OT Speed awareness courses
On 13/11/2013 15:23, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:17:10 -0000, SteveW wrote: On 13/11/2013 12:07, Gefreiter Krueger wrote: On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:26:42 -0000, SteveW wrote: On 05/11/2013 11:42, tony sayer wrote: In article o.uk, Dave Liquorice scribeth thus On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:05:34 -0000, Gefreiter Krueger wrote: lower Can't think of any around here either. Who will come of worse between a tractor and a car? A large rabbit or even a pheasant can take out a headlight or smash a radiator grill. A sheep would probably cause serious damage, roe deer have long thin legs so will tend to get scooped up and have a good go at coming through the windscreen. A red deer, probably will come through the windscreen, you might survive... Mate of mine had a new "ish" BMW written off by a wayward horse!.. A cow derailed a train once;!... 13 dead and 61 injured.. I remember that. I think that there was a bit of a fuss at the time as the train was being run push-pull - pulled as normal to one end of the line and pushed back to save moving the loco to the other end. I don't know if that was to save time, effort or of there were no facilities for running round the train at one or both ends of the line. You mean it was being driven with no forward view? Locomotives normally have the facility to be coupled together and controlled from the cab of the leading one (multiple working) allowing one driver to control multiple locomotives. In push-pull working, the leading carriage has a cab built into it and the train is driven from there when in push mode. Similar to the old 1950s Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) where one carriage had a pair of diesels under the floor and a cab at one end and the other just had the cab and no engines. So why was a fuss made? It was considered that the much lower axle weight of a carriage compared to a locomotive made it more likely to derail when hitting an obstruction and hence always leading with the locomotive is safer - basically something getting jammed between the sleepers and the bottom of the carriage or between wheel and track is less likely to lift a heavy locomotive high enough for the wheel flanges to slip over the top of the rail. Having just read the report referred to by another poster, it was considered too expensive to increase the axle loading of the leading carriage and that to get it to a similar level as a locomotive, it'd require entirely new driving carriages for each train. A much cheaper alternative of adding a guard to try and prevent obstructions getting under the carriage or wheels and lifting it was added instead although its effects are far mor limited. SteveW |
OT Speed awareness courses
On 13/11/2013 16:23, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:12:49 +0000, SteveW wrote: She is actually perfectly capable of dealing with things beyond what she'll meet, but is stressed by knowing in advance that she's going to a new area, far more so with someone observing her. That's one of the reasons for not driving the first trip somewhere herself - assessment of new patients usually requires two staff and a new area and feeling that a collegue is observing her would be too close to a driving test, hence let them drive her to a new patient rather than the other way round! She'd She has enough stress in her life and there is no reason to add to it. Over the years I have done numerous exams and the only ones I have been nervous about while doing them are the driving test, observed practicals and presentations - it's not the pressure of the exams that is the problem, it's the pressure of having someone watching you. Many people would fail unnecessarily, just due to that. WTF is her reaction if a TrafPol car happens to follow her? Why should that be a problem? Having someone sat next to you and watching your every movement, even your eye movements is far, far worse. SteveW |
OT Speed awareness courses
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:10:25 -0000, SteveW wrote:
On 13/11/2013 15:23, Gefreiter Krueger wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:17:10 -0000, SteveW wrote: On 13/11/2013 12:07, Gefreiter Krueger wrote: On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:26:42 -0000, SteveW wrote: On 05/11/2013 11:42, tony sayer wrote: I remember that. I think that there was a bit of a fuss at the time as the train was being run push-pull - pulled as normal to one end of the line and pushed back to save moving the loco to the other end. I don't know if that was to save time, effort or of there were no facilities for running round the train at one or both ends of the line. You mean it was being driven with no forward view? Locomotives normally have the facility to be coupled together and controlled from the cab of the leading one (multiple working) allowing one driver to control multiple locomotives. In push-pull working, the leading carriage has a cab built into it and the train is driven from there when in push mode. Similar to the old 1950s Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) where one carriage had a pair of diesels under the floor and a cab at one end and the other just had the cab and no engines. So why was a fuss made? It was considered that the much lower axle weight of a carriage compared to a locomotive made it more likely to derail when hitting an obstruction and hence always leading with the locomotive is safer - basically something getting jammed between the sleepers and the bottom of the carriage or between wheel and track is less likely to lift a heavy locomotive high enough for the wheel flanges to slip over the top of the rail. Having just read the report referred to by another poster, it was considered too expensive to increase the axle loading of the leading carriage and that to get it to a similar level as a locomotive, it'd require entirely new driving carriages for each train. A much cheaper alternative of adding a guard to try and prevent obstructions getting under the carriage or wheels and lifting it was added instead although its effects are far mor limited. They should electrify the rails to discourage cows :-) -- Seen on a tap in a Finnish washroom: To stop the drip, turn cock to right. |
OT Speed awareness courses
"SteveW" wrote in message
... On 11/11/2013 20:35, ARW wrote: "Adrian" wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 11:48:40 +0000, ARW wrote: I rather suspect attendance on an SAC would only reinforce my long- standing belief in the need for regular re-testing of all drivers... Oh, good! I am happy to report that I'll get to find out soon... mutter You have the NIP or have you just been filmed:-). The very friendly Dayglo-clad man hidden in a hedge told me, once he'd put his hairdryer down. If I get the offer I will attend the SAC course. If only to prove your working hypothesis about re-testing of all drivers. What do you think - a re-test every 10 years? I would be happy to re-test. I don't like the idea of a re-test. I have done one myself (I was training to be a driving instructor when I was unemployed, but then found work in my normal line). The reason I don't like it is that I know that many people who get nervous would fail unfairly. I know my wife would fail and that would mean her losing her job, depite the fact that she is actually a very good and safe driver (I get very uncomfortable as a passenger with most other drivers). She would simply panic. She is very nervous about driving anywhere she doesn't know, but perfectly capable of driving where she needs for work, because it is all in a limited area that she knows. If she needs to go somewhere new, she travels with a colleague for the first visit or gets me to take her in after work. She knows her limits and sticks within them. Then she needs to employ the services of a driving instructor (friendly folk but not free). The driving test did alter a few years ago and introduced a bit where the driver had to make their own decisions where to go http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11462155 And all I got last Thursday was a yellow sign saying "A11 to A12 N Bound slip road closed at Bow use alternative route". No diversions were given, there was just that sign. Time for the map book as the Sat Nav is a waste of space in London. I just diverted up Grove Road and joined the A12 here. -- Adam --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
OT Speed awareness courses
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:04:44 +0000, alan wrote:
I've been stuck at a level crossing for five minutes BEFORE any sign of a train. If this is common is it any wonder why people think they have a large margin of safety when jumping lights. Have you any idea how long it takes a proper train not a few multiple units to stop? I was on a 125 on the GWR, it wasn't going flat out but probably over 100 mph, Suddenly the brakes came on, they didn't ease on like they normally do. Then they came on a bit harder, definate braking sensation and that distinctive odour started to creep into the compartment. Then harder again, I was in a forward facing seat and had to stiffen my back against the braking. The noise and vibration was a little worrying, this train was trying really very hard to stop. Then they eased off and we were down to maybe 10 mph. To get down to that speed took a good couple of minutes, we crawled along for a couple more and then went across a level crossing. Never found out the reason but I suspect something had not gone right with closing the barriers or some twonk had jumped 'em. -- Cheers Dave. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter