Tripcocks on 165s
 

I was on a 165 formed of 3 x 2 carriage sets the other day, sat at the
front of the back 2 car unit. The driver passed the signal and by the
time my coach got to the signal, (as you'd expect) it had a red aspect
showing, but why wasn't the train 'tripped?' Do all the tripcocks
become inactive apart from the ones in the 1st unit when they're
coupled together, or do the train stops raise after a delay (say
30Secs) or so to allow the train to pass over?

Tripcocks on 165s
 

Joe wrote:
I was on a 165 formed of 3 x 2 carriage sets the other day, sat at the
front of the back 2 car unit. The driver passed the signal and by the
time my coach got to the signal, (as you'd expect) it had a red aspect
showing, but why wasn't the train 'tripped?' Do all the tripcocks
become inactive apart from the ones in the 1st unit when they're
coupled together, or do the train stops raise after a delay (say
30Secs) or so to allow the train to pass over?

Tripcocks in the middle and at the rear of the train are rendered
inoperative, i.e. only the one at the front is working.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

On 17 Jul 2005 07:37:51 -0700, "Joe"
wrote:

I was on a 165 formed of 3 x 2 carriage sets the other day, sat at the
front of the back 2 car unit. The driver passed the signal and by the
time my coach got to the signal, (as you'd expect) it had a red aspect
showing, but why wasn't the train 'tripped?' Do all the tripcocks
become inactive apart from the ones in the 1st unit when they're
coupled together, or do the train stops raise after a delay (say
30Secs) or so to allow the train to pass over?

I've watched trainstops on LU before (not on that particular bit of
line though) and they only rose after the entire train had passed.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
I was on a 165 formed of 3 x 2 carriage sets the other day, sat at the
front of the back 2 car unit. The driver passed the signal and by the
time my coach got to the signal, (as you'd expect) it had a red aspect
showing, but why wasn't the train 'tripped?' Do all the tripcocks
become inactive apart from the ones in the 1st unit when they're
coupled together, or do the train stops raise after a delay (say
30Secs) or so to allow the train to pass over?


Only the tripcock on the leading vehicle is "active" on a 165/168.

If two units are coupled together the tripcocks on the two cabs that are
coupled tend to trip but this does not prevent the train from moving. When
the two units are separated again you then find it has been tripped and have
to reset it. The "uncouple" button on a 165/168 doubles as a tripcock reset
button.

Roger

http://rpm-railpics.fotopic.net/
http://therailwaystationgallery.fotopic.net/
http://therailticketgallery.fotopic.net/

All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of my employer.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:03:53 +0100 someone who may be "RPM"
wrote this:-

Only the tripcock on the leading vehicle is "active" on a 165/168.

If two units are coupled together the tripcocks on the two cabs that are
coupled tend to trip but this does not prevent the train from moving.

That probably/possibly involves the tripcock arms on the rear units
regularly striking a trackside trainstop arm at considerable speed,
once on each trip. This will be where the train enters the area
fitted with LT signalling. That can't be good for the life of the
arms and they are likely to break off at the point when they need to
work.

It would be better for the arms to be automatically moved out of the
way when coupled up.


--
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.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

Erm, Roger is a driver at Chiltern. Who signs 165's and 168's.
He knows what he is talking about!

Tripcocks on 165s
 

On 17 Jul 2005 13:16:20 -0700 someone who may be "Minna Daisuki
Katamari Damacy" wrote this:-

Erm, Roger is a driver at Chiltern. Who signs 165's and 168's.
He knows what he is talking about!

None of which is an answer to the points I raised.


--
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.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:03:53 +0100 someone who may be "RPM"
wrote this:-

Only the tripcock on the leading vehicle is "active" on a 165/168.

If two units are coupled together the tripcocks on the two cabs that are
coupled tend to trip but this does not prevent the train from moving.

That probably/possibly involves the tripcock arms on the rear units
regularly striking a trackside trainstop arm at considerable speed,
once on each trip. This will be where the train enters the area
fitted with LT signalling. That can't be good for the life of the
arms and they are likely to break off at the point when they need to
work.

It would be better for the arms to be automatically moved out of the
way when coupled up.


I am advised that the trip arm/s on trailing units stays down until it
strikes a trackside obstruction. Since it is swtiched out of the circuit
there is no effect when that happens. It is automatically reset when
uncoupling.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:03:53 +0100 someone who may be "RPM"
wrote this:-

Only the tripcock on the leading vehicle is "active" on a 165/168.

If two units are coupled together the tripcocks on the two cabs that
are coupled tend to trip but this does not prevent the train from
moving.

That probably/possibly involves the tripcock arms on the rear units
regularly striking a trackside trainstop arm at considerable speed,
once on each trip. This will be where the train enters the area
fitted with LT signalling. That can't be good for the life of the
arms and they are likely to break off at the point when they need to
work.

It would be better for the arms to be automatically moved out of the
way when coupled up.

Two points.
Firstly, LT trains work in the same way and I am not aware that they have
had problems.
Secondly, Once a tripcock is struck it remains in the up position until it
is reset when the unit is uncoupled so the rear unit tripcock will only be
hit once per period of time that the unit is coupled as the non leading
unit.


--
Cheers for now,

John from Harrow, Middx

remove spamnocars to reply

Tripcocks on 165s
 

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:44:02 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

That probably/possibly involves the tripcock arms on the rear units
regularly striking a trackside trainstop arm at considerable speed,
once on each trip. This will be where the train enters the area
fitted with LT signalling. That can't be good for the life of the
arms and they are likely to break off

Why should the speed ("considerable" or otherwise) be a matter of
concern for these arms, but not for the leading one? Unless there is
significant acceleration or deceleration, won't it be more or less the
same speed for all of them?

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9628969.html
(03 179 at Ipswich in 1980, long before being christened "Clive")

Tripcocks on 165s
 

Why should the speed ("considerable" or otherwise) be a matter of
concern for these arms, but not for the leading one? Unless there is
significant acceleration or deceleration, won't it be more or less the
same speed for all of them?

No, because the trainstop would have been lowered, surely, for the time
when it passes the signal.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:21:45 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
wrote this:-

Why should the speed ("considerable" or otherwise) be a matter of
concern for these arms, but not for the leading one?

One way such systems can fail is if the arm breaks off. This risk is
controlled by not having arms generally not striking trainstops and
so not suffering the fatigue this involves. An arm at the front of
the train will only strike a trainstop on rare occasions.

The higher the speed that an arm strikes the trainstop the more
likely it is to fail. "BR" trains will usually be travelling at high
speed when they first encounter trainstops as they enter the LT
signalled section.


--
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.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

David 'Arsehole' Hansen wrote:

One way such systems can fail is if the arm breaks off. This risk is
controlled by not having arms generally not striking trainstops and
so not suffering the fatigue this involves. An arm at the front of
the train will only strike a trainstop on rare occasions.

The risk is so remote as to be of no concern. One of the benefits of
trip cocks is that they are a very simple system. Adding a system to
retract them would complicate the system, and probably increase the
chances of a wrong-side failure.

If there were any concern regarding this issue the simplest thing would
be to tell drivers to kick them out of the way during preparation.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

On 18 Jul 2005 03:49:19 -0700 someone who may be "Chippy"
wrote this:-

David 'Arsehole' Hansen wrote:

Excellent, more personal abuse. Do keep it up as it tells us so much
about you.

The risk is so remote as to be of no concern.

So you claim.


--
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.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

David Hansen wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 03:49:19 -0700 someone who may be "Chippy"
wrote this:-

David 'Arsehole' Hansen wrote:

Excellent, more personal abuse. Do keep it up as it tells us so much
about you.

It isn't abuse. It is recognition of your status as an Arsehole Club
member.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

In message .com,
Chippy writes
David 'Arsehole' Hansen wrote:

One way such systems can fail is if the arm breaks off. This risk is
controlled by not having arms generally not striking trainstops and
so not suffering the fatigue this involves. An arm at the front of
the train will only strike a trainstop on rare occasions.

One of the benefits of
trip cocks is that they are a very simple system.
Aren't they tested on every trip? They certainly used to be.
--
Clive

Tripcocks on 165s
 

Two points.
Firstly, LT trains work in the same way and I am not aware that they have
had problems.
Secondly, Once a tripcock is struck it remains in the up position until
it
is reset when the unit is uncoupled so the rear unit tripcock will only be
hit once per period of time that the unit is coupled as the non leading
unit.

The only difference being that the LUL trains will get strike the first
signal they encouter leaving the depot at 10mph whilst the Chiltern units
similiar first experience will be a signal at 75mph!

Andyh

Tripcocks on 165s
 

"Chippy" wrote in message
oups.com...
David 'Arsehole' Hansen wrote:

One way such systems can fail is if the arm breaks off. This risk is
controlled by not having arms generally not striking trainstops and
so not suffering the fatigue this involves. An arm at the front of
the train will only strike a trainstop on rare occasions.

The risk is so remote as to be of no concern. One of the benefits of
trip cocks is that they are a very simple system. Adding a system to
retract them would complicate the system, and probably increase the
chances of a wrong-side failure.

If there were any concern regarding this issue the simplest thing would
be to tell drivers to kick them out of the way during preparation.


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

Firstly the trip arm is not that accessible, secondly the force required
would result in some broken toes, thirdly given that large amount of
coupling and uncoupling Chiltern do often this would need to be done in
platforms at Marylebone and Aylesbury, and forthly the drivers would want a
£5k pay rise for doing it!

Andyh

Tripcocks on 165s
 

"John Shelley" wrote in message
...

Two points.
Firstly, LT trains work in the same way and I am not aware that they have
had problems.

LT trains will leave depots at slow speed when the "dead" trips are tripped.

Secondly, Once a tripcock is struck it remains in the up position until
it
is reset when the unit is uncoupled so the rear unit tripcock will only be
hit once per period of time that the unit is coupled as the non leading
unit.

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


--
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

Tripcocks on 165s
 

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 18 Jul 2005 03:49:19 -0700 someone who may be "Chippy"
wrote this:-

David 'Arsehole' Hansen wrote:

Excellent, more personal abuse. Do keep it up as it tells us so much
about you.

At least he's not calling you an asparagus...


--
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

Tripcocks on 165s
 

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.

thirdly given that large amount of
coupling and uncoupling Chiltern do often this would need to be done in
platforms at Marylebone and Aylesbury, and forthly the drivers would want a
£5k pay rise for doing it!

Another candidate for Arsehole Club membership...

Tripcocks on 165s
 

In reply to news post, which Andy H
wrote on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 -
Two points.
Firstly, LT trains work in the same way and I am not aware that they have
had problems.
Secondly, Once a tripcock is struck it remains in the up position until
it
is reset when the unit is uncoupled so the rear unit tripcock will only be
hit once per period of time that the unit is coupled as the non leading
unit.

The only difference being that the LUL trains will get strike the first
signal they encouter leaving the depot at 10mph whilst the Chiltern units
similiar first experience will be a signal at 75mph!

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

Tripcocks on 165s
 

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:38:12 +0100, "Andy H"
wrote:

Two points.
Firstly, LT trains work in the same way and I am not aware that they have
had problems.
Secondly, Once a tripcock is struck it remains in the up position until
it
is reset when the unit is uncoupled so the rear unit tripcock will only be
hit once per period of time that the unit is coupled as the non leading
unit.

The only difference being that the LUL trains will get strike the first
signal they encouter leaving the depot at 10mph whilst the Chiltern units
similiar first experience will be a signal at 75mph!

Surely they'd be moving slowly, having just stopped at
Amersham/Harrow-on-the-Hill? In any case I don't think 75mph is
permitted on the LUL track!

Tripcocks on 165s
 

"asdf" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:38:12 +0100, "Andy H"
wrote:

Two points.
Firstly, LT trains work in the same way and I am not aware that
they have
had problems.
Secondly, Once a tripcock is struck it remains in the up
position until
it
is reset when the unit is uncoupled so the rear unit tripcock will
only be
hit once per period of time that the unit is coupled as the non
leading
unit.

The only difference being that the LUL trains will get strike the
first
signal they encouter leaving the depot at 10mph whilst the Chiltern
units
similiar first experience will be a signal at 75mph!

Surely they'd be moving slowly, having just stopped at
Amersham/Harrow-on-the-Hill? In any case I don't think 75mph is
permitted on the LUL track!

Towards Amersham, from Aylesbury, the trains enter LUL track at,
presumably, 60mph at "Mantles Wood Junction".
Where is the first LUL signal with trip after the junction and before
Amersham station, presumably before the siding line into the main
london bound platform at Amersham... but how close, as the trains will
still be travelling at some speed at that point.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

In reply to news post, which Matt Wheeler
wrote on Mon, 18 Jul 2005 -

"asdf" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:38:12 +0100, "Andy H"
wrote:

Two points.
Firstly, LT trains work in the same way and I am not aware that
they have
had problems.
Secondly, Once a tripcock is struck it remains in the up
position until
it
is reset when the unit is uncoupled so the rear unit tripcock will
only be
hit once per period of time that the unit is coupled as the non
leading
unit.

The only difference being that the LUL trains will get strike the
first
signal they encouter leaving the depot at 10mph whilst the Chiltern
units
similiar first experience will be a signal at 75mph!

Surely they'd be moving slowly, having just stopped at
Amersham/Harrow-on-the-Hill? In any case I don't think 75mph is
permitted on the LUL track!

Towards Amersham, from Aylesbury, the trains enter LUL track at,
presumably, 60mph at "Mantles Wood Junction".
Where is the first LUL signal with trip after the junction and before
Amersham station, presumably before the siding line into the main
london bound platform at Amersham... but how close, as the trains will
still be travelling at some speed at that point.


The tester is at the end of platform three, London end. The trains
cannot go through Amersham at 60, they have to slow for the trip cock
tester
--
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

Tripcocks on 165s
 

Where I live (Sydney, Australia) we use a similar trip system in the
Suburban area.

The all but the front trip have to be retracted manually. Only the latest
model trains have trips that are remotely raise-able.
When a train is coupled, it's part of the job to retract the now middle
two trip arms. A small lever is provided and the arm locks up.
Part of a drivers job when 'preping' a train is to make sure the front
and rear trips are infact lowered.

This way, no trip arm ever hits anything at speed.

The other method, which I believe the New York subway uses is to
'suppress' the trip arm, it lowers as the train passes the signal. At
least one accident was attributes to this system as drives could edge past
a signal at stop and not get tripped - which involves reseting the trip
cock.


Thus a trip cock arm never hits a trip arm at speed, unless it's the
leading one and the train is a SPAD.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

In article ,
Andy H wrote:
Two points.
Firstly, LT trains work in the same way and I am not aware that they have

The only difference being that the LUL trains will get strike the first
signal they encouter leaving the depot at 10mph whilst the Chiltern units
similiar first experience will be a signal at 75mph!

I believe trip cocks were previously fitted to the DMUs on Widened Lines
services, and they seemed to work mostly. I also read on the web that
some (presumably Sulzer) type 2s were fitted for these trains before
the DMUs took over, and also for other LTE workings. Any more gen on
either would be welcome :-)

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/ ... So express yourself

Tripcocks on 165s
 

Nick Leverton wrote:

I believe trip cocks were previously fitted to the DMUs on Widened Lines
services, and they seemed to work mostly. I also read on the web that
some (presumably Sulzer) type 2s were fitted for these trains before
the DMUs took over, and also for other LTE workings. Any more gen on
either would be welcome :-)

Both the LMR and ER had locos and DMUs so fitted.

The LMR had some Sulzer Type 2s, plus torque convertor DMUs. The ER
had the Rolls-Royce engined DMUs, plus Brush Type 2s. The Brush 2s
lasted until the closure of the route to Moorgate via York Road, when
the GN electrics started via Drayton Park, and the LMR DMUs lasted
until the Bed-Pan services started to run to Moorgate. The tripcock on
GN suburban workings (originally Quad-Arts, later BR non-corridor
stock) was set by the Driver's Assistant at York Road, but on many
occasions the isolating cock (let into the skirt under the nose)
wouldn't be opened, leaving the tripcock merely to satisfy the LT
signalman via the tester at what is now KX Thameslink.

The loco hauled services worked on the basis of a released loco taking
the next train from Moorgate, with a light loco going down there at the
start of each day. Coupling/uncoupling was done by an LT member of
staff.

ER BTH Type 1s were also fitted with tripcocks, for working freight
over the line taken over by the Northern Line to High Barnet. These
carried short-circuiting bars on these duties, but trains working over
the Widened Lines didn't, as they didn't go over any conductor rails.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

Matt Wheeler wrote:
SNIP!

Towards Amersham, from Aylesbury, the trains enter LUL track at,
presumably, 60mph at "Mantles Wood Junction".
Where is the first LUL signal with trip after the junction and before
Amersham station, presumably before the siding line into the main
london bound platform at Amersham... but how close, as the trains will
still be travelling at some speed at that point.


Yep. Signal JW1. Depending on how you drive, you would be doing
anywhere between 60 and about 40 there. You would always be slowing
down for the platform at Amersham, because you are either calling at
the station, or slowing down for the Tripcock Test in the in the
platform at Amersham (its a white light by the side of the signal.
There is a device that looks like a pedal on the track, and you must
pass over that at no more than 10mph. If the white light goes out, the
test is passed, and you can proceed normally, if the light stays on,
the test is failed and you dont go any further) There was a tripcock
tester on exiting Amersham towards Aylesbury on platform 3, where the
vast majority of Chiltern services are routed. This has been removed,
and there now sits a 15mph speed limit through the station. Ive not
been through platform 2 exiting the LUL since the tripcock tester on 3
has been removed, though im fairly certain that the tester is still
there.

The effects of dangling tripcocks striking raised trainstops doesnt
seem to be a problem. Trains have been working like this for years, and
the world is still spinning. Fair enough, its got people talking on
here about it, and some of the comments have been interesting, but the
system works, and LUL, who dont change anything (there are still "off"
indicators at a lot of Met stations!) unless they really have to, arent
going to change something that isnt causing them a problem any time
soon.

As for the maximum speed limit on the LUL, well, there is a very grey
area at Amersham. There is a 70mph speed limit sign between Amersham
station and the Network Rail boundry, beyond the electrified track.
Now im told that the maximum speed anywhere on the LUL is 60mph. Ive
never seen this written down, but ive been told many times by many
different people that it is. But this 70mph sign exists. Can trains do
70mph there, or is this 60mph limit real? I for one keep on acclerating
past 60mph.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

In article ,
Nick Leverton wrote:

I believe trip cocks were previously fitted to the DMUs on Widened Lines
services, and they seemed to work mostly. I also read on the web that
some (presumably Sulzer) type 2s were fitted for these trains before
the DMUs took over, and also for other LTE workings. Any more gen on
either would be welcome :-)

Tripcocks were also fitted to some steam engines and also the Class 117
dmus working out of Paddington.

David

Tripcocks on 165s
 

"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

Tripcocks on 165s
 

"

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

Tripcocks on 165s
 

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

Tripcocks on 165s
 

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.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

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.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

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

Tripcocks on 165s
 

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!

Tripcocks on 165s
 

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

Tripcocks on 165s
 

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.

Tripcocks on 165s
 

"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