LNER empty trains collided, service disruptions expected

[iands]

19 hours ago, APOLLO said:

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

 

Brit15

Actually, until not too long ago Neville Hill depot was controlled internally by two consoles (East and West), but now consolidated into the West console which, via "releases", controls access/egress to/from the depot with signalling interfaces originally with Leeds PSB, then York IECC and now with York ROC. So Neville Hill depot has been "doing things properly" for a significant number of years. Still, it's good to know that Wigan is now catching up.

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours 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 all depots Russ.  The Eurostar depot at North Pole was - I think - first in the fields as a more or less fully signalled depot but it can create problems working a depot as you need good comms (NPI had those) plus you need to man your control point and that costs.  The Siemens depot at Soi uthampton also has a fairly full signalling fit as well but it was interesting doing risk assessment work on it as you could quickly see how potentially solving one set of problems could create others.

[iands]

32 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Not all depots Russ.  The Eurostar depot at North Pole was - I think - first in the fields as a more or less fully signalled depot but it can create problems working a depot as you need good comms (NPI had those) plus you need to man your control point and that costs.  The Siemens depot at Soi uthampton also has a fairly full signalling fit as well but it was interesting doing risk assessment work on it as you could quickly see how potentially solving one set of problems could create others.

Sorry Russ, must agree with Mike. On the East London Line, New Cross Gate depot, Silwood and Willesden 'C' sidings (okay that's North London Line, but still London Overground trains) are all signalled depots/stabling facilities (colourlights, GPLs, power points, Train Describers and even full GSMR coverage).

[russ p]

Crown point is more or less fully signalled but it's all still permissive 

[phil-b259]

On 29/11/2019 at 19:45, 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 

 

Yes you can!

 

The Thameslink depot at Three Bridges employs signals throughout - none of this 'Stop' board stuff.

 

As with many railway related things, standards have changed in recent years. Older pre-existing depots can stay as they are but heavily rebuilt / new installations are to have shunt signals and local signalling panels installed to control ALL movements.

[russ p]

7 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Yes you can!

 

The Thameslink depot at Three Bridges employs signals throughout - none of this 'Stop' board stuff.

 

As with many railway related things, standards have changed in recent years. Older pre-existing depots can stay as they are but heavily rebuilt / new installations are to have shunt signals and local signalling panels installed to control ALL movements.

 

Is it not permissive Phil? 

[Grovenor]

Standard shunt signals provide authority to move as far as the track is clear so are permissive by definition, to the driver. But whether they can actaually give a proceed onto an occupied track depends on the detail design and what you want to achieve. The design discussions can be interesting.

[phil-b259]

29 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

Is it not permissive Phil? 

 

Yes it is - but thats not the point. A fully signalled depot is safer for ground staff and can help prevent human error, which is why the ORR demand it these days.

 

A shunt signal will always give a positive 'Stop' or 'proceed at caution' instruction to a specified destination (they are fitted with route indicators where necessary) - no ability to forget / mishear the instructions of a shunter or make assumptions. These are all errors which can readily occur at 'Stop' boards simply because drivers (and shunters) are human beings.

 

Equally the use of signals allows for 'siding lock out' controls (interlocked with the points and signals) to be provided where staff are working on units within said siding so its impossible to send something in there

 

Similarly powered points prevent trains ending up in unexpected places and should also prevent derailments due to them not closing up properly (by virtue of being interlocked with the signals.

 

In some cases (e.g. where fixed formation units such as the 12 or 8 car 700s are used) track circuits can configured to tell the depot signaller when any particular siding is full and prevent further movements into said siding via interlocking with the appropriate shunt signals.

 

Now I readily accept that having a fully signalled depot at Neville Hill would not on its own necessarily have prevented the collision - but depending on what the RAIB find, it could have helped make it less likely.

 

[russ p]

If a depot  is for one type of train then it's a lot more simple to signal it as most of the time in the modern railway any need to alter formations 

Bounds green is another depot which is virtually fully signalled but there are many shunt moves making up sets which involves permissive working 

Any locomotive depot involves loads of permissive working 

[Ken.W]

14 hours 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.

 

14 hours ago, Titan said:

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.

 

Especially as in this case there was, fortunately, no injuries never mind fatalities, and it occurred on a Goods Line not permitted for passenger trains.

 

On the issue of signaling depots, the incident didn't occur on the depot, and the issue was permissive working. The alternative would have been the 800 standing on, and blocking, the Main Line until the HST was in clear on the depot and this is a busy route.

 

As for fully signaling depots, with all that added complication, you then just need a signaling failure on the depot and...

no trains next day

[Hobby]

I seem to remember Neville Hill having some issues a few years ago... Edit: 2009! Didn't realise it was as long ago as that! Not quite the same issue, though...

 

Just out of interest what's the state of the track down that line? I wonder if poor state of the track would have assisted with the derailments of the Azuma?

Edited December 1, 2019 by Hobby

[APOLLO]

 

Again a view of the new signalling arrangements and track formation at the bi directional entrance to the new / modernised Springs Branch Wigan depot.

 

Interestingly the shunt signals seem to have route indicators as mentioned above. No signalling on the depot lines / sidings, just the entrance / exit points.

 

For info the WCML is six track here, the depot lines join the depot entrance is onto to the up / down goods lines, the centre tracks are the fast lines and over to the far left are the slow lines. Stock can access the other running lines a mile north at Wigan South Jcn, or a mile or so south at Bamfurlong Flyunder. This (old) map posted on another thread by anroar53, shows the general track arrangement, (doesn't show the new trackwork though).

 

 

Different locations have different arrangements, as the long permissive line into Neville Hill shows. Would that be allowed today (if the depot was new / rebuilt) ?

 

Edited to add - HS2 is planned to join the WCML on the 4 track section between Bamfurlong and Haydock Branch junctions with a high speed flyover. Farmland there so easy(ish) to build.

 

Brit15

Edited December 1, 2019 by APOLLO
add info

[Hobby]

15 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Would that be allowed today (if the depot was new / rebuilt) ?

 

Why not? It's an accepted way of operating and it is used safely hundreds of times a day over the whole network in many locations. We need to be careful not to over-react to one incident where we do not know the truth as to why it happened, that will be the job of the RAIB. 

[APOLLO]

Not an over reaction - just a technical question regarding new signalling on new works (as at SP).

 

Brit15

[Mark Saunders]

There seems to a lot of hype about Permissive block lines but there is an entire Road Network including Motorways that are on the same principle.

 

Mark Saunders 

[phil-b259]

12 hours ago, Ken.W said:

As for fully signalling depots, with all that added complication, you then just need a signalling failure on the depot and...

no trains next day

 

Utter tosh!

 

If your power worked points or depot interlocking doesn't work then, as with the mainline clipping up points and talking by signals is possible. Just because its a depot doesn't mean such things cannot happen.

 

In effect moves over the defective kit revert to the 'old school' methods - BUT the ORR rightly recognise this increases the risks so should not be used as the normal method of working.

[Ken.W]

10 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Utter tosh!

 

If your power worked points or depot interlocking doesn't work then, as with the mainline clipping up points and talking by signals is possible. Just because its a depot doesn't mean such things cannot happen.

 

In effect moves over the defective kit revert to the 'old school' methods - BUT the ORR rightly recognise this increases the risks so should not be used as the normal method of working.

 

Yes, clipping points and talking by signals is possible, and just look at the delays that causes on the mainline.

Depots can actually be very busy places at night, and rely on smooth running to get everything through in time. If you then have to rely on having a shunter going round hand-cranking and clipping power points then talking you past signals (so not simply reverting to the old system of hand points) they simply wouldn't get round the system in time.

Edited December 1, 2019 by Ken.W

[russ p]

I've know incidents on signalled depots where a spad has occurred and points getting ran through causing all sorts of problems with sets being trapped and massive delays on a morning 

[phil-b259]

14 hours ago, russ p said:

If a depot  is for one type of train then it's a lot more simple to signal it as most of the time in the modern railway any need to alter formations 

Bounds green is another depot which is virtually fully signalled but there are many shunt moves making up sets which involves permissive working 

Any locomotive depot involves loads of permissive working 

 

Agreed - but permissive working brings risks which must be adequately addressed.

 

While its virtually impossible to prevent driver mistakes once authority to move has been given - it is possible to eliminate mistakes by others through the use of signals (not stop boards), power worked points and a degree of interlocking between the two.

 

With regards to the Neville Hill incident, the most obvious thing is the possibility of both trains moving at the same time. - permissive working is a lot safer if one train remains static while the other moves.

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, russ p said:

I've know incidents on signalled depots where a spad has occurred and points getting ran through causing all sorts of problems with sets being trapped and massive delays on a morning 

 

Oh quite - but if a train SPADs a signal then there is a fair chance it will end up colliding with another one!

 

A SPAD is a serious 'offence' as it were and unless its caused by a technical defect / signaller cancelling the route (i.e. signal reverting to danger once a proceed has been given), then there are serious questions to answer about the drivers ability to drive the train! It makes no difference that it happens to be on a depot or not - a signal is a signal!

[russ p]

Some of the problem of permissive working is lack of experience 

The big modernisation plan yards had and some still do have permissive working on the running lines within the yard that are used exclusively by freight 

On Teesside it was possible for trains to follow one another from Bowesfield all the way to Grangetown. 

I only know of one series accident in 1965

Certainly on the goods lines at tees it was normal to follow a train and the sub to illuminate ad stay behind it

[russ p]

3 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Oh quite - but if a train SPADs a signal then there is a fair chance it will end up colliding with another one!

 

A SPAD is a serious 'offence' as it were and unless its caused by a technical defect / signaller cancelling the route (i.e. signal reverting to danger once a proceed has been given), then there are serious questions to answer about the drivers ability to drive the train! It makes no difference that it happens to be on a depot or not - a signal is a signal!

 

 

A lot of the time depot spads occur is that the panel operators get flustered and don't follow the yard supervisors instructions and trains start against signals. Which isn't good but often train cabs a right up against signals due to space constraints and fuelers and fitters wanting trains moved

[phil-b259]

11 minutes ago, Ken.W said:

 

Yes, clipping points and talking by signals is possible, and just look at the delays that causes on the mainline.

Depots can actually be very busy places at night, and rely on smooth running to get everything through in time. If you then have to rely on having a shunter going round hand-cranking and clipping power points then talking you past signals (so not simply reverting to the old system of hand points) they simply wouldn't get round the system in time.

 

Society has moved on Ken - and the ORR quite rightly regard keeping ground staff safe as far more important than 'getting trains out on time. Shunters operating hand points increases the chances of slip, trip and fall accidents - verbal instructions can easily be misunderstood, etc.

 

The ORR would thus say its the responsibility of the depot operator to ensure they maintain the depot to a high standard such that things don't fail in the first place - rather than have an inherently less safe installation just because trains may be delayed on occasion if something develops a fault.

 

Similarly the ORR want to ban the use of ALL track work with lookouts (i.e. only line blockages will be acceptable) when working out on the mainline INCLUDING FIXING FAULTS! by 2023. The fact that this will cause chaos and is heavily opposed by TOCs cuts no ice with the ORR - if passenger trains are delayed then tough s**t is their attitude, and rather than whinging TOCS + NR would be better concentrating on stopping things failing in the first place.

 

 

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

 

A lot of the time depot spads occur is that the panel operators get flustered and don't follow the yard supervisors instructions and trains start against signals. Which isn't good but often train cabs a right up against signals due to space constraints and fuelers and fitters wanting trains moved

 

Again valid points - but if signals are not visible to drivers then the question is why not? Is the depot trying to cope with too many locos than it has space for? are enough fitters / fuellers / depot shunters being employed so locos can be positioned correctly ? etc?

[russ p]

Well you know yourself phil signals are not always in the place they should be. I know of signal you have to get closer than you like to to get in clear on various platforms. 

Depots are no exception and units and locos often need to be close to them for fuel CET etc