Old 04-13-2008, 04:18 PM   #1
andy buckley
Member
 
andy buckley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
Posts: 72
Default Am I flogging a dead horse here....?

We had a bit of excitement on the nearby East Coast Mainline recently. A London to Scotland express became tangled in the overhead power line when the pantograph on top of the Class 91 electric loco 91124 'The Reverend W Awdry' (yes, he of Thomas the Tank Engine fame) failed at high speed.

The train came to a standstill a few yards to the south of the station platform at Biggleswade, where it stood for the rest of the afternoon with the passengers still on board nearly four hours later (when I arrived with my camera). They weren't allowed off the train apparently for 'Health & Safety' reasons.

One of the interesting points of the failure was that the pantograph was lying on its back on the roof of the Class 91 - talking to an engineer this is apparently almost unheard of - you often may have collector skids go missing but not the pantograph itself - so, to my mind, this makes this incident one of special interest - don't know if you guys agree?

One of the photos I took made the local press, so I thought I would try submitting to Railpictures.

Unfortunately, all that I have submitted have been rejected - each for a different reason - but knowing what a friendly lot you guys can be I thought I would offer them up for comment and guidance and, of course, to see if you think any of these are 'rescueable'.

The first one is the one published by the local press in their paper and on their website:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=509627&key=0

Reason(s) for Rejection: - Obstructing Objects (Foreground Clutter)

The second was taken when the rescue loco (the EWS Class 67) pushed the train out of the station a few feet, apparently to help to untangle the wires on the back of the train (the passengers are still on board don't forget)

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=962750356

Reason(s) for Rejection: - Front Coupled: Roster shots with front coupled locomotives are generally not accepted.

I didn't intend to take this as a 'roster shot' - I had thought this was a pretty unique and 'newsworthy' incident and I was trying to capture a closer look at the damage to the pantograph lying on the roof of the 91 - as well as recording how close the passengers were to the station platform (and yet so far...)

Is this one I should just walk away from?

Over to you...

Andy
andy buckley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 04:30 PM   #2
Chicago Railfan
Senior Member
 
Chicago Railfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Chi-Town subarbs
Posts: 224
Send a message via AIM to Chicago Railfan Send a message via Yahoo to Chicago Railfan
Default

Well, let me ask you this, why do you dis-agree with the reject? I read the situation, but a picture can't display that.
Chicago Railfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 04:35 PM   #3
alan-crotty
Senior Member
 
alan-crotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashford Kent England
Posts: 349
Default More thought on composition

Hi Andy,

I'm sure it was difficult but the shots are not that well composed.

ALan
alan-crotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 04:42 PM   #4
Railfan Ohio
Senior Member
 
Railfan Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Fredericktown, Ohio
Posts: 334
Default

You should just walk away. Both rejection reasons are valid. The first one has a sign and a pole in front of the train, and the second one is front coupled. Nothing that can be done about either.
__________________
Andy Toms

B&O: the First, the Best
Pennsy: the Standard, but still #2

My pix:http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=11344
Railfan Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 04:54 PM   #5
a231pacific
Senior Member
 
a231pacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Andy,

The story is interesting but unfortunately the photos don't really tell the story and are not otherwise interesting or well composed. Without your explanation, I would have had no idea what I was seeing or why the shot would have been on RP. Nice job getting in the local paper, but RP requires shots to stand on their own, even if newsworthy.

Michael Allen
a231pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 05:05 PM   #6
nikos1
Senior Member
 
nikos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,777
Default

The first one would've probably worked if you stood on the other side of the sign, the placement of the sign really detracts from the picture, another option if you wanted to high light the damage is take a closeup of the broken pantograph, which would have made the focus of the picture very clear.
__________________


Wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=7861

More wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://nikos1.rrpicturearchives.net/

Video wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's
http://youtube.com/profile?user=nikosjk1
nikos1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 05:42 PM   #7
andy buckley
Member
 
andy buckley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
Posts: 72
Default

Thanks to all who have replied so far - I see what you are saying and now that you've said it I see what you mean. These are all interesting and helpful comments - thank you

Quote:
... another option if you wanted to high light the damage is take a closeup of the broken pantograph, which would have made the focus of the picture very clear.
I tried this but I wasn't very happy with the result:



The problem with alternative views is that the only other publicly accessible spot to view the incident meant shooting against the light - it's late afternoon as well so the sun's pretty low in the sky at this point:



Not good either - but thanks for the suggestion

Andy
andy buckley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2008, 08:17 PM   #8
Callufrax
?
 
Callufrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Nth. Strathfield, Main Northern, CityRail - Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy buckley
Thanks to all who have replied so far - I see what you are saying and now that you've said it I see what you mean. These are all interesting and helpful comments - thank you



I tried this but I wasn't very happy with the result:



The problem with alternative views is that the only other publicly accessible spot to view the incident meant shooting against the light - it's late afternoon as well so the sun's pretty low in the sky at this point:



Not good either - but thanks for the suggestion

Andy
I've never seen a pantograph damaged like that, before.

I wonder how much money the on-the-cheap ECML elecrification has cost over the years.
__________________
A Thousand Miles
Cycling around the world, for FightMND, from 2021.
Callufrax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 02:57 AM   #9
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Callufrax
I've never seen a pantograph damaged like that, before.

I wonder how much money the on-the-cheap ECML elecrification has cost over the years.
I've never seen a pantograph, so just looking at his pictures, I can't tell what is broken because I have no idea what it's SUPPOSED to look like. I'm wondering if the average viewer probably sees it the same way.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 02:47 PM   #10
willig
Senior Member
 
willig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 473
Default

Quote:
I've never seen a pantograph, so just looking at his pictures, I can't tell what is broken because I have no idea what it's SUPPOSED to look like. I'm wondering if the average viewer probably sees it the same way.
Yesterday 09:17 PM
Jim,

Here area few shots where you can see the pantograph as it should be.

Image © Graham Williams
PhotoID: 225976
Photograph © Graham Williams

Image © Graham Williams
PhotoID: 205678
Photograph © Graham Williams

Image © Graham Williams
PhotoID: 213425
Photograph © Graham Williams


Just in case you're wondering, it's the arm that rests up on the overhead cables to colect the electrical current.

Last edited by willig; 04-14-2008 at 10:42 PM.
willig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 03:19 PM   #11
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

What is the funky coupler thats folded down, they switching over ,over there?
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 04:00 PM   #12
andy buckley
Member
 
andy buckley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
Posts: 72
Default

Jim Thias said:
Quote:
I've never seen a pantograph, so just looking at his pictures, I can't tell what is broken because I have no idea what it's SUPPOSED to look like. I'm wondering if the average viewer probably sees it the same way.
Jim, I realise this is a rather cruel enlargement of an admittedly poor quality picture (especially as the overhead wires have bleached out) but it shows Reverend W Awdry with its pantograph extended in happier times...



The pantograph acts as the electrical current connector from the 25,000 volt overhead wires.

Hope this helps illustrate?

Regards,

Andy

Last edited by andy buckley; 04-15-2008 at 02:59 PM.
andy buckley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 10:12 PM   #13
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,843
Default

Thanks, Graham and Andy. I've had little experience viewing electric trains, so I just didn't know what I was looking for in the damaged photos. I see now.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.