"Chippy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Andy H wrote:


I don't mean to be rude but that demonstrates a clear lack of
understanding
and knowledge about the system!

Does it?


Firstly the trip arm is not that accessible,

Accesible enough.

secondly the force required would result in some broken toes,

Utter nonsense. Your obvious exaggeration makes it clear that your
opinions are not worth bothering with.

Have you ever actually tripped a tripcock? Stupid question really -
obviously not!

Andyh

"

The are trip cock testers at Amersham and Harrow. The Chiltern trains
have to pass these OK and they are done at slow speed, even if the train
is not stopping. I'm not sure what happens to the tester once the first
unit has gone past, but in theory it could trigger the second units arm
out of the way. Also, when the A60 stock was first introduced, they would
run 4 car sets off peak, at that time all cabs I assume would have been
driveable, so a similar situation to the 16/168 situation may have
occurred then, i.e. the second unit potentially being tripped at speed, I
assume they solved this!
--
Matthew P Jones - www.amersham.org.uk
My view of the Metropolitan Line www.metroland.org.uk - actually I like
it
Don't reply to it will not be read
You can reply to knap AT Nildram dot co dot uk

Except that the Chiltern units have already encountered a Tripcock fitted
signal well in advance of both Amersham and Harrow as they enter the Met
territory. Both of these are approached at speed.

Andyh

Ronnie Clark wrote:
snip

That still leaves the front and rear-most cocks being reset a hell of
a lot of times, and being struck at high-speeds.


The leading tripcock will only hit a trainstop if the signal is being passed
at red, not usually done.

The rear tripcock is on the wrong side of the track to connect with the
trainstop.


--
Cheers for now,

John from Harrow, Middx

remove spamnocars to reply

Andy H wrote:
"Chippy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Andy H wrote:


I don't mean to be rude but that demonstrates a clear lack of
understanding
and knowledge about the system!

Does it?


Firstly the trip arm is not that accessible,

Accesible enough.

secondly the force required would result in some broken toes,

Utter nonsense. Your obvious exaggeration makes it clear that your
opinions are not worth bothering with.

Have you ever actually tripped a tripcock? Stupid question really -
obviously not!

Well, at least now you've got somethingright - you are quite correct
that it is a stupid question, because it is totally irrelevant to the
issue at hand. A typical arsehole's wriggle, in fact.

On 18 Jul 2005 20:17:11 -0700 someone who may be "Minna Daisuki
Katamari Damacy" wrote this:-

The effects of dangling tripcocks striking raised trainstops doesnt
seem to be a problem.

About 100 years ago the problem of striking raised trainstops at
speed led to the failure of a number of devices based on the method.
The NER persisted, but only by using a ramp a bit like the GWR ramp
to give some of the indications on their Fog Signalling Apparatus.
Since then metallurgy has progressed, but there is only so much that
can be done about fatigue.

Striking a trainstop occasionally at high speed is very different to
striking them regularly at high speed. One of the reasons there are
tripcock testers is to ensure that the arm has not broken off.


--
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:
snip
Striking a trainstop occasionally at high speed is very different to
striking them regularly at high speed. One of the reasons there are
tripcock testers is to ensure that the arm has not broken off.

I'd put that differently. The tripcock tester is there to ensure that
1) the train has a tripcock set
and
2) that the tripcock is to gauge.


--
Cheers for now,

John from Harrow, Middx

remove spamnocars to reply

Do people have to have the last word on EVERYTHING in here?

He said ONE of the reasons the tripcock tester is there is to ensure
that the arm has not broken off.

ONE of the reasons. Not ALL of the reasons!

No need to try and correct everything that is posted on here. Credit
people with a little intellegence, please!

The leading tripcock will only hit a trainstop if the signal is being passed
at red, not usually done.

The rear tripcock is on the wrong side of the track to connect with the
trainstop.

So is that to imply that there's no tripcock-equipped lines that are
signalled for bi-directional working? Or if so, is there some
technical gubbins that will lower the "wrong-direction" cocks when a
train is running wrong line?

TIA

Matt

The most common instance of this, as was said in the original post is
when you have multiple units coupled together running over LUL lines.
Then you will have a cab with a tripcock fitted on the side of the
track the trainstop is raised on.

"M J Forbes" wrote in message
oups.com...
The leading tripcock will only hit a trainstop if the signal is
being passed
at red, not usually done.

The rear tripcock is on the wrong side of the track to connect with
the
trainstop.

So is that to imply that there's no tripcock-equipped lines that are
signalled for bi-directional working?

If there is (on the Met), Platform 2 at Amersham and Platform 5 at
Harrow on the Hill may be bi-di. I can't be sure about Amersham, but
i've seen A stock in platform 5 at harrow (Chiltern, london bound),
when on an Aylesbury bound train in platform 6, and pretty sure that
the platform 5 train was shown as for Rickmansworth.
Also, platforms 1 & 4 at Baker Street, and I think 2 and 3 are bi-di
as well.


Or if so, is there some
technical gubbins that will lower the "wrong-direction" cocks when a
train is running wrong line?


Can't answer that one.

Matt