LNER empty trains collided, service disruptions expected

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Ken.W said:

 

They're a semi-permanent Delner coupler

Not meant to be parted so we don't know any more about them. The gangways seem to be non-standard.

 

 

Delner couplers are well used though (including the outer ends of 125mph Voyagers which don't have gangways to help hold them in alignment) so it is a bit surprising they could have had an impact on what happened in Leeds even if they were of the semi-permanent type.

[david.hill64]

3 hours ago, iands said:

These two photos show the inter-car coupling arrangement and gangways. Taken on a visit earlier this year to the Hitachi factory at Heighington.

 Very interesting: thanks for posting.

There doesn't seem to be any sign of anti-climbers. I wonder how that function is provided. Anybody know?

[Ken.W]

10 hours ago, admiles said:

 

Well there's nothing like a good bit of total speculation fueled by a rather obvious hate for anything not manufactured in the UK. 

 

You don't have the foggest idea about what really happened. Why not just wait until RAIB report huh?

 

Well the fact that several posts expressing concern as to how the 800 has behaved in a low speed incident have been made by railway professionals should indicate that there is genuine cause for concern here.

 

But then there's nothing like not knowing the difference between professional opinion and knowledge, and idle speculation!

 

9 hours ago, Bomag said:

 

I know Shildon etc  is in the outer reaches of humanity but the last time I looked County Durham was in the UK . 

 

a simple knowledge of 1980's A level maths/mechanics would conclude that the 800 had a degree of momentum (which the HST does not show) and that dissipating that energy include lateral and vertical displacement of the coach ends. This may be as it is designed to do, it may not.

 

Given the movement 800's can show over point work, if there had been passengers on it  they may not have noticed at the back! Certainly it could not had made it any less comfy  

 

The Newton Aycliffe plant is basically an assembly shed. The equivalent of, in a traditional railway works, of just the erecting shop on it's own.

 

The great success of the buckeye coupler in minimizing damage and hence casualties in accidents over the years, and reason for their widespread use, was that they are designed to keep the vehicles both upright and in-line.

That the couplers on here have failed to do the latter in a relatively minor slow speed incident then;

If they wern't designed to do so, then why not?

And if they were, then why haven't they?

 

There's few on here could disagree with your last comment though

Edited November 16, 2019 by Ken.W

[Andrew Young]

13 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Personally I think no British train will ever surpass the HST and Mk 3 coach for high speed comfort, longevity & perhaps safety. The Pendolino involved in the Grayrigg derailment stood up pretty well also, as that incident occurred at 95 mph, and the train went down an embankment, couplings parted etc, though sadly with one fatality and a number of injuries.

 

I hope the many £millions invested in these 800 trains will turn out to be money well spent. Time, and the incident report will tell.

 

Brit15

 

The fundamental weakness to the safety of the Mk3 carriage is its large windows. In serious accidents such as Ufton, deaths were the result of windows popping out resulting in people being thrown out through the window void or being struck by debris coming in.

 

From 1999-2001, I worked in Virgin Trains head office in Birmingham for the Safety Standards team, our office was next to the new trains team when the Pendolinos and Voyagers were being built and enjoyed a trip round the Washwood Heath plant when the Pendolinos were being built. 
 

The Pendolino generation of stock attempted to reduce this risk by keeping the passengers within the body of the vehicle and protected from debris, hence the small windows and high backed seats.

 

The remarkable features of Grayrigg to me are that the Pendolino rolled down the bank at 95mph with the leading vehicle turning through 180 degrees is that not one window smashed as a result of the accident, all the windows shown on the footage were broken by firefighters going in. The only fatality was an old lady who died from a heart attack, not through impact injuries and the driver survived, albeit very badly injured.

 

What is little known is that a southbound Voyager was fast approaching on the Up running slightly late and was stopped by signals just north of the site. So close that some of the emergency services saw their train and went to it as the locations were so similar. Another case where the gods were looking over us. 

 

As someone eco drives trains past Neville Hill, I’ll be watching for the report into this collision with interest for the causes and also the behaviour of the IET vehicles.

 

Andrew

 

[royaloak]

4 hours ago, Ken.W said:

 

They're a semi-permanent Dellner coupler

What are?

If you mean the inter-vehicle couplers on an IET then you are very wrong, they are a bolted bar as shown above your post I quoted.!

 

To answer others-

Yes there is a data recorder.

There is a very good forward facing camera in the IET, basically all cameras are recording all the time.

The derailed IET vehicles were on straight track when they derailed. (that is rather worrying).

 

Yes I do know a lot more and no I, like most of the others with 'inside' knowledge, wont be going into any more detail, and I also await the report, if there is one.

Edited November 16, 2019 by royaloak

[iands]

7 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

 Very interesting: thanks for posting.

There doesn't seem to be any sign of anti-climbers. I wonder how that function is provided. Anybody know?

Hi David, 

I'm not sure that any anti-climb measures have been "approved" as yet, let alone implemented. However, I'm sure someone will correct me if I've missed this detail somewhere. 

[jim.snowdon]

3 hours ago, royaloak said:

 

The derailed IET vehicles were on straight track when they derailed. (that is rather worrying).

But not entirely unpredictable, especially if the draw bars have to have a relatively large angular movement. But, the train is still all nominally in line and no telescoping has taken place. As the RAIB seem to be involved, doubtless a report will appear in the fullness of time and I would expect that the derailment behaviour of the train will be looked at. It's the sort of event that isn't tested in reality until it happens, and then any engineer will want to get as much knowledge out of it as practicable.

 

JJim

[Covkid]

5 hours ago, Andrew Young said:

The fundamental weakness to the safety of the Mk3 carriage is its large windows. In serious accidents such as Ufton, deaths were the result of windows popping out resulting in people being thrown out through the window void or being struck by debris coming in.

 

From 1999-2001, I worked in Virgin Trains head office in Birmingham for the Safety Standards team, our office was next to the new trains team when the Pendolinos and Voyagers were being built and enjoyed a trip round the Washwood Heath plant when the Pendolinos were being built. 
 

The Pendolino generation of stock attempted to reduce this risk by keeping the passengers within the body of the vehicle and protected from debris, hence the small windows and high backed seats.

 

The remarkable features of Grayrigg to me are that the Pendolino rolled down the bank at 95mph with the leading vehicle turning through 180 degrees is that not one window smashed as a result of the accident, all the windows shown on the footage were broken by firefighters going in. The only fatality was an old lady who died from a heart attack, not through impact injuries and the driver survived, albeit very badly injured.

 

What is little known is that a southbound Voyager was fast approaching on the Up running slightly late and was stopped by signals just north of the site. So close that some of the emergency services saw their train and went to it as the locations were so similar. Another case where the gods were looking over us. 

 

As someone eco drives trains past Neville Hill, I’ll be watching for the report into this collision with interest for the causes and also the behaviour of the IET vehicles.

 

Andrew

 

 

Not so sure the Mk3 windows are actually that much of a weakness in every instance. The Colwich disaster in 1991 is testament to the integrity of the design but I don't know whether passengers received superficial injuries. Certainly the only loss of life was the driver of the Up Liverpool-Euston express.

 

True the accidents involving the HSTs on the Great Western did result in fatalities but "lessons have been learnt particularly with laminated glass windows.

[Fat Controller]

I wonder how differently the train might have behaved had it been articulated?

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, iands said:

Hi David, 

I'm not sure that any anti-climb measures have been "approved" as yet, let alone implemented. However, I'm sure someone will correct me if I've missed this detail somewhere. 

 

'Anti-climb' devices are usually fitted to the outer ends of units - not between individual cars as there is an assumption that the inter-unit couplings will be designed to prevent that.

 

In any case the main reason they were invented was the tendency for the strong Mk1 underframe to slice through the weak bodyshell of an adjacent Mk1 like a hot knife through butter in accidents where there was significant vertical displacement. Monocoque bodyshell designs don't have this problem..

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, Fat Controller said:

I wonder how differently the train might have behaved had it been articulated?

Very differently, but possibly more expensively.

 

Jim

[iands]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

'Anti-climb' devices are usually fitted to the outer ends of units - not between individual cars as there is an assumption that the inter-unit couplings will be designed to prevent that.

 

Hi Phil, 

My assumption on anti-climb devices was the issue of the 3 cable connections between carriages on the IETs potentially being used as a ladder for those with an "idiotic tendancy" to climb on the roof. Not sure this issue has been resolved. 

[Titan]

6 hours ago, royaloak said:

What are?

If you mean the inter-vehicle couplers on an IET then you are very wrong, they are a bolted bar as shown above your post I quoted.!

 

 

The inter vehicle Dellner couplers look nothing like the ones at the outer end.  Dellner is a manufacturer, who also make bolted bar inter vehicle couplers. The coupling  as shown in the post above that you quoted is a semi permanent Dellner coupler. Guess who has assumed they know more than anyone else and got it wrong (again)?

[phil-b259]

13 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

The inter vehicle Dellner couplers look nothing like the ones at the outer end.  Dellner is a manufacturer, who also make bolted bar inter vehicle couplers. The coupling  as shown in the post above that you quoted is a semi permanent Dellner coupler. Guess who has assumed they know more than anyone else and got it wrong (again)?

 

No need for the attitude - I would have been similarly dismissive because to my eyes, a Dellner coupler is a devisable coupler like a buckeye, Scharfenberg or a tightlock - NOT  simply a lump of metal!

 

A lump of metal joining to carriages together- be it on a 800 or a 455 unit is a 'solid bar coupler' REGARDLESS of who actually makes it.

 

If we adopted your way of thinking I guess we should call the coupling bars between the vehicles which make up a German ICE as 'semi permanent Scharfenberg couplings'

[The Stationmaster]

On 15/11/2019 at 10:52, Covkid said:

 

Even longer.

Remember the converted AM10 which roamed around - used a 750V power car when running on the SR metals. AIUI this was the "V" train to validate Hitachi understanding of BR routes.

In a word 'no'.  I did some ISA (Independent Safety Assessment) work on that project and the idea was very definitely not about 'validating understanding of BR routes' but was all about testing the functionality of various aspect of Hitachi's proposals for traction packages and associated software etc.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

I wonder how differently the train might have behaved had it been articulated?

The TGV might provide an answer to that.  Back in the 1990s a TGV derailed at speed (in excess of 100 mph) in the vicinity of the junction for Amiens and from what I can recall of photos that were around at the time the vehicles remained more or less upright upright and pretty well in line.

 

One thing about the Leeds collision is that yet again it seems to have shown the solidity of the cab end of an HST  because although comprehensively damaged low down the damage does not extend upwards very far.  The fibre glass cabs on HSTs are very tough - in a very low speed collision with a Class 47 on Landore depot years back the HST suffered little more than scratched paint while the front end of the Class 47 was well trashed and it needed a new cab plus several months in works.  Quite what happened at Neville Hill is of course not in the public domain but the extent of damage to the HST suggests quite a 'hard' collision and definitely something more than 5-10mph having in the past witnessed an HST power car hitting a very solid stop block at walking pace.  However that also suggests to me that unless the HST was able to roll forwards on impact there will inevitably be damage underneath the coaches in the vicinity of the bogie/body area as that has always seemed to be the area most prone to suffer when an HST is involved in a low speed collision.

 

Like others I do find it a cause for concern that vehicles have gone noticeably out of line on the IET in a collision at low speed on apparently fairly straight track and I trust the RAIB will be paying considerable attention to that aspect of the collision.

[Titan]

59 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

No need for the attitude - I would have been similarly dismissive because to my eyes, a Dellner coupler is a devisable coupler like a buckeye, Scharfenberg or a tightlock - NOT  simply a lump of metal!

 

A lump of metal joining to carriages together- be it on a 800 or a 455 unit is a 'solid bar coupler' REGARDLESS of who actually makes it.

 

If we adopted your way of thinking I guess we should call the coupling bars between the vehicles which make up a German ICE as 'semi permanent Scharfenberg couplings'

 

 

Indeed, however you would not have told someone that they were "very wrong" and that they were not Dellners. I was just responding like for like to the attitude of  the original response with an equally robust reply, Unless there are double standards at play here?

 

There is no need to call bar couplers anything else, but equally if someone says that they are "semi permanent Scharfenberg couplings" on an ICE are you advocating that we should say they are "very wrong", like the post I was referring to?

Edited November 16, 2019 by Titan

[david.hill64]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

'Anti-climb' devices are usually fitted to the outer ends of units - not between individual cars as there is an assumption that the inter-unit couplings will be designed to prevent that.

 

In any case the main reason they were invented was the tendency for the strong Mk1 underframe to slice through the weak bodyshell of an adjacent Mk1 like a hot knife through butter in accidents where there was significant vertical displacement. Monocoque bodyshell designs don't have this problem..

Actually most of the vehicles that I have been involved with in recent years - admittedly in Asia not UK - have inter-car anticlimbers as standard. All with monocoque construction. 
 

i understand the problems of Mk 1 construction where the sole purpose of the bodyshell was to keep the rain off the passengers........

[phil-b259]

33 minutes ago, Titan said:

Indeed, however you would not have told someone that they were "very wrong" and that they were not Dellners.

 

 

Quite probably yes - because it would not have entered my head that a non-divisable bar coupler could ever be described as anything but bar coupler!

 

While loco hauled stock and DMUs do tend to have devisable couplings* between them, all EMUs (and the 800 class is part EMU in design) utilise fixed coupling bars.

 

* as in they can be uncoupled outside of a depot environment

 

 

[royaloak]

2 hours ago, iands said:

Hi Phil, 

My assumption on anti-climb devices was the issue of the 3 cable connections between carriages on the IETs potentially being used as a ladder for those with an "idiotic tendancy" to climb on the roof. Not sure this issue has been resolved. 

You mean that issue which only came to light when the IETs went in service but is prevalent on nearly every train built after 1998 but as the coaches are closer together isnt so visible or obvious?

 

I wonder if its that bigger gap between vehicles which has allowed the coaches to displace so much simply because the longer bolted bar allows it and it isnt something they thought about when they decided to go for stupidly long coaches which needed the longer couplers!

Edited November 16, 2019 by royaloak

[Titan]

25 minutes ago, royaloak said:

 

I wonder if its that bigger gap between vehicles which has allowed the coaches to displace so much simply because the longer bolted bar allows it and it isnt something they thought about when they decided to go for stupidly long coaches which needed the longer couplers!

 

You could have a point, longer end throw means longer couplings with more side travel to get round sharp curves. 

[iands]

49 minutes ago, royaloak said:

You mean that issue which only came to light when the IETs went in service but is prevalent on nearly every train built after 1998 but as the coaches are closer together isnt so visible or obvious?

 

I wonder if its that bigger gap between vehicles which has allowed the coaches to displace so much simply because the longer bolted bar allows it and it isnt something they thought about when they decided to go for stupidly long coaches which needed the longer couplers!

Hi Royaloak,

Yep, that issue. Although, as you say, the same "issue" has been around for a number of years on different stock, it only seemed to become a "real" issue with the Azumas - if my understanding of one of the ORR concerns is correct (the other ORR concern was the EMC issue).

 

[caradoc]

3 hours ago, royaloak said:

You mean that issue which only came to light when the IETs went in service but is prevalent on nearly every train built after 1998 but as the coaches are closer together isnt so visible or obvious?

 

I wonder if its that bigger gap between vehicles which has allowed the coaches to displace so much simply because the longer bolted bar allows it and it isnt something they thought about when they decided to go for stupidly long coaches which needed the longer couplers!

 

2 hours ago, Titan said:

 

You could have a point, longer end throw means longer couplings with more side travel to get round sharp curves. 

 

As the Azuma was stopped suddenly, by an impact at the front of the set (rather than all vehicles being retarded comparatively gently, and simultaneously, under braking) , would the forces transmitted along the length of the train, combined with a large gap between vehicles, be sufficient to derail and misalign some of the coaches ? That does seem a possibility to my non-scientific mind.

 

[Ken.W]

12 hours ago, royaloak said:

What are?

If you mean the inter-vehicle couplers on an IET then you are very wrong, they are a bolted bar as shown above your post I quoted.!

 

Well, in replying to the post asking what couplers they are, I recall from our training course back in May that's how they were described. We didn't look at them much as we've nothing to do with them.

 

Looking up on-line, they're both the same thing!

[runs as required]

It has to be our good fortune that this incident has happened at slow speed and out of service.

 

The worst incident I can think of in recent times was when Amtrak Train 501, a southbound Cascades train from Seattle to Portland, Ore., entered a 30-mph-curve at 78 mph, at Milepost 19.86 on the BNSF Railway Lakewood Subdivision, also known as the Point Defiance Bypass. Three passengers were killed on the ceremonially inaugurated first Talgo morning express to traverse the new diversion hit the bridge beam and tumbled over down onto the busy Freeway below. The National Transportation Safety Board reported here  “Had the rolling assembly not detached,” Chairman Robert Sumwalt observed, “we may not have had fatal injuries.”

Lightness of construction of the aluminium articulated train was held to be a factor as the cars rolled through 180 degrees. But most of all management was blamed for inadequate driver training and train speed control.

 

A previous Talgo derailment occurred in 2013 at twice the posted line speed on a curve approaching Santiago de Compostela; of  222 people on board, 79 died and around 140 were injured. The Investigation similarly showed the articulated train broke up in overturning and that automated control hd failed to reduce excessive speed. It being Spain, the driver rather than a manager went to jail for 4 years for homicide.

dh

Edited November 16, 2019 by runs as required
typos