In message ,
hector writes
yes i was just goin to say SHUT THE F UP mister.


What an intelligent reply, have you ever been a trainman? I thought
not.
--
Clive.

In message , David Hansen
writes

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.
I suspect the shape of the leading power car to have something to do
with gathering up the car instead of just shunting it to the side.
This is not a troll and unless you can add to the debate please don't
respond.
--
Clive.

Clive Coleman schrieb:

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.

I guess the tenders didn't like speeds similar to 100 mph while running
first. However, they managed to order trains without tenders.

Secondly, there was a power car in front of the train when it hit the
obstacle.

Regards, ULF

"Clive Coleman" wrote in message
...
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.

Braking and power control not withstanding, a heavy weight at the rear of a
train is not good news when it has to stop in a hurry, but a heavy weight at
the front means a better chance of staying upright and, potentially, more
protection for the guy at the sharp end.

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 ;-)

Clive Coleman wrote in message:

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).

Generally 45mph now for tender engines working backwards (at least, in all
the tender engines I've been in).

However, do note that this was not due to the dange of derailment. It was
due to poor visibilty.

Do remember that push-pull services with tank engines existed for a long
time during the big-four period and continued into BR days. These were not
troubled with visibility problems, as the driver could control the engine
from a suitable front coach - something which could be called the very first
DVT, but better known as the auto-coach

Ronnie
--
Volunteer guard on the Great Central Railway, Loughborough, Leicestershire
Visit the world's only double track preserved steam railway!
http://www.gcrailway.co.uk

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

The rear power car was not under full power. It was actually giving an
emergency brake application.

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

Very true. It's about time all points were removed from the rail network to
safeguard against idiot car-drivers.

Ronnie
--
Volunteer guard on the Great Central Railway, Loughborough, Leicestershire
Visit the world's only double track preserved steam railway!
http://www.gcrailway.co.uk

In article , S.Byers
writes
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
I take it you want a return to the steam era
But even then might have problems if no banking engine allowed on the
Lickey etc.

Do you also propose the end of DMU's and EMU's effectively all modern
day trains
How about banning 4x4 vehicles Front and rear axle powered.
--
Alan Osborn

In message , Ronnie Clark
writes
These were not troubled with visibility problems, as the driver could
control the engine from a suitable front coach - something which could
be called the very first DVT, but better known as the auto-coach
I have not forgotten the Yatton- Clevedon shuttle.
--
Clive Coleman

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