

Yet throughout the world we now have high speed passenger trains
pushed from the *rear* by high powered engines. There will be more
such crashes.

Neither RT (should be Network Rail btw) or FGW had any hand in the design of
the HST, as it came some 20 years before the existence of either! Secondly,
the rear power car was NOT under the full power. The train's 'black box
recorder' that the power notch was at zero and the brake handle was in
'emergency'. It was simply the inertia of the rear power car (which had
already derailed) that kept it moving. Much of what you have posted is quite
wrong.

--
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

S.Byers wrote:
The extent of the damage in the Berkshire crash was caused by two
major factors apart from the speed of the train and the limited view
of the hero driver.

These we

1/ the rear power car, still under full power, caused much of the
crumpling and jack knifing, and


An emergency brake application causes the power to be cut. Additionally it
is a natural reaction by an experinced driver to cut power as he applies the
brakes. On an HST this is done by pushing both the power and brake handles
forward to their fullest extent.

yes i was just goin to say SHUT THE F UP mister.

On 10 Nov 2004 09:09:38 -0800 someone who may be
(S.Byers) wrote this:-

1/ the rear power car, still under full power, caused much of the
crumpling and jack knifing, and

AFAIK it was not under full power.

Even if it was under full power the extra force that provided was
not enough to cause the damage. If it was then HSTs would be damaged
every time only the rear power car is working, which happens from
time to time. The forces the power cars produce are minor compared
to the forces involved in a crash.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
news
Even if it was under full power the extra force that provided was
not enough to cause the damage. If it was then HSTs would be damaged
every time only the rear power car is working, which happens from
time to time. The forces the power cars produce are minor compared
to the forces involved in a crash.

Quite. The maximum tractive effort is about 8 tons, which I guess (I don't
have a power curve) would be only about a quarter of that at 100 mph.
Compared to the momentum of its 70-ton weight at 100 mph, plus that of the
other carriages at the rear, the effect of any power it could produce is
negligible.

Roger

In message , A.Lee
writes
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:09:38 -0800, S.Byers wrote:

The extent of the damage in the Berkshire crash was caused by ...
1/ the rear power car, still under full power,

FO back under your stone, troll.

I don't troll this N/G but I do remember working on British Railways
when propelling was not allowed above 40mph. I expect I'll now get
some egghead to troll me, but this was always the case when working
tender first. (It also had the advantage of keeping the coal dust out
of your eyes).
--
Clive.