Rich Mackin wrote:

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.

It's Stephen Byers feeling arsey ;-)

In message , dwb
writes
econdly, 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.
Do you KNOW that?
--
Clive Coleman

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:19:59 +0000 someone who may be Clive Coleman
wrote this:-

econdly, 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.

Do you KNOW that?

The Railway Inspectorate say so in their interim report.


--
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.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

David Hansen wrote:

Clive Coleman wrote:

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.

Do you KNOW that?

The Railway Inspectorate say so in their interim report.

Unless you are reading a different report than is available on the RI
web site:

- There is no mention of the power setting in the interim report.
- There is no mention of the type of brake application, nor the position
of the brake handle in the interim report, only that the brakes were
applied 2 to 3 sections prior to impact. One can assume they were
applied in emergency, but the report makes no statement on the subject,
and it would be an assumption on the part of the reader.
- There is no mention in the report of where the rear power car first
derailed, (meaning the one at the London end of train) only that it was
derailed where it came to rest.

How do people get so many facts wrong, when the report is readily
available?

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:31:57 GMT someone who may be James Robinson
wrote this:-

- There is no mention of the power setting in the interim report.

Irrelevant. We know that with the brakes applied traction power
cannot be obtained.

It is possible that the control system was deranged during the
initial impact. However in that case the rear data recorder and the
front data recorder would disagree. I imagine this would be
mentioned by the RI.



--
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.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Irrelevant. We know that with the brakes applied traction power
cannot be obtained.

Does this mean that any brake application automatically cuts traction power?

It's typical in North America to "power brake". In power braking, the
throttle is left in notch two or three, the independent brake in full
release while the train is brought to a stand with the train brake working
against the throttle. Is this not possible in the UK?


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:04:55 -0800, Roger T. wrote:



Irrelevant. We know that with the brakes applied traction power
cannot be obtained.

Does this mean that any brake application automatically cuts traction power?

It's typical in North America to "power brake". In power braking, the
throttle is left in notch two or three, the independent brake in full
release while the train is brought to a stand with the train brake working
against the throttle. Is this not possible in the UK?

You are also comparing a technique to handle slack in a long rake of
goods wagons with the operation of relatively short rake of passenger
rolling stock with low slack couplers and a locomotive on each end, not
just the front.

I would be surprised if goods trains in the UK didn't also use the 'power
brake' technique to stop the slack from running in.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:04:55 -0800 someone who may be "Roger T."
wrote this:-

Does this mean that any brake application automatically cuts traction power?

That is my understanding and it has been stated by others who are in
a position to know. Such an interlock appears to have been common
since the 1960s.


--
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.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Roger T." wrote
It's typical in North America to "power brake". In power
braking, the
throttle is left in notch two or three, the independent brake
in full
release while the train is brought to a stand with the train
brake working
against the throttle. Is this not possible in the UK?

Not with the stuff I drive. Why would you do that?
Nev

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Roger T.
gently breathed:

Irrelevant. We know that with the brakes applied traction power
cannot be obtained.

Does this mean that any brake application automatically cuts traction power?

I believe the systems are set such that as soon as the brake pressure or
vacuum drops (or rises) beyond a certain point, power is automatically
cut and cannot be reapplied until the brake is restored.

It's typical in North America to "power brake". In power braking, the
throttle is left in notch two or three, the independent brake in full
release while the train is brought to a stand with the train brake working
against the throttle. Is this not possible in the UK?

I can see the advantages of this on very long freight trains, even with
continuous brakes there must be a lot of slack in a mile long train, but
your later post said it was common on passenger trains too - any idea
why? I don't see any advantage to it on something like an HST, where
the control layout ensures that brake valves open and shut
simultaneously at front and rear powercars, and there is no slack worth
speaking of in the 8 coach formations. Even in the days of 15 coach Mk1
rakes, it wasn't, AFAIK, possible. Possibly north American couplers
have more slack than UK ones do? The buckeyes fitted as standard from
Mk1 onwards are 3/4 scale copies of the US ones, though, and of course
until just a few years ago (and still, on railtour stock) the loco is
attached via screw-link over the drawhook with buffers extended to take
the compression.

Btw, what is the independent brake? We tend to have straight-air on
locos, and automatic air or automatic vacuum on the train.

--
- Pyromancer Stormshadow.
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk -- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk -- Electronic Metal!
http://www.revival.stormshadow.com -- The Gothic Revival.