On 28 Oct, 23:44, darkprince66  wrote:
> On 28 Oct, 20:22, Paul Harley  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:20:15, "Richard W. Jones"
>
> >  wrote:
>
> > >That's the theory. But remember, this is ATW and their 158's we're
> > >talking about. Coupling 2x158 together doesn't always go according to
> > >plan. As Rob Wilson will testify, there was an incident not that long
> > >ago when one of the 2x158 on an Up service was idling, and the other
> > >working flat out and not making good progress. It turned out to be a
> > >coupling problem (yet again). They had to be run round each other at
> > >Welshpool so the rear unit then become the front one. This caused
> > >considerable delays - was it something like 45mins? It wasn't an easy
> > >task to accomplish because of technical difficulties with the stock.
> > >Now imagine all this taking place at BNS or Wolves...
>
> > Yes, i can, and AIUI the plan is to have two sets of traincrew at BNS,
> > so if the units fail to couple, the sets can be worked forward
> > independently if necessary.
>
> > Paul Harley
>
> Even more expense for an open access service funded indirectly by both
> DafT and the WAG.
>
> Rich
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/darkprince66/

If they do this reguarly and, presumably, by wasting another path and
causing delays at BNS whilst they try to couple and fail etc. Network
Rail will order the end of the service until the problem is resolved.

This almost happened after GC started and the regular failures of the
HSTs were hitting ECML performance too seriously.

NR was very close to having the service stopped until the HSTs were
fixed.

I'd have thought that if ATW was to start (wastefully) stationing
staff at BNS on the assumption that sets may refuse to couple the
other TOCs would go straight to the ORR and question whether ATW had
proved its plans were "robust".

Tony