LNER empty trains collided, service disruptions expected

[Hobby]

On 23/11/2019 at 12:24, Titan said:

 

No, but the Mk3's do, and the buckeye has a long history of performing well too.

 

Yes i know that's why I commented.  The post indicated they did... Knew I should have used a smilie!

[SHMD]

I would have thought that the whole point of couplings, (post 1970s-ish or when ever the perceived wisdom of Buckeye Couplings came in), was that the dynamics were known/controlled during a derailment - especially one at low differential speeds.

 

I don't think the train should have come off the rails here.

 

As a paying customer (passenger!!!), I am not "overflowing" in confidence with this incident.

 

 

Kev.

 

[SHMD]

Another area of investigation, (I am in no way related to "railway" engineering - or railways professionally), would be how the spring/damping of the suspension systems performs at such low speed collisions.

 

I was very impressed/pleased with the comfort on the 802 journey, I took, compared with my usual fare over the same route. It was definitely a step change in riding qualities compared to my usual fare on the same route.

 

Might the collision's "energy" have been more easily dispersed with by a vertical movement rather than a horizontal movement where the wheel flanges could disperse/absorb so much of the collision energy"?

 

 

Kev.

[Oldddudders]

22 minutes ago, SHMD said:

when ever the perceived wisdom of Buckeye Couplings came in

The Southern Railway settled on buckeye couplings for new build passenger rolling stock in 1924, and the LNER was similarly convinced. 

[phil-b259]

29 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

The Southern Railway settled on buckeye couplings for new build passenger rolling stock in 1924, and the LNER was similarly convinced. 

 

 

Though strangely not for EMU stock - where you would have thought the stronger coupling with less play would have had great benefit as far as ride quality goes.

 

Not sure why , IIRC there is a suggestion that the buckeyes couldn't cope with the relatively crude traction controls causing differences between the motored vehicles and extra strain on the couplings. 

Edited November 24, 2019 by phil-b259

[62613]

27 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

The Southern Railway settled on buckeye couplings for new build passenger rolling stock in 1924, and the LNER was similarly convinced. 

I think the LNER inherited the buckeye from the GNR, which had been using it since 1906, when Gresley became C&W Superintendent.

 

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

I think the LNER inherited the buckeye from the GNR, which had been using it since 1906, when Gresley became C&W Superintendent.

 

Whilst the Metropolitan Railway had adopted it with their first electric stock in 1904, although they used a half-size version of the original American coupler.

 

Maunsell did experiment with buckeye couplers on a batch of new 3-SUB units, but without the accompanying buffing plates. However, they ran into problems with them coming apart due to excessive vertical movement between the cars, with the result that the Southern reverted to single centre buffers and chain couplings for the intercar couplings on non-gangwayed units, a standard that continued under BR. 

 

The Belgian railways fitted buckeye couplers to the outer ends of their standard 2-car suburban emus (roughly analogous to the Southern's 2-HAL units), but screw couplings between the two cars. That, though was so that with the unit reformed with cab ends inwards it could be put in any loco hauled train for dead movement.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

On 23/11/2019 at 12:24, Titan said:

 

No, but the Mk3's do, and the buckeye has a long history of performing well too.

 

By the by, the Mk3 HST trailers have fixed buckeyes, in that there is just one solid coupling as opposed to being attached to a drawhook, which should make them stronger than a drophead. They also have a little extra bit at the bottom which helps prevent vertical separation too.

 

Also, this type of inter vehicle Dellner coupler has been in use for a long time - Introduced on the first build of Networkers, albeit probably a shorter length version. I suspect that it has been used on many other multiple unit trains built since...

Don't overlook the fact that with a buckeye x coupling in the BR situation additional control of various forces is also exerted through the bottom (mainly) of the gangways.  That is why buckeye fitted locos also have that horizontal part above the coupler itself -  to mate against the bottom of the gangway on passenger vehicles.   I know no more about IET intermediate couplings than photos have shown but I get the impression that the gangway is not involved in providing any sort of additional stability or friction force compared with the gangways on the various marks of BR gangwayed stock

[Arun Sharma]

It's entirely possible that I don't know what I'm talking about. However, as someone with an unhealthy but professional interest in aircraft crash investigation, when considering energy absorption in say, a helicopter pilot's seat falling vertically, there are energy absorbing mechanisms available such as "die stroking" which allow a force along the long axis being capable of being significantly attenuated with consequent loss of significant spinal compression in crewmembers. Presumably a head on impact of a buckeye coupler can be attenuated in the same way. Granted it may require replacement of the coupler and its mounting but that would be a small price to pay.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Arun Sharma

[4630]

On 25th November 800109, complete with a wheel skate, has made its way, under its own power, as 5Q23 from Neville Hill T&RSMD (00.01) to Doncaster IEP.

 

A few stills from Twitter as it passed through Leeds here...

 

https://twitter.com/wallygridboy/status/1198764513014820866?s=20

 

... and video on Twitter here;

 

https://twitter.com/wallygridboy/status/1198766443527057408?s=20

Edited November 25, 2019 by 4630
To correct a random spell check amendment!

[flapland]

Slightly off topic but just seen a Azuma set on the North London Line near Gospel Oak as EQ50 to Ferme Park. Appears to have come from Eastleigh EZ50 to Acton and wonder why sets are being sent down their. 

[ajwffc]

6 hours ago, flapland said:

Slightly off topic but just seen a Azuma set on the North London Line near Gospel Oak as EQ50 to Ferme Park. Appears to have come from Eastleigh EZ50 to Acton and wonder why sets are being sent down their. 

painting/vinyling in the users livery 

[Davexoc]

11 hours ago, 4630 said:

On 25th November 800109, complete with a wheel skate, has made its way, under its own power, as 5Q23 from Neville Hill T&RSMD (00.01) to Doncaster IEP.

 

A few stills from Twitter as it passed through Leeds here...

 

https://twitter.com/wallygridboy/status/1198764513014820866?s=20

 

... and video on Twitter here;

 

https://twitter.com/wallygridboy/status/1198766443527057408?s=20

 

According to RTT it left 10 late and arrived 69 early. Also says it was planned for 124mph max........

[Ken.W]

On 22/11/2019 at 13:01, adb968008 said:

We’re the both moving in the same direction though ?

 

Surely the behaviour observed, should therefore be the expected behaviour, even if it looks a bit unexpected to untrained eyes ?

 

.. if 800109 is out for any length, has LNER got sufficient reserve cover,

 

Yes, both were moving onto the depot.

 

A lot of the comments here expressing concern about the behaviour of the 800 have been from experienced railwaymen though

 

From what I've heard, it may be 'out' for considerably longer than that

 

On 22/11/2019 at 11:09, russ p said:

 

What is worrying is that a lot of TPWS grids in terminal platforms are set higher than 9mph if one of these things hit the stops it could be worse than the EPB at Cannon street especially if passengers were stood in gangways 

 

It is, and of course a collision with the stops at that speed would be more severe than with a train moving in the same direction.

 

Other worries here are, with the extent the coaches are out of line here, in a low speed derailment they would foul an adjoining running line.

Or at even a moderate speed, if the couplings are so far out of line it would seem to give an increased chance of them breaking and coaches overriding each other.

 

On 23/11/2019 at 07:12, Covkid said:

 

..and a 9 mph "powered" collision. What if the driver had accidentally applied power instead of braking?

 

Not possible, from what I've heard

[Ken.W]

On 22/11/2019 at 16:45, The Stationmaster said:

It still strikes me as one heck of a lot of damage for a possible 9mph impact speed particularly if both trains were moving.  However I note they have not quoted firm speeds as yet and presumably that would be available from any on train data gathering on the IET if not for the HST?

 

On 22/11/2019 at 17:45, Oldddudders said:

Presumably it might also show if the quoted 14 mph was a steady speed, or whether a brake application had reduced speed to that number at the moment of impact?

 

Yes, the HST as well as the 800 would have had full OTMR data recording

[Covkid]

On 23/11/2019 at 07:12, Covkid said:

I don't really want to speculate on this, but there is probably a big difference between a 9 mph slide into the HST in front, and a 9 mph "powered" collision. What if the driver had accidentally applied power instead of braking ?

 

On 27/11/2019 at 18:01, Ken.W said:

Not possible, from what I've heard

 

Really Ken ? It is not possible for the driver to inadvertently move the Controller to "power" instead of "brake" ?

 

[phil-b259]

7 minutes ago, Covkid said:

 

 

Really Ken ? It is not possible for the driver to inadvertently move the Controller to "power" instead of "brake" ?

 

 

Quite probably - train driving controls are a bit more complicated than a Horby trainset controller (or even you bog standard car - where people have admittedly used the 'I hit the accelerator rather than the brake' line to explain collisions)

[25901]

4 hours ago, Covkid said:

 

 

Really Ken ? It is not possible for the driver to inadvertently move the Controller to "power" instead of "brake" ?

 

Am I missing something here, For the 800 to hit the HST would it not have gone through a red light and brake applied automatically

[JeffP]

Not if it was on a depot track, shunt signals?

[Fat Controller]

1 minute ago, JeffP said:

Not if it was on a depot track, shunt signals?

It was on a permissively-signalled section, I believe.

[iands]

Permissive working for class 5 and class 0 trains only is permitted on the section of line on which this incident occurred. 

[Oldddudders]

48 minutes ago, 25901 said:

Am I missing something here, For the 800 to hit the HST would it not have gone through a red light and brake applied automatically

No. This is permissive working, and passenger trains do not use this line, only ECS. You only proceed at a stipulated slow speed, prepared to stop short of an obstruction, in this case the train in front. Plenty of examples of such working throughout the UK, each of which is governed by specific local Special Instructions, knowledge of which is part of the pre-requisite for a driver signing the road. 

[Fat Controller]

5 minutes ago, iands said:

Permissive working for class 5 and class 0 trains only is permitted on the section of line on which this incident occurred. 

Class 5 is ECS. Incidentally, there was another incident this week in the same area, with another ECS passing a 'STOP' board.

[iands]

1 hour ago, Fat Controller said:

Class 5 is ECS. 

Indeed, I just quoted the SA and didn't bother with explaining what class 5 and 0 were - naughty me. 

[Hobby]

2 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

 with another ECS passing a 'STOP' board.

 

Isn't that a different thing, though, I didn't think this piece of line has a "stop" board which has a very different meaning.