Mark_A Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 This sounds to have been disruptive, the train suffering a fuel leak, originally attributed to the service having struck an obstacle on the track. More here from the Hull Daily Mail. Does anyone know more? http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/passengers-trapped-five-hours-train-893472 Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 It was Hull Trains unit 180110 running as 1H02, 09:48 Kings Cross to Hull. Apparently connected with an obstruction on the line near Helpston (just North of Peterborough), causing the rupturing of four fuel tanks and spillage of diesel onto the line. The passengers were eventually led off the stricken train, though I doubt many enjoyed the spectacle of Union of South Africa passing with a Norwich to York special while they were stuck on board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Robert Shrives Posted December 7, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 7, 2017 Hi gang, Later report shows leading engine on the 180 wanted early retirement and threw legs out of bed in fine style with it going as it passed over a level crossing the bits of engine forced down by the catastrophic failure were bounced of crossing back upwards hence puncturing tanks- and emptying in short order it seems - a RHTT used to wash rail heads after. Sadly press pics show the rescuing 180 from Grand Central just 5 hours to detrain passengers as 180s would not couple and get brake release - suspect more damage under the Hull trains unit. So not a pretty episode all round per Twit reports on news channels. Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_A Posted December 7, 2017 Author Share Posted December 7, 2017 That's alarming. Even if this type of failure is very rare indeed, there must be a risk that debris from a catastrophic engine failure does serious mischief. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Robert Shrives Posted December 7, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 7, 2017 I recall a long since retired fitter at BHM being called to a then new IC swindon set with "funny noises" from an engine , train had gone by time he got to the platform - an pool of oil in 4 foot did not bode well. Set failed at Kings Norton exactly as the 180, engine blew out crankcase and brakepipes and fuel tanks ruptured down the 6 cars - loco out to pull back. You will notice the use of buffers and shackles to recover ! - something sadly missing from the current railway a universal coupling system - never catch on !!! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
berwicksfinest Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Hi gang, Later report shows leading engine on the 180 wanted early retirement and threw legs out of bed in fine style with it going as it passed over a level crossing the bits of engine forced down by the catastrophic failure were bounced of crossing back upwards hence puncturing tanks- and emptying in short order it seems - a RHTT used to wash rail heads after. Sadly press pics show the rescuing 180 from Grand Central just 5 hours to detrain passengers as 180s would not couple and get brake release - suspect more damage under the Hull trains unit. So not a pretty episode all round per Twit reports on news channels. Robert Yes we were taken off the LNE circuit at 1300, to wait at Peterborough unit said unit was towed into Peterborough. made an hour out of the change of plans !!! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted December 7, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 7, 2017 (edited) I was on the Northern Belle today and it was early into retford where I relieved it as it ran in front of this train which I believe was 1H02 but didn't have to go inside at Claypole Edited December 7, 2017 by russ p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D854_Tiger Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 It was Hull Trains unit 180110 running as 1H02, 09:48 Kings Cross to Hull. Apparently connected with an obstruction on the line near Helpston (just North of Peterborough), causing the rupturing of four fuel tanks and spillage of diesel onto the line. The passengers were eventually led off the stricken train, though I doubt many enjoyed the spectacle of Union of South Africa passing with a Norwich to York special while they were stuck on board. Most especially if it was showering smuts all over the spilled diesel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Perhaps the train didn't like that the Arts Minister John Glen was announcing that Hull was going to be replaced as City of Culture... Seriously, 5 1/2 hours a is a bit of a long to to get passengers off the train. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Davexoc Posted December 8, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 8, 2017 Most especially if it was showering smuts all over the spilled diesel. Not a problem, diesel doesn't ignite that easily. The Canton apprentices found that out after soaking the lone Swansea lads kecks in diesel only to find a they then refused to ignite with a match or lighter.... Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Not a problem, diesel doesn't ignite that easily. The Canton apprentices found that out after soaking the lone Swansea lads kecks in diesel only to find a they then refused to ignite with a match or lighter.... Dave They can't have been using the right kind of diesel! I used to "borrow" diesel from work to burn the embankments and so trim back the hedgerows surrounding a stream which ran through our bottom field and it always ignited no problem! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 (edited) They can't have been using the right kind of diesel! I used to "borrow" diesel from work to burn the embankments and so trim back the hedgerows surrounding a stream which ran through our bottom field and it always ignited no problem! I manged to unintentionally put out a fire using diesel. One big puff of white smoke and that was it - no more flames, just oily cinders,,, Edited December 8, 2017 by Titan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted December 9, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 9, 2017 The problem with diesel is that because it can be difficult to ignite people get complacent. The fuel has a very high calorific value and once it ignites it generates extremely high temperature with combustion that propagate very quickly. Having had the joyful task of investigating a few ship engine room oil fires has left me with a healthy respect for the fire hazards of diesel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chriswright03 Posted December 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 9, 2017 As I recall the fire in the Ladbroke Grove incident was fuelled by diesel and burned very fiercely for long enough to cause both fatalities and severe injuries. So I would just echo the comments above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 (edited) Once diesel is hot enough it will burn well. In my case the fire was too small to heat the diesel to its flash point, so the diesel did not ignite and smothered the fire instead. In accidents where diesel does ignite, it is because either it has been atomised to a fine spray and/or had a large input of heat. A fuel line breaking and spraying on to a hot exhaust would do it, and is quite a common fire starter. Edited December 9, 2017 by Titan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bigbee Line Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 To start a fire with cold diesel you need a wick of some kind. That can be any material even soil. Learnt that one burning out wasps nests. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 Most especially if it was showering smuts all over the spilled diesel. And the problem would be what exactly? Diesel wont be ignited by a couple of smuts from a steam loco, dont believe everything you see in the films! ; ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesperus Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 It almost certainly wouldn't ignite but in the H+S crazed world of the modern railway I'm suprised that they let a kettle run through a large fuel spillage that had a trainful of passengers trapped above it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
On the block Allan Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 It almost certainly wouldn't ignite but in the H+S crazed world of the modern railway I'm suprised that they let a kettle run through a large fuel spillage that had a trainful of passengers trapped above it. What about the fumes and any sparks from passing pantographs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 10, 2017 That's alarming. Even if this type of failure is very rare indeed, there must be a risk that debris from a catastrophic engine failure does serious mischief. Mark Look on the bright side - the last time I saw a train running at speed suffer a ruptured fuel tank (vandalism in that case) the flames went about 30 feet into the air as the leaking fuel caught fire. I was at a local station waiting to collect my wife off a local train and got straight onto an SPT to get all lines blocked plus helping out with protection on the adjacent Up Main line then giving a hand with passenger evacuation - the passengers had to walk over a quarter of a mile in the cess. So this Hull Trains incident involved some good luck as well as some bad luck; but overall i think waiting in a failed train to be rescued is a bit more reassuring than watching flames shooting up the side of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Look on the bright side - the last time I saw a train running at speed suffer a ruptured fuel tank (vandalism in that case) the flames went about 30 feet into the air as the leaking fuel caught fire. I was at a local station waiting to collect my wife off a local train and got straight onto an SPT to get all lines blocked plus helping out with protection on the adjacent Up Main line then giving a hand with passenger evacuation - the passengers had to walk over a quarter of a mile in the cess. So this Hull Trains incident involved some good luck as well as some bad luck; but overall i think waiting in a failed train to be rescued is a bit more reassuring than watching flames shooting up the side of it. Wasn't there an incident near Reading where someone bailed out of a HST after seeing flames, and was hit by another service? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Having an underfloor engine shed bits of itself all over the track, and then have some of them bounce back and rupture the bottom of fuel tank(s) is not only a rare event, but requires a fair level of coincidence. We ought not to forget that for more than a century a potential, and more than occasionally real, even was a steam locomotive dropping a connecting rod onto, and into, the track. A quite probable result of that is derailment of the locomotive, and once derailed, a train is a substantial missile having a lot of kinetic energy and no control over what happenes next. Although some overseas railways incorporated it, there was never as far as I am aware any physical protection a British locomotive to restrain the front end of the connecting rod in the event of failure of the crosshead connection. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBill Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Having an underfloor engine shed bits of itself all over the track, and then have some of them bounce back and rupture the bottom of fuel tank(s) is not only a rare event, but requires a fair level of coincidence. We ought not to forget that for more than a century a potential, and more than occasionally real, even was a steam locomotive dropping a connecting rod onto, and into, the track. A quite probable result of that is derailment of the locomotive, and once derailed, a train is a substantial missile having a lot of kinetic energy and no control over what happenes next. Although some overseas railways incorporated it, there was never as far as I am aware any physical protection a British locomotive to restrain the front end of the connecting rod in the event of failure of the crosshead connection. Jim Some accident reports... Connecting rod piercing the firebox: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_CheadleHulme1922.pdf Connecting rod piercing the boiler: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_BetleyRoad1923.pdf A narrow escape... http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Northolt1950.pdf (note that the footplate men were back at work after one or two days!) Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 There was also this one at Settle in 1960 involving a Britannia pacific, sadly with loss of life. http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=287 Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RfDforever Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 (edited) Some accident reports... Connecting rod piercing the firebox: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_CheadleHulme1922.pdf Connecting rod piercing the boiler: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_BetleyRoad1923.pdf A narrow escape... http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Northolt1950.pdf (note that the footplate men were back at work after one or two days!) Bill Back in 1970 a loco. inspector I worked with (or, in his case, usually against) gave me a pretty graphic account of one experience he had - his 4F, on an excursion train, had built up some speed down a bank when the (midland design) little end broke up and the con rod started flailing around before digging into the sleepers. The terrifying part was he had plenty of time to think of all the possible outcomes before the loco came (safely, as far as he was concerned - and considerably against probability) to rest. saw him in a different light after that. Regarding the footplate men that were back at work after 1 or 2 days; not trying to re-create the Monty Python 'you were lucky, you had glass to eat!' sketch but, in February 1961 a York - Swindon overnight passenger train hit a derailed Palvan near Rugby Central. The loco turned over, trapping the driver. The fireman attempted to rescue him, but was driven back by the heat of escaping steam. He then ran a considerable distance to Rugby box to get help. Both he and the guard (who had protected the train in the other direction) then caught a train to try to continue their shift. Probably this was the profound effect of shock rather than loyalty to the job, though Edited to elaborate. Edited December 10, 2017 by RfDforever Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now