|
Post by GentlemanJim on Oct 1, 2014 9:09:16 GMT
It would appear that following the stock transfer from Epping this morning something somewhere has gone drastically wrong, rail damage at St.Pauls and 2 trains with no + ve shoes.
Suspended LIS-MAA both.
I wonder if the fact that the Central use High Lift Shoe Gear has anything to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on Oct 1, 2014 11:59:27 GMT
Did the Cravens do a night special trip around the Central a few years back, or was it a 38 stock?
Assuming that the stock was safely transferred to Epping and then safely ran back as far as St Pauls without problems, if it is because of a difference in shoe gear like you say, I assume that he problem was with the track at St Pauls not being right rather than a problem with the Cravens. However the incident doesn't give the Cravens a good name.
|
|
|
Post by GentlemanJim on Oct 1, 2014 13:19:25 GMT
Did the Cravens do a night special trip around the Central a few years back, or was it a 38 stock? Assuming that the stock was safely transferred to Epping and then safely ran back as far as St Pauls without problems, if it is because of a difference in shoe gear like you say, I assume that he problem was with the track at St Pauls not being right rather than a problem with the Cravens. However the incident doesn't give the Cravens a good name. The Cravens Unit did the Central Centenarian Railtour in 2000. The odd thing about all this is the shoes were strapped up so no contact between the Unit and juice rails. I have a feeling that the Unit will be exonerated following an enquiry. What must be remembered is the Unit is privately owned (CHT) but maintained and certificated by LU.
|
|
drico
Station Inspector
Thank you driver, off clips.
Posts: 202
|
Post by drico on Oct 1, 2014 14:17:51 GMT
Let's hope it was the shoes on the Battery Locomotives what done the damage.
|
|
drico
Station Inspector
Thank you driver, off clips.
Posts: 202
|
Post by drico on Oct 2, 2014 7:55:40 GMT
Let's hope it was the shoes on the Battery Locomotives what done the damage. Oh dear it seams a shoe beam on the Cravens broke and displaced the juice rail. First westbound 92 stock lost its + shoes and the line was suspended Liv St to Marbel Arch.
|
|
|
Post by GentlemanJim on Oct 2, 2014 8:25:25 GMT
Let's hope it was the shoes on the Battery Locomotives what done the damage. Oh dear it seams a shoe beam on the Cravens broke and displaced the juice rail. First westbound 92 stock lost its + shoes and the line was suspended Liv St to Marbel Arch. Not as clear cut as that I'm afraid. I've seen a picture of the very badly damaged shoe beam which is minus the middle section (about 18 inches) plus the shoe gear. It's evident from that picture the shoe gear hit something and ripped it clean out.
|
|
drico
Station Inspector
Thank you driver, off clips.
Posts: 202
|
Post by drico on Oct 2, 2014 8:49:31 GMT
You have more information than me , was the shoe gear on the Battery locos damaged ?
|
|
|
Post by GentlemanJim on Oct 2, 2014 9:51:55 GMT
You have more information than me , was the shoe gear on the Battery locos damaged ? It appears (at this time) it was only the Cravens shoe gear plus a bit of damage to other shoebeams, working on the information I have and taking in to account the leading Battery Loco sustained no damage AFAIK could it be that Loco that caused the problem and not the 4 that went through beforehand..... it's a theory at least.
|
|
drico
Station Inspector
Thank you driver, off clips.
Posts: 202
|
Post by drico on Oct 2, 2014 13:41:18 GMT
You have more information than me , was the shoe gear on the Battery locos damaged ? It appears (at this time) it was only the Cravens shoe gear plus a bit of damage to other shoebeams, working on the information I have and taking in to account the leading Battery Loco sustained no damage AFAIK could it be that Loco that caused the problem and not the 4 that went through beforehand..... it's a theory at least. I take it train No. 573 with four loco's went west before the train with the Cravens ?
|
|
|
Post by GentlemanJim on Oct 2, 2014 15:01:03 GMT
It appears (at this time) it was only the Cravens shoe gear plus a bit of damage to other shoebeams, working on the information I have and taking in to account the leading Battery Loco sustained no damage AFAIK could it be that Loco that caused the problem and not the 4 that went through beforehand..... it's a theory at least. I take it train No. 573 with four loco's went west before the train with the Cravens ? Indeed it did, there's a video out there showing the 4 Batt. Locos arriving at RUG followed by the Cravens. A new development has come to light claiming damage has been found to the lead Loco so it could be nearly safe to say that the incident was waiting to happen, unfortunately the Cravens Unit came off worse.
|
|
drico
Station Inspector
Thank you driver, off clips.
Posts: 202
|
Post by drico on Oct 2, 2014 16:10:09 GMT
I take it train No. 573 with four loco's went west before the train with the Cravens ? Indeed it did, there's a video out there showing the 4 Batt. Locos arriving at RUG followed by the Cravens. A new development has come to light claiming damage has been found to the lead Loco so it could be nearly safe to say that the incident was waiting to happen, unfortunately the Cravens Unit came off worse. Do you have a link to the video ?
|
|
|
Post by GentlemanJim on Oct 2, 2014 16:58:38 GMT
Indeed it did, there's a video out there showing the 4 Batt. Locos arriving at RUG followed by the Cravens. A new development has come to light claiming damage has been found to the lead Loco so it could be nearly safe to say that the incident was waiting to happen, unfortunately the Cravens Unit came off worse. Do you have a link to the video ? Yup......
|
|
drico
Station Inspector
Thank you driver, off clips.
Posts: 202
|
Post by drico on Oct 2, 2014 21:21:26 GMT
Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Oct 6, 2014 9:48:05 GMT
Suggestions in other places seem to lay the blame firmly at the door of the Cravens unit.
It seems to me that if the Cravens shoes were strapped up and not in contact with the traction rails then the blame for the damage must lie elsewhere. If not the result of an incident or event damaging the traction rail ahead of the Cravens unit then the obvious place to lay blame has to be with whoever was responsible for strapping the Cravens shoes up securely.
Either way it is surely impossible to blame the Cravens.
|
|
|
Post by GentlemanJim on Oct 6, 2014 12:21:39 GMT
Suggestions in other places seem to lay the blame firmly at the door of the Cravens unit. It seems to me that if the Cravens shoes were strapped up and not in contact with the traction rails then the blame for the damage must lie elsewhere. If not the result of an incident or event damaging the traction rail ahead of the Cravens unit then the obvious place to lay blame has to be with whoever was responsible for strapping the Cravens shoes up securely. Either way it is surely impossible to blame the Cravens. Exactly my thoughts RT.
|
|