Loss of Power

I'm not sure it does carry over to next workings. Maybe Geoff can confirm?

It sticks in my mind because of how silly the logic is, that the train instantly recovers.

I can confirm that it definitely does carry over onto subsequent workings, and throughout chained simulations. This became rather evident during Elliot's recent WCML chain, where we found a train with a LOP three sessions after it had first been reported...!

Mantis 32795 for investigation later. First glance it looks like LOP survives some transitions but not others.

Mantis 32795 for investigation later. First glance it looks like LOP survives some transitions but not others.

GeoffM in post 136311 said:

Mantis 32795 for investigation later. First glance it looks like LOP survives some transitions but not others.

Which seems entirely prototypical. Sometimes the tapper will kick the right apparatus case in the right way and the train will miraculously recover (it's like the old joke about the plumber's bill). Other times the unit will drag its weary way back to the depot for a shift being gone over, a 'NFF' in the repair book, then promptly fall over as soon as it's let out again. And sometimes that's 'rinse and repeat' for several weeks until the depot finally gets to the bottom of it.

The current LOP code may well match that of 31302 - a limping loco - but is it prototypical for MUs?

E.g. let's suppose we had a 220, or 185, or an EMU or even a T+T train e.g. HST with one or more engines dead. You would presume that acceleration would be affected, but would it necessarily mean they couldn't hit top speed? Especially on a falling gradient! I'm sure there are examples IRL of a train deliberately running with one or more engines out.

HST discussion

It's maybe something which can be tied in with train characteristics?

I'm sure there are examples IRL of a train deliberately running with one or more engines out.

GeoffM in post 136311 said:

Mantis 32795 for investigation later. First glance it looks like LOP survives some transitions but not others.

Which seems entirely prototypical. Sometimes the tapper will kick the right apparatus case in the right way and the train will miraculously recover (it's like the old joke about the plumber's bill). Other times the unit will drag its weary way back to the depot for a shift being gone over, a 'NFF' in the repair book, then promptly fall over as soon as it's let out again. And sometimes that's 'rinse and repeat' for several weeks until the depot finally gets to the bottom of it.

e.g. HST with one or more engines dead. You would presume that acceleration would be affected, but would it necessarily mean they couldn't hit top speed? Especially on a falling gradient!

As one commenter on that forum said, you could get an HST on one power car up to about 110mph, but it won't go much past that. And that's on a flat piece of line. If you've got hills then they really struggled. That's why we weren't allowed to leave Totnes from a stand on the Down on one engine, as it would struggle quite badly up Rattery bank.

I also noticed that someone else in the Rail Forums thread asked about the power car being better on the rear. I would argue that having driven both, it is much better for the working power car to be on the front. One power car pushing an eight-car train is even worse than one pulling it.