221129
Established Member
Has happened more than once.No idea if this is true, but a friend told me he once went on a loco-hauled rail tour that went from the mainline onto the Looe branch.
Has happened more than once.No idea if this is true, but a friend told me he once went on a loco-hauled rail tour that went from the mainline onto the Looe branch.
Ah OK - thanks very muchI'm pretty sure they were still there when I passed last weekend.
The London end power car was shut down on arrival anyway and the country end power car would be well clear of the roof on Platform 0. In any case, the restriction was removed at some point as HSTs used to use that platform regularly.I suspect that was all about emissions and lack of ventilation affecting the low roof, and not a route clearance issue as such; the sectional appendix basically just says that if an HST or diesel hauled train finds itself in there accidentally the engines must be switched off until just before departure.
Didn't a district line going to Ealing Broadway once end up at North Ealing.
Was a reasonably regular occurrence until after the last D Stock was withdrawn and the signalling at Hanger Lane junction was then altered to detect a train longer than 6-car ‘73 and not permit the signal to be cleared for North Ealing.All the way to South Harrow, as I understand it. The late District Dave himself, as he recounted in his own website.
Back when the Anglia 170 units did Hull, one day there was a sudden block on at Ferme Park (a factory fire, iirc) and they were ready to go with one at KX so it was right away Hull via Copenhagen Tunnel, reverse, up the Incline to Camden Road, reverse, North London to Stratford, onto the GE, blast down the main, turn left at Ipswich, across to Ely, Peterborough and then booked route to Hull! Anglia was a “can do” outfit.
Didn't a district line going to Ealing Broadway once end up at North Ealing.
I've seen the mercury-filled pipes at Hammersmith and Finchley Road suspended from a gantry over the tube lines which, if struck by sub-surface stock proceeding erroneously on these lines, would cut off the power before the train reached the tube tunnels. Have there been any instances of these being used?
I wasn't aware of this method for stopping wrong-routed trains. Presumably if they were to be broken at some point there would be a horribly complex clean up and disposal process afterwards! I'm surprised they haven't been replaced by a less toxic alternative.
A bit off topic, but a 43 went to Portsmouth Harbour once upon a time (intentionally). I think it was a football special and has only ever happened once.
They have been replaced with some sort of conductive paint on the interior of the tube, but AIUI look exactly the same as before.I wasn't aware of this method for stopping wrong-routed trains. Presumably if they were to be broken at some point there would be a horribly complex clean up and disposal process afterwards! I'm surprised they haven't been replaced by a less toxic alternative.
I must admit that I haven't looked for them at either of these stations for several years, so there might be some other method. Perhaps somebody in the know can advise. I agree: having mercury splashed around is not a good idea, even if it does stop an errant sub-surface train.
They have been replaced with some sort of conductive paint on the interior of the tube, but AIUI look exactly the same as before.
That’s definitely not an issue of being in the wrong place, remember XC used HSTs via Guildford to Portsmouth 20 years ago. There haven’t been that many specials, but I’m sure FGW definitely ran more than one Football HST via Eastleigh, and I think there was a private charter (Cotswolds?) a few years ago, I saw that one in Portsmouth but can’t remember the date.A bit off topic, but a 43 went to Portsmouth Harbour once upon a time (intentionally). I think it was a football special and has only ever happened once.
Northern 156 that ended up on the East Kilbride branch on a service.
Would not cut the traction power, but replace the next signals to danger and as they have significant identification cannot be passed by drivers.I've seen the mercury-filled pipes at Hammersmith and Finchley Road suspended from a gantry over the tube lines which, if struck by sub-surface stock proceeding erroneously on these lines, would cut off the power before the train reached the tube tunnels.
Sunday 01/12/2002 43063 + 43155 worked 10:25 Manchester Piccadilly - Portsmouth Harbour and 16:30 return, via Reading and Guildford. Normally the train ran to Bournemouth but that weekend it was diverted due to an engineering block at Bramley. Similarly, the train was booked to be a Voyager, but there were a few HSTs in use by Virgin Cross Country at the time. My notes state that 43155 was smoking very heavily. I wouldn't normally have been in the area to cover it, but 40145 had returned to main line operation on a Crewe - Holyhead railtour the previous day, so I fell into an HST to Portsmouth Harbour as my way home.That’s definitely not an issue of being in the wrong place, remember XC used HSTs via Guildford to Portsmouth 20 years ago. There haven’t been that many specials, but I’m sure FGW definitely ran more than one Football HST via Eastleigh, and I think there was a private charter (Cotswolds?) a few years ago, I saw that one in Portsmouth but can’t remember the date.
That was intentional, and was I believe caused by Engineering Works somewhere preventing a ScotRail 156 from getting out of Newcastle and the Northern 156 from heading back there. So they basically swapped diagrams. Northern even noted on their Twitter feed that one of their Sprinters was off on its holidays.Im guessing they realised when they went looking for it to form a Carlisle.....
If I had to guess, I would have said that Locos were banned from Harbour station, given the fairly rickety structure under it. I’d have been wrong.Sunday 01/12/2002 43063 + 43155 worked 10:25 Manchester Piccadilly - Portsmouth Harbour and 16:30 return, via Reading and Guildford. Normally the train ran to Bournemouth but that weekend it was diverted due to an engineering block at Bramley. Similarly, the train was booked to be a Voyager, but there were a few HSTs in use by Virgin Cross Country at the time. My notes state that 43155 was smoking very heavily. I wouldn't normally have been in the area to cover it, but 40145 had returned to main line operation on a Crewe - Holyhead railtour the previous day, so I fell into an HST to Portsmouth Harbour as my way home.
I don't think there were many HSTs that reached Portsmouth Harbour.
Rickety it may be, but there were regular loco-hauled workings to Portsmouth Harbour. There used to be a Waterloo - Portsmouth - Exeter and return booked a 50, which got 33s or 47s on occasions, and a Saturdays Brighton - Exeter which produced a 73 now and again.If I had to guess, I would have said that Locos were banned from Harbour station, given the fairly rickety structure under it. I’d have been wrong.
Rickety it may be, but there were regular loco-hauled workings to Portsmouth Harbour. There used to be a Waterloo - Portsmouth - Exeter and return booked a 50, which got 33s or 47s on occasions, and a Saturdays Brighton - Exeter which produced a 73 now and again.
No idea if this is true, but a friend told me he once went on a loco-hauled rail tour that went from the mainline onto the Looe branch.
There are variable restrictions dependent on platforms, but in the online sectional appendix most loco types, and 43s, are still shown as being OK in P4 and P5. That fits with the idea that the structural issues are mainly concerned with the northern side of the pier, hence P2 being taken out of use.Rickety it may be, but there were regular loco-hauled workings to Portsmouth Harbour. There used to be a Waterloo - Portsmouth - Exeter and return booked a 50, which got 33s or 47s on occasions, and a Saturdays Brighton - Exeter which produced a 73 now and again.
Would not cut the traction power, but replace the next signals to danger and as they have significant identification cannot be passed by drivers.
If this train was travelling along the Normanton line would he have had any time to stop? That junction is 125mph either way so their wouldn’t have been any flashing preliminary caution/regular caution signals.I cannot remember the time, but im sure an 86 on the mail was sent Leeds Line at Colton Junc (South of York) insead on ECML and was accepted by the driver, first he knew was when the Panto was took off on the bridge.
If this train was travelling along the Normanton line would he have had any time to stop? That junction is 125mph either way so their wouldn’t have been any flashing preliminary caution/regular caution signals.
Trains heading west from Basingstoke towards Southampton or Salisbury used to get greens for either route on the approach to Worting Junction. As a result the first a driver knew which route they’d been signalled for was when the junction signal came into view, which was handily located directly after a curve! I believe there had been instances of electrics being routed towards the non-electrified Salisbury line. So when the area came to be resignalled a number of years back now, the opportunity was taken to give flashing yellows when the route was set towards Salisbury to give advance warning. So it’s certainly possible flashing yellows could be implemented somewhere for reasons after than speed if it was deemed necessary.If this train was travelling along the Normanton line would he have had any time to stop? That junction is 125mph either way so their wouldn’t have been any flashing preliminary caution/regular caution signals.