🚀 go-pugleaf

Simon Lane wrote:
> It seems that again the question of how thorough points inspections
> have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can anyone
> tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, time-stamped
> photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
> inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?
> 

The thought occurs a photo will never show how tightly bolts are done up.

Stuart Moore wrote:
> Simon Lane wrote:
>> It seems that again the question of how thorough points inspections
>> have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can anyone
>> tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, time-stamped
>> photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
>> inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?
>>
> 
> The thought occurs a photo will never show how tightly bolts are done up.
> 
or measure how much thread is inside a spacer bar..

On 25 Feb, 00:23, "Simon Lane" <s...@cb1.com> wrote:
> It seems that again the question of how thorough points inspections
> have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can anyone
> tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, time-stamped
> photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
> inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?

In any case, would Network Rail admit to finding any problems? I can't
see them saying "We found another one", which could seriously harm
them if there is any legal action in the future. Not that I am trying
to blame them yet, as nobody knows for sure what the cause was. My
point is that, perhaps the inspections need to be done in conjunction
with another authority, to ensure there is no cover up?

Incidentally, as it could potentially be related, what was the reason
for the emergency speed restrictions (20mph) on the down fast line
near Potters Bar last week? I saw a GNER held up on platform 3 for
some time, and it's mentioned here (http://tinyurl.com/2cq5wr) where I
asked the same question - but I didn't see any explanation anywhere
else. There had been engineering work taking place there not long
before, and I believe there are other speed restrictions on the ECML
near Peterborough. Were there any other emergency speed restrictions
that anyone noticed in recent days, with no explanation? Am I
successfully starting some conspiracy theory?!

Jonathan

jonmorris wrote:
> Incidentally, as it could potentially be related, what was the reason
> for the emergency speed restrictions (20mph) on the down fast line
> near Potters Bar last week? I saw a GNER held up on platform 3 for
> some time, and it's mentioned here (http://tinyurl.com/2cq5wr) where I
> asked the same question - but I didn't see any explanation anywhere
> else. There had been engineering work taking place there not long
> before, and I believe there are other speed restrictions on the ECML
> near Peterborough. Were there any other emergency speed restrictions
> that anyone noticed in recent days, with no explanation? Am I
> successfully starting some conspiracy theory?!

Probably a non-urgent rail defect spotted during patrols the night before.

A.

In article <1172362987.587759.24370@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Simon
Lane <srl@cb1.com> writes
>It seems that again the question of how thorough points inspections
>have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can anyone
>tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, time-stamped
>photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
>inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?
>

Simple .. start a campaign to abolish points!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- 
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <1172362987.587759.24370@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Simon
> Lane <srl@cb1.com> writes
>> It seems that again the question of how thorough points inspections
>> have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can anyone
>> tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, time-stamped
>> photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
>> inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?
>>
> 
> Simple .. start a campaign to abolish points!!!!!!!!!!!!

You could call it the Pointless Campaign.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"tony sayer"  wrote

> Simple .. start a campaign to abolish points!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah and whilst they're at it they could convert the whole network to guided 
buses.  :-/

John. 

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message 
news:1172368831.8130.0@proxy01.news.clara.net...
> Stuart Moore wrote:
>> Simon Lane wrote:
>>> It seems that again the question of how thorough points 
>>> inspections
>>> have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can 
>>> anyone
>>> tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, 
>>> time-stamped
>>> photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
>>> inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?
>>>
>>
>> The thought occurs a photo will never show how tightly bolts are 
>> done up.
>>
> or measure how much thread is inside a spacer bar..


No, indeed.  But it would at least show that they'd been *visited* at 
the right time, and if the inspector's spanner was visible in the 
photo...

-- 
DB. 

"jonmorris" <j.morris@jmcomms.com> wrote in message
news:1172370291.450375.80060@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Feb, 00:23, "Simon Lane" <s...@cb1.com> wrote:
> > It seems that again the question of how thorough points inspections
> > have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can anyone
> > tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, time-stamped
> > photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
> > inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?
>
> In any case, would Network Rail admit to finding any problems? I can't
> see them saying "We found another one", which could seriously harm
> them if there is any legal action in the future. Not that I am trying
> to blame them yet, as nobody knows for sure what the cause was. My
> point is that, perhaps the inspections need to be done in conjunction
> with another authority, to ensure there is no cover up?

Hi all,

It strikes me that if Network Rail are culpaple(sp) then saying so straight
away is the best course.  Denying  something which later proves to be true
is much more damaging than lying about and then having to admit the truth.

At this point I suspect very few people know the truth so speculation is a
little fruitless.


-- 
Paul Stevenson
--
For railway photos see ebay
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZpdsteveoQQhtZ-1



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:M42wgeBBkW4FFwNr@bancom.co.uk...
> In article <1172362987.587759.24370@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Simon
> Lane <srl@cb1.com> writes
> >It seems that again the question of how thorough points inspections
> >have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can anyone
> >tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, time-stamped
> >photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
> >inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?
> >
>
> Simple .. start a campaign to abolish points!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wasn't it the Midland Railway who had a horror of facing points and tried to
avoid them at all costs?  Made for some odd layouts to modern eyes!


-- 
Paul Stevenson
--
For railway photos see ebay
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZpdsteveoQQhtZ-1



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Paul Stevenson" <paul@pdsteveo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:45e162d6$0$16390$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> "tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:M42wgeBBkW4FFwNr@bancom.co.uk...
>> In article <1172362987.587759.24370@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Simon
>> Lane <srl@cb1.com> writes
>> >It seems that again the question of how thorough points inspections
>> >have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can anyone
>> >tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, time-stamped
>> >photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
>> >inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?
>> >
>>
>> Simple .. start a campaign to abolish points!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Wasn't it the Midland Railway who had a horror of facing points and tried 
> to
> avoid them at all costs?  Made for some odd layouts to modern eyes!
>
>
> -- 
> Paul Stevenson
> --
> For railway photos see ebay
> http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZpdsteveoQQhtZ-1
>
>
>
> -- 
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
Not just the Midland- most pre-grouping railways tried to avoid using facing 
points whenever possible, so that trains would have to set back into goods 
yards, lay-by sidings etc. It must have added considerably to the time taken 
to carry out many manouevres, and probably suffered a lot of problems with 
buffer-locking on loose-coupled trains.
Brian 

>
> Simple .. start a campaign to abolish points!!!!!!!!!!!!
> -- 
No Start a complete redesign of  points, to what is essentially a Pre-Brunel 
design.. Ok its 'improved' and re-invented, but the very design of 
presenting  a gap in the rail to a wheel surface with a 125mph rotating 
wheel leaves a lot to be desired. 

On 25 Feb, 01:28, Stuart Moore <use...@stuartmoore.org.uk> wrote:
> Simon Lane wrote:
> > It seems that again the question of how thorough points inspections
> > have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can anyone
> > tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, time-stamped
> > photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
> > inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?
>
> The thought occurs a photo will never show how tightly bolts are done up.

Just a note here - Armitt has just said on 5 Live that so far problems
have not been found at any other points.
It was not in response to a direct question and therefore I would be
inclined to believe him as if there had been any other problems he
would have just not mentioned the subject at all.

Whilst several people are suggesting "components" have been found at
the scene other have reminded us that it is common for spare bit to be
left around anyway. (not that I like that - apart from anything else
it could confuse a follow up investigation like this one). Until the
report is concluded we can't rule out some sort of component failure
that would be unexpected. As with Potters Bar trains went over the
section earlier - possibly there was a Voyager just ahead of the
Pendolino (see below) and as we know if a driver felt the slightest
jolt from the track he'd have stopped and reported it immediately.
AFAIK there were no reports.

Just on the trains passing through - the previous Pendolino is the
Euston - Edingurgh service about 30 mins ahead of the 17.15 to Glasgow
and that service is booked to be about 4 minutes ahead of a VXC
Voyager into the Lakes District. The Pendolino has fewer stops and
would leave the Voyager further behind by Carlisle. However the
GLasgow train is reported to have been 6 minutes late and there were
suggestions it had stopped at the station or signals before Oxenholme.
If this is the case it may have been because it was behind the Voyager
and would probably have been stuck behind until Carlisle. So - it is
possible that a Voyager went over the points only minutes ahead of the
Pendolino.
The cab strangth of the Voyagers isn't at the level of the Pendolinos
and we obviously don't know how the bodies would have stood up to such
in incident - but I hope we never have to find out.

I've not checked on the log for which order the trains were running
through the Lakes District as its really not the kind of thing to
bother the VT teams with at the moment. If anyone on the NG has easy
access to the logs maybe they can clear this up?

Tony

In message <1172407362.729017.145250@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, at 
04:42:42 on Sun, 25 Feb 2007, tonymiles@beeb.net remarked:
>possibly there was a Voyager just ahead of the Pendolino (see below) 
>and as we know if a driver felt the slightest jolt from the track he'd 
>have stopped and reported it immediately. AFAIK there were no reports.

Is that a new ultra-cautious policy post-Potters Bar? Rough riding over 
those points was reported the day before, but the overnight maintenance 
team were apparently sent to inspect the wrong set. So the rough riding 
would presumably have continued all through the next morning.
-- 
Roland Perry

Paul Stevenson wrote:
> "tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:M42wgeBBkW4FFwNr@bancom.co.uk...
>> In article <1172362987.587759.24370@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Simon
>> Lane <srl@cb1.com> writes
>>> It seems that again the question of how thorough points inspections
>>> have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can anyone
>>> tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, time-stamped
>>> photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
>>> inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?
>>>
>> Simple .. start a campaign to abolish points!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Wasn't it the Midland Railway who had a horror of facing points and tried to
> avoid them at all costs?  Made for some odd layouts to modern eyes!
> 
> 
Most lines started out that way..you always backed up to change tracks..

But then at some point (ha!) when one line splits into two, it becomes 
sensible..BUT the rule used to be to slow down for em.

What puzzles me is what points were doing at all in an out of the way 
rural stretch of line with no branches off it..

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message 
news:1172410896.9216.3@iris.uk.clara.net...
> Paul Stevenson wrote:
>> "tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:M42wgeBBkW4FFwNr@bancom.co.uk...
>>> In article <1172362987.587759.24370@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Simon
>>> Lane <srl@cb1.com> writes
>>>> It seems that again the question of how thorough points inspections
>>>> have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can anyone
>>>> tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, time-stamped
>>>> photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
>>>> inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?
>>>>
>>> Simple .. start a campaign to abolish points!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Wasn't it the Midland Railway who had a horror of facing points and tried 
>> to
>> avoid them at all costs?  Made for some odd layouts to modern eyes!
>>
>>
> Most lines started out that way..you always backed up to change tracks..
>
> But then at some point (ha!) when one line splits into two, it becomes 
> sensible..BUT the rule used to be to slow down for em.
>
> What puzzles me is what points were doing at all in an out of the way 
> rural stretch of line with no branches off it..
>
It's a ground frame at 24m 40ch there's another one at Low Gill 28m 00ch 

>
> What puzzles me is what points were doing at all in an out of the way
> rural stretch of line with no branches off it.

Think maintenance and wrong line working.

If this does turn out to be Potters Bar Two, one does wonder if a
simple mod of sliding a couple of sleeves onto the octagonal centre
section with washers for adjustment, and then lock these, as required,
against correctly spaced bolts with cotters or shear pins might be a
remedy to stop the self unlocking which the BBC Panorama programme
suggested is a prime suspect - at least so far as Potters Bar was
concerned.

Just a suggestion - no doubt more technically minded contributors will
comment

On Feb 25, 11:54 am, "Kirk" <K...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> No Start a complete redesign of  points, to what is essentially a Pre-Brunel
> design.. Ok its 'improved' and re-invented, but the very design of
> presenting  a gap in the rail to a wheel surface with a 125mph rotating
> wheel leaves a lot to be desired.

Points on high-speed lines in mainland Europe often have additional
moving components to prevent exactly that - however it's not a safety
issue per-se, just one of improving ride quality.  DB are particularly
fond of these, as I recall, and I remember it being an odd experience
the first time I was on a train crossing the entire throat of Muenchen
Hbf at an angle with not a single sway or "clickety-clack"...

Neil

"jonmorris" <j.morris@jmcomms.com> wrote in message 
news:1172370291.450375.80060@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> In any case, would Network Rail admit to finding any problems? I can't
> see them saying "We found another one", which could seriously harm
> them if there is any legal action in the future.

After Potters Bar they inspected all similar points, did they find any 
problems then?

-- 
peter

Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me 

<tonymiles@beeb.net> wrote in message
>
> Just on the trains passing through - the previous Pendolino is the
> Euston - Edingurgh service about 30 mins ahead of the 17.15 to Glasgow
> and that service is booked to be about 4 minutes ahead of a VXC
> Voyager into the Lakes District. The Pendolino has fewer stops and
> would leave the Voyager further behind by Carlisle. However the
> GLasgow train is reported to have been 6 minutes late and there were
> suggestions it had stopped at the station or signals before Oxenholme.
> If this is the case it may have been because it was behind the Voyager
> and would probably have been stuck behind until Carlisle. So - it is
> possible that a Voyager went over the points only minutes ahead of the
> Pendolino.

IIRC from what NRE put out on Friday evening the Bournemouth to Dunbar
Voyager was behind the 1715. It was AIUI stopped at Oxenholme (ldbs showed
an overdue report for it at Oxenholme) and was subsequently sent back to
Preston.

Peter

On Feb 25, 3:54 am, "Kirk" <K...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> No Start a complete redesign of  points, to what is essentially a Pre-Brunel
> design.. Ok its 'improved' and re-invented, but the very design of
> presenting  a gap in the rail to a wheel surface with a 125mph rotating
> wheel leaves a lot to be desired.

And would you care to present such a gapless design ?

--
Nick

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote
>
> What puzzles me is what points were doing at all in an out of the way
> rural stretch of line with no branches off it..

Several facing crossovers between Carnforth and Carlisle, including this
one, were installed in the early 1970s to facilitate single line working
during electrification. It was presumably found sufficiently useful for SLW
during routine maintenance to retain it.

Peter

On Feb 25, 6:01 am, "Neil Williams" <pacer...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hbf at an angle with not a single sway or "clickety-clack"...


But there are still gaps - you cannot have totally continuous rails
else it is no longer a swithc - there must be some rail gap somewhere.

There are means to mitigate such gaps - but eliminate is not
possible.

--
Nick

On 25 Feb 2007 07:40:49 -0800, "D7666" <d7666@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 25, 6:01 am, "Neil Williams" <pacer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hbf at an angle with not a single sway or "clickety-clack"...
>
>
>But there are still gaps - you cannot have totally continuous rails
>else it is no longer a swithc - there must be some rail gap somewhere.
>
>There are means to mitigate such gaps - but eliminate is not
>possible.

Moving frog points on high speed lines have been around for a long
time.

On Feb 25, 7:29 am, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.net> wrote:


> <tonymi...@beeb.net> wrote in message
> > possible that a Voyager went over the points only minutes ahead of the
> > Pendolino.
>
> IIRC from what NRE put out on Friday evening the Bournemouth to Dunbar
> Voyager was behind the 1715.

As it happens, I saved the NRE page on the incident. I sometimes do
this with major events just to see how the gen varies over time.

My local PC save time for the following is 21:50, the page contains
text it was a 21:25 update. I had oonly rcvd and SMS about the
incident 5 mins earlier.

<<<<
Derailed passenger train near to Oxenholme

Time Reported: 	20:40
Route Affected: 	Glasgow-Oxenholme Lake District-Crewe-London Euston/
Brighton/Bournemouth/Plymouth/Penzance
TOC/s Affected: 	Virgin Trains
Description: 	Services between Preston and Carlisle are currently
being disrupted due to a derailed train.

At present, all services between Preston and Carlisle have been
suspended.

It is not known how long this disruption will last.
Updates: 	21:25 Emergency services are currently on site. All trains
in the area will return back to the last station they passed.

1810 Glasgow - Birmingham will go back to Carlisle an additional
service will run as 2100 Preston - Birmingham.
1852 Edinburgh - Birmingham will go back to Carlisle
2010 Glasgow - Manchester will terminate at Carlisle
1446 Bournemouth - Dunbar will set back to Preston
1525 Plymouth - Glasgow has terminated at Preston.

>>>>

Thats tends to confim the Bomo-Dunbar was behind.

The different wording is interesting - ''will go back'' and ''will set
back''.

Perhaps the Bomo-Dunbar was very close behind and a little industry-
speak slipped through.

--
Nick

On 25 Feb 2007 07:48:10 -0800, "D7666" <d7666@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 25, 7:29 am, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>> <tonymi...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>> > possible that a Voyager went over the points only minutes ahead of the
>> > Pendolino.
>>
>> IIRC from what NRE put out on Friday evening the Bournemouth to Dunbar
>> Voyager was behind the 1715.
>
>As it happens, I saved the NRE page on the incident. I sometimes do
>this with major events just to see how the gen varies over time.
>
>My local PC save time for the following is 21:50, the page contains
>text it was a 21:25 update. I had oonly rcvd and SMS about the
>incident 5 mins earlier.
>
><<<<
>Derailed passenger train near to Oxenholme
>
>Time Reported: 	20:40
>Route Affected: 	Glasgow-Oxenholme Lake District-Crewe-London Euston/
>Brighton/Bournemouth/Plymouth/Penzance
>TOC/s Affected: 	Virgin Trains
>Description: 	Services between Preston and Carlisle are currently
>being disrupted due to a derailed train.
>
>At present, all services between Preston and Carlisle have been
>suspended.
>
>It is not known how long this disruption will last.
>Updates: 	21:25 Emergency services are currently on site. All trains
>in the area will return back to the last station they passed.
>
>1810 Glasgow - Birmingham will go back to Carlisle an additional
>service will run as 2100 Preston - Birmingham.
>1852 Edinburgh - Birmingham will go back to Carlisle
>2010 Glasgow - Manchester will terminate at Carlisle
>1446 Bournemouth - Dunbar will set back to Preston
>1525 Plymouth - Glasgow has terminated at Preston.
>
>>>>>
>
>Thats tends to confim the Bomo-Dunbar was behind.
>
>The different wording is interesting - ''will go back'' and ''will set
>back''.

Wrong line working?

>Perhaps the Bomo-Dunbar was very close behind and a little industry-
>speak slipped through.

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message 
news:1172410896.9216.3@iris.uk.clara.net...
> Paul Stevenson wrote:
>> "tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:M42wgeBBkW4FFwNr@bancom.co.uk...
>>> In article <1172362987.587759.24370@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Simon
>>> Lane <srl@cb1.com> writes
>>>> It seems that again the question of how thorough points inspections
>>>> have been is being asked with respect to a train accident. Can anyone
>>>> tell me, are the inspectors required to take detailed, time-stamped
>>>> photographs? If not, surely this would help ensure that these
>>>> inspections are always as thorough as they ought to be?
>>>>
>>> Simple .. start a campaign to abolish points!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Wasn't it the Midland Railway who had a horror of facing points and tried 
>> to
>> avoid them at all costs?  Made for some odd layouts to modern eyes!
>>
>>
> Most lines started out that way..you always backed up to change tracks..
>
> But then at some point (ha!) when one line splits into two, it becomes 
> sensible..BUT the rule used to be to slow down for em.
>
> What puzzles me is what points were doing at all in an out of the way 
> rural stretch of line with no branches off it..
Emergency crossovers, allowing a train to pass another, stopped, train, or 
to allow trains to continue past engineering works taking place on oneof the 
two tracks.
Brian 

On Feb 25, 7:47 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:

> >There are means to mitigate such gaps - but eliminate is not
> >possible.

> Moving frog points on high speed lines have been around for a long
> time.

But they are not gapless. There is a gap between the moving part and
the fixed part at some location in the mechanism.

With no gaps at all it is no longer a switch but plain line.

--
Nick

On 25 Feb 2007 07:40:49 -0800, D7666 wrote:

> On Feb 25, 6:01 am, "Neil Williams" <pacer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hbf at an angle with not a single sway or "clickety-clack"...
> 
> 
> But there are still gaps - you cannot have totally continuous rails
> else it is no longer a swithc - there must be some rail gap somewhere.
> 
> There are means to mitigate such gaps - but eliminate is not
> possible.


Er,
<http://www.railway-technical.com/Switched-Diamond.jpg>

Note that the description given by the URL is wrong, a switch(ed) diamond is
something different.

-- 

WZR

In article <1172411693.538483.94440@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
TBirdFrank <frankie@t-bird.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>
>> What puzzles me is what points were doing at all in an out of the way
>> rural stretch of line with no branches off it.
>
>Think maintenance and wrong line working.
>
>If this does turn out to be Potters Bar Two, one does wonder if a
>simple mod of sliding a couple of sleeves onto the octagonal centre
>section with washers for adjustment, and then lock these, as required,
>against correctly spaced bolts with cotters or shear pins might be a
>remedy to stop the self unlocking which the BBC Panorama programme
>suggested is a prime suspect - at least so far as Potters Bar was
>concerned.
>
>Just a suggestion - no doubt more technically minded contributors will
>comment
>
>
>

Seeing that prog on TV the other week about bashing the threads to lock
the nuts certainly leaves room for improvement. 

Bet they don't do that on aircraft do they?.

..Well OK then my dad used to wring the head bolts a bit on spits but he
never had any complaints!..
-- 
Tony Sayer

4sub wrote:

> It's a ground frame at 24m 40ch there's another one at Low Gill 28m 00ch 
> 
> 
???????

Peter Masson wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote
>> What puzzles me is what points were doing at all in an out of the way
>> rural stretch of line with no branches off it..
> 
> Several facing crossovers between Carnforth and Carlisle, including this
> one, were installed in the early 1970s to facilitate single line working
> during electrification. It was presumably found sufficiently useful for SLW
> during routine maintenance to retain it.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
Ah. Thank you.

In article <1172477319.17991.0@proxy01.news.clara.net>, The Natural
Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>4sub wrote:
>
>> It's a ground frame at 24m 40ch there's another one at Low Gill 28m 00ch 
>> 
>> 
>???????

24 miles and 40 chains, and 28 miles and zero chains I make that.

Metrication isn't that much thought about on the railways;-!....
-- 
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <1172477319.17991.0@proxy01.news.clara.net>, The Natural
> Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>> 4sub wrote:
>>
>>> It's a ground frame at 24m 40ch there's another one at Low Gill 28m 00ch 
>>>
>>>
>> ???????
> 
> 24 miles and 40 chains, and 28 miles and zero chains I make that.
> 
> Metrication isn't that much thought about on the railways;-!....
yeah but what is a ground frame..

In article <1172483112.18009.0@damia.uk.clara.net>, The Natural
Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <1172477319.17991.0@proxy01.news.clara.net>, The Natural
>> Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>>> 4sub wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a ground frame at 24m 40ch there's another one at Low Gill 28m 00ch 
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ???????
>> 
>> 24 miles and 40 chains, and 28 miles and zero chains I make that.
>> 
>> Metrication isn't that much thought about on the railways;-!....
>yeah but what is a ground frame..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_frame
-- 
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <1172483112.18009.0@damia.uk.clara.net>, The Natural
> Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>> tony sayer wrote:
>>> In article <1172477319.17991.0@proxy01.news.clara.net>, The Natural
>>> Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>>>> 4sub wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's a ground frame at 24m 40ch there's another one at Low Gill 28m 00ch 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ???????
>>> 24 miles and 40 chains, and 28 miles and zero chains I make that.
>>>
>>> Metrication isn't that much thought about on the railways;-!....
>> yeah but what is a ground frame..
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_frame
I see. So the original reply merely says with great technical 
obfuscation) 'there are a set of points here, and there'

In response to my 'why are there points here?' question.

Sigh.

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message 
news:1172486026.1509.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_frame
> I see. So the original reply merely says with great technical obfuscation) 
> 'there are a set of points here, and there'
>
> In response to my 'why are there points here?' question.
>

Someone else has stated elsewhere in the thread that the crossovers were 
installed to provide for single line working (slw) when the original 
electrification programme was taking place. They were left on completion to 
allow for future slw and service recovery after train failures etc, but 
would not have any routine purpose...

Paul 

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:35:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
wrote:

>tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <1172483112.18009.0@damia.uk.clara.net>, The Natural
>> Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>>> In article <1172477319.17991.0@proxy01.news.clara.net>, The Natural
>>>> Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>>>>> 4sub wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a ground frame at 24m 40ch there's another one at Low Gill 28m 00ch 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ???????
>>>> 24 miles and 40 chains, and 28 miles and zero chains I make that.
>>>>
>>>> Metrication isn't that much thought about on the railways;-!....
>>> yeah but what is a ground frame..
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_frame
>I see. So the original reply merely says with great technical 
>obfuscation) 'there are a set of points here, and there'

No. It's where the points are operated from, and describes how they
are operated - locally not from the same central location that the
rest of the line's signals and points are. And locked in the normal
position.

>In response to my 'why are there points here?' question.
>
>Sigh.

In article <1172412078.905819.276990@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Neil 
Williams <pacer142@gmail.com> writes
>> No Start a complete redesign of  points, to what is essentially a Pre-Brunel
>> design.. Ok its 'improved' and re-invented, but the very design of
>> presenting  a gap in the rail to a wheel surface with a 125mph rotating
>> wheel leaves a lot to be desired.
>Points on high-speed lines in mainland Europe often have additional
>moving components to prevent exactly that - however it's not a safety
>issue per-se, just one of improving ride quality.

(1) It's not just the mainland - for example, Hitchin has both switch 
diamonds and swing-nose crossings (the two standard techniques for 
solving this problem).

(2) It *is* a safety issue - the double-slip diamonds at King's Cross 
are only traversed at a maximum of 15mph, but they have such a shallow 
angle that there's a risk of trains going the wrong way at the gap [*], 
so they've been made switch diamonds instead.

[*] Skeptics should note a recent RAIB report where a train *did* go the 
wrong way at a switch diamond that was set against it.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: <clive@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: <clive@demon.net>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:  <clive@davros.org>

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
>
> No. It's where the points are operated from, and describes how they
> are operated - locally not from the same central location that the
> rest of the line's signals and points are. And locked in the normal
> position.
>
How are trains signalled through single line working on that line? I don't
think there is bidirectional signalling, so it must be by pilotman or some
equivalent. So the ground frame operator also has to act as hand signaller,
to authorise trains to enter the single line section during single line
working..

Peter

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:32:59 -0000, "Peter Masson"
<peter.masson1@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
>>
>> No. It's where the points are operated from, and describes how they
>> are operated - locally not from the same central location that the
>> rest of the line's signals and points are. And locked in the normal
>> position.
>>
>How are trains signalled through single line working on that line? I don't
>think there is bidirectional signalling, so it must be by pilotman or some
>equivalent. So the ground frame operator also has to act as hand signaller,
>to authorise trains to enter the single line section during single line
>working..

I don't know. But the ground frame is unlocked from the power signal
box (Carlisle?).

My rule books are a GWR reprint from 1904 and a BR one from some time
in the 1950s so they're way out of date for modern signalling.

>Peter
>

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote>
> My rule books are a GWR reprint from 1904 and a BR one from some time
> in the 1950s so they're way out of date for modern signalling.
>
The current Rule Book is here:
http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/rail/rule_modules.html

Peter