Jump to content
 

LNER empty trains collided, service disruptions expected


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

The STOP board was on the exit road; it seems it is being treated as a SPAD.

 

I'm getting confused now. I thought this was on the entry road? Or are you saying that there was a stop board on this line facing (therefore applicable to) these units and this stop board was passed without stopping (by I assume, the 800)?

Edited by Hobby
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Hobby said:

 

I'm getting confused now. I thought this was on the entry road? Or are you saying that there was a stop board on this line facing (therefore applicable to) these units and this stop board was passed without stopping (by I assume, the 800)?

No (in the context of the collision) - this referred to another incident mentioned on the previous page.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm surprised nobody has commented on 800109 moving to Doncaster Carr under its own power. For a damaged train subject to investigation that is a surprise to me and implies that all the electrical and traction systems have been thoroughly examined and confirmed to be in working order.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, brushman47544 said:

I'm surprised nobody has commented on 800109 moving to Doncaster Carr under its own power. For a damaged train subject to investigation that is a surprise to me and implies that all the electrical and traction systems have been thoroughly examined and confirmed to be in working order.

What we don't know is how much of the unit's power train etc was in working order beyond the fact that there was sufficient power available to move it at slow speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

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

 

5 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

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.

 

5 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

The STOP board was on the exit road; it seems it is being treated as a SPAD.

 

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

If a STOP board is passed without authority it is automatically a SPAD - that's been the case for a long time

 

4 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

I'm getting confused now. I thought this was on the entry road? Or are you saying that there was a stop board on this line facing (therefore applicable to) these units and this stop board was passed without stopping (by I assume, the 800)?

 

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

No (in the context of the collision) - this referred to another incident mentioned on the previous page.

AIUI the HST was signalled from Leeds onto the line in question which is the Up Hull Goods line, thence through more pointwork, presumably to a stop board where a Neville Hill shunter / supervisor authorises the movement onto the depot.  The IET was following the same route off the main line onto the UHGL - permissively - when it collided with the HST in front.  Presumably the HST was either approaching the stop board or had authorisation to pass it when the collision to it's rear occurred.   

Edited by Covkid
typo
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to spend some money and fully signal this depot entrance line.

 

Over in America unsignaled main lines are known as "Bow and arrow country" - not right in 2019 in the Uk, especially a busy city like Leeds in this day and age. 

 

Brit15

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Time to spend some money and fully signal this depot entrance line.

 

Over in America unsignaled main lines are known as "Bow and arrow country" - not right in 2019 in the Uk, especially a busy city like Leeds in this day and age. 

 

Brit15

 

 

All depots are like this , you cant signal them as so busy on a night when there are so many trains about 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

I'm surprised nobody has commented on 800109 moving to Doncaster Carr under its own power. For a damaged train subject to investigation that is a surprise to me and implies that all the electrical and traction systems have been thoroughly examined and confirmed to be in working order.

I'm not. As collisions and derailments go, this one was quite tame. Patently one wheelset was deemed a non-runner, as it had to be put on a skate, which would enforce a slow speed on its own.

 

Jim

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Time to spend some money and fully signal this depot entrance line.

 

Over in America unsignaled main lines are known as "Bow and arrow country" - not right in 2019 in the Uk, especially a busy city like Leeds in this day and age. 

Quite unnecessary. Timetable and Train Order signalling in dark territory is completely different. Permissive working, on freight lines as well as modern depot access roads, has been a safe part of British signalling practice forever. It relies upon each driver being alert, that's all. I offer no evidence that there was a lapse of concentration in the 8xx - other causes are possible - but it is up there with any other theory. 

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

 

All depots are like this , you cant signal them as so busy on a night when there are so many trains about 

 

Not so - the new Springs Branch depot (opens soon) alongside the old one is fully signalled.  Some new signals here also.

 

65589153_IMG_1259rszd2.jpg.1fffe54d0d360e633912de58788c89da.jpg

 

No excuses - Skimping in the extreme at Leeds - We do things properly here in Wigan !!

 

Brit15

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Covkid said:

 

 

 

 

 

AIUI the HST was signalled from Leeds onto the line in question which is the Up Hull Goods line,  

It's actually the "Down Goods Line". 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

Not so - the new Springs Branch depot (opens soon) alongside the old one is fully signalled.  Some new signals here also.

 

 

No excuses - Skimping in the extreme at Leeds - We do things properly here in Wigan !!

 

Brit15

 

Errm no, that's signaled by Position Light, ie shunt, Signals which are Permissive, and the ones in view will be provided to control movements through power-operated points.

 

It's not skimping! It's how depots have always been worked, and helps keep trains moving where they're only traveling a very low speed anyway, 15mph has been quoted for the goods line in this incident, and standard speed on a depot these days is 5mph.

Many points in sidings on depots are generally hand-operated so can't be signaled, movements being controlled by a shunter.

If you tried applying main line signaling on depots they'd grind to a halt.

 

Permissive working's also how you manage to couple two 5-car 80x's together in service when attaching portions, or couple a loco to a train etc

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

I'm surprised nobody has commented on 800109 moving to Doncaster Carr under its own power. For a damaged train subject to investigation that is a surprise to me and implies that all the electrical and traction systems have been thoroughly examined and confirmed to be in working order.

 

Probably easier than trying to couple a loco to one of those things

 

4 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

I'm not. As collisions and derailments go, this one was quite tame. Patently one wheelset was deemed a non-runner, as it had to be put on a skate, which would enforce a slow speed on its own.

 

Jim

 

I'm surprised that in such a low speed incident it required skating.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Apollo, But no. Professional railwaymen, including me although from near fifty years ago, have no issues with permissive working; it does the job. It would be very difficult to operate some environments without it. It does require vigilance by the drivers of following trains, that's all. That was a general comment and not to be taken as applying to the collision under discussion.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ken.W said:

I'm surprised that in such a low speed incident it required skating.

 

It was probably one of those bogies that came off. Perhaps it hit something it shouldn't have and damaged it, brake linkage for instance and it was easier just to skate it... I've seen plenty of damage at slow speeds where it's been more than it should be due to individual circumstances... No doubt it'll all come out in the wash!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll leave judgement re permissive working to those professional railwaymen who have posted here. Thankyou.

 

I hope lessons will be learned (whatever they are) AND acted upon swiftly, regardless of cost.

 

Brit15

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It's been noted by Royal Oak further back in the thread that on the Western, at least that the change from rheostatic braking to air braking is at an awkward speed, could this be the case on the Eastern?

 

Sorry the thread is more likely to be the 800 thread, rather than this one.

 

 

 

Edited by Siberian Snooper
The apology.
Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

I'll leave judgement re permissive working to those professional railwaymen who have posted here. Thankyou.

 

I hope lessons will be learned (whatever they are) AND acted upon swiftly, regardless of cost.

 

Brit15

One thing that is certain is that any changes that result will not be regardless of cost. Whatever happens it will be determined by what is reasonably practicable. The principle of as safe as is reasonably practicable applies, and has been enshrined in safety law for over half a century.

 

Jim

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

It's been noted by Royal Oak further back in the thread that on the Western, at least that the change from rheostatic braking to air braking is at an awkward speed, could this be the case on the Eastern?

 

 

 

It will be something that the RAIB will doubtless be considering.

 

Jim

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

I'll leave judgement re permissive working to those professional railwaymen who have posted here. Thankyou.

 

I hope lessons will be learned (whatever they are) AND acted upon swiftly, regardless of cost.

 

Brit15

 

6 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

One thing that is certain is that any changes that result will not be regardless of cost. Whatever happens it will be determined by what is reasonably practicable. The principle of as safe as is reasonably practicable applies, and has been enshrined in safety law for over half a century.

 

Jim

 

Indeed. There are already too many complaints about high ticket prices. Make railways too expensive and you will cause more road fatalities than you will save railway fatalities.

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...