LNER empty trains collided, service disruptions expected

[APOLLO]

Again the brand new headshunt at Springs Branch, behind the photographer in the previous photo. Not signalled, points hand worked but no shortage of safety gear, lighting, walkways, and yellow boarded foot crossings etc. Bogey in the room here is the  severe falling gradient back to the shed / goods lines. There have been a few runaways here in the past, when the line once continued to Bickershaw Colliery (and before that to Manchester via Tyldesley).

 

I hope the driver secures his train properly before he walks back to change the points !! 

 

 

 

Brit15

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, russ p said:

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

 

I fully appreciate this - but if you are an ORR person sitting in their office that doesn't matter.

 

If a serious incident occurs, questions WILL be asked of the depot operator as to why risk assessments hadn't picked up on said signal not being in the right place for drivers to see it or why the mitigations that should have been in place were not followed.

 

You and I both know things on the ground are, well, substandard - but the company responsible doesn't pay attention till an inspector calls...

 

The ORRs default position is that new depots should be fully signalled* with power worked points.  It may well be that mere stabling facilities (which can include toilet emptying - but no facilities to repair / carry out significant maintenance) like the new Wigan facility can get away with lower standards on the basis that operations are more simple than a full depot setup and con subsequently the risks from manual operation are less.

 

* With all signals clearly visible from inside driving cabs

[black and decker boy]

As with all such things, could SP be classed as a refurb rather than new depot given its previous uses for loco & train stabling in the yard as well as DB depot extents.

[Oldddudders]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

I fully appreciate this - but if you are an ORR person sitting in their office that doesn't matter.

Nothing changes. HMRI used to be the force for improvement, on the same basis. When Southern Region set about electrifying the line from Sanderstead to East Grinstead more than 30 years ago, HMRI piped up. They pointed out that the clearances in Oxted Tunnel, which had been seeing trains for about 130 years, were sub-standard and therefore required "Improvement". Thus every electric train had to have either its door drop-lights limited such that a human head could not be passed through the aperture, or bars to prevent the same. Sigh.

 

You seek to improve the railway - no new rolling stock was ordered for the electric service, but better diagramming produced extra availability, a standard NSE Good Housekeeping idea - and you get thumped elsewhere. 

[EmporiaSub]

20 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

 Thus every electric train had to have either its door drop-lights limited such that a human head could not be passed through the aperture, or bars to prevent the same. Sigh.

 

 

And the conversation in the Control, after a unit failure, went along the lines of....

London Area Controller (me); " I need a unit for the 20.36 Vic to East Grinstead".

Coastal Area Controller; "Haven't got one".....

This was repeated again....

London Area Controller 10 minutes later; "20.32 Vic to Brighton has just gone 4 vice 8"!!

 

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

20 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Nothing changes. HMRI used to be the force for improvement, on the same basis.

 

I had battles with them on almost every project. Some I won but most I lost or so it seemed.

Losses included having to put self normalising trap points on all lines at Snow Hill to guard against a driver and Guard not securing the train correctly when changing ends on a turn-back service.

A notable, if small, win was when the Inspecting Officer criticised the position af a Fixed Distant approaching the station at the end of a single line with a steep rising gradient. During a tour  with the inspector to look at other things we used a DMU. I got the driver to thrash as close to line speed as possible then shut off at the signal but not put the brake in. Whe stopped short of the platform and started to roll back.

 

[Oldddudders]

13 minutes ago, EmporiaSub said:

And the conversation in the Control, after a unit failure, went along the lines of....

London Area Controller (me); " I need a unit for the 20.36 Vic to East Grinstead".

Coastal Area Controller; "Haven't got one".....

This was repeated again....

London Area Controller 10 minutes later; "20.32 Vic to Brighton has just gone 4 vice 8"!!

 

 

Don't forget I was London Bridge to Coulsdon North (and branches to Warnham etc) Area Controller 1969-73. 

[Arun Sharma]

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I fully appreciate this - but if you are an ORR person sitting in their office that doesn't matter.

 

If a serious incident occurs, questions WILL be asked of the depot operator as to why risk assessments hadn't picked up on said signal not being in the right place for drivers to see it or why the mitigations that should have been in place were not followed.

 

You and I both know things on the ground are, well, substandard - but the company responsible doesn't pay attention till an inspector calls...

 

The ORRs default position is that new depots should be fully signalled* with power worked points.  It may well be that mere stabling facilities (which can include toilet emptying - but no facilities to repair / carry out significant maintenance) like the new Wigan facility can get away with lower standards on the basis that operations are more simple than a full depot setup and con subsequently the risks from manual operation are less.

 

* With all signals clearly visible from inside driving cabs

This is slightly puzzling - Since we are talking about railway lines and signalling, are depots' trackwork and signals the responsibility of TOCs or Network Rail? Where two operators [with different lengths of trains] use a depot, how is responsibility apportioned?

[phil-b259]

7 minutes ago, Arun Sharma said:

This is slightly puzzling - Since we are talking about railway lines and signalling, are depots' trackwork and signals the responsibility of TOCs or Network Rail? Where two operators [with different lengths of trains] use a depot, how is responsibility apportioned?

 

It depends....

 

In general the responsibility for larger depots will lie with the TOC / FOC- they effectively lease* a chunk of land from NR and are thus responsible for EVERYTHING on that site (p-way, signalling and electrification). Equally if the depot / yard is a new build then the TOC / FOC is at liberty to use their own kit rather than NR approved stuff.

 

Smaller facilities generally remained under the control of Railtrack and subsequently NR who have an obligation to maintain / fault them.

 

Now, TOC run depots / yards have a choice in who they get to look after their stuff, so at the Three Bridges Thameslink depot there is a demarcation boundary - inside that Siemens have made their own arrangements with contractors to provide S&T and p-way cover as well as employing their own signallers to control movements inside. NR did bid for the response contract but was not selected - which means longish response times while contractors make their way to site. As mentioned earlier, as the depot was designed by Siemens, they use a proprietary type of point machine not used on NR.

 

By contrast, although Lovers Walk (Brighton) depot is run by Southern, they have contracted NR to provide S&T cover - but not p-way cover which is provided by outside contractors. Again I believe the depots internal signalling staff are employed by Southern / GTR. As the depot was effectively built by BR modified BR point equipment is used - which may have a bearing on the faulting / maintenance arrangements.

 

 

* A by-product of privatisation was the dolling out of depots (both people and train related) to 3rd parties (TOC, IMCs) on 99 year leases. (IMCs were the ex BR p-way, S&T, etc departments let out to the likes of Balfour Beaty, AMEC, Jarvis, etc on 5 year contracts)

 

[Banger Blue]

Reading TCD is fully signalled with power operated points, ground position lights and axle counters. Operated from a signalling workstation in the Depot Control Centre, which interfaces with the TVSC Reading Stn & Reading West Jn workstations.

 

 

All the signalling staff (referred to as Train Movement Controllers) are GWR staff.

All infrastructure maintenance (S&T, PW, OHLE etc) is carried out by Network Rail. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Banger Blue

[jim.snowdon]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

In general the responsibility for larger depots will lie with the TOC / FOC- they effectively lease* a chunk of land from NR and are thus responsible for EVERYTHING on that site (p-way, signalling and electrification). Equally if the depot / yard is a new build then the TOC / FOC is at liberty to use their own kit rather than NR approved stuff.

Generally true, except for the conductor rail and associated electrical equipment where the depot is leased from NR. That arises as a consequence of the depot still being an integral part of the 750V electrification system. 

Fit is only in the completely new build depots, such as the Siemens depots at Three Bridges and Northam, that the conductor rail equipment is theirs. These depots have their own 750V power supplies and are independent of the main railway system.

 

Jim

[Ken.W]

Well, if we could be permitted to stray back on topic briefly...

(as noted earlier, the incident occurred on the goods line, not the depot, so depot working had no relevance to it).

 

The HST power car (43300) is not written off, yet. Simply requires a new cab and negotiations are ongoing with the leasing company as to if it's to be repaired if wanted for further use (and it was previously said to be one of those destined for MML). Rest of the set thought to be undamaged.

 

The 800 on the other hand, IS written off.

Driving Trailer, twisted frames; some coaches, end collision damage. Full set to be taken to Wolverton and completely stripped. Bodies, bogies, bar couplings (or whatever you wish to call them), gangways, dampers, springs, etc all scrap. Recovered components transported back for reassembly into a new set shipped from Japan.

[Ken.W]

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

Not possible, from what I've heard

 

On 29/11/2019 at 06:06, Covkid said:

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

 

It's highly unlikely to happen anyway, it seemed quite easy to adapt to the single combined controller;

 

The standard two handled controller arrangements;

Right hand, Power control, pull back to apply power, push forward to ease / shut-off power.

Left hand, Brake control, pull back to release, push forward to apply brakes.

Note, it's back to both apply / increase power and to release brakes,

while forward both shuts off power and applies brakes.

 

The single combined controller still mimics this arrangement;

The central possition's coast, and forwards applies the brakes and backwards applies power.

So, the same as the two handed arrangement, backwards releases brakes and then applies power,

forwards shuts off power and applies brakes. There's also a 'notch' which requires the handle to be depressed to move from the brake zone.

Plus, the instinctive reaction to bang the brake on, left handle fully forward's exactly the same effect.

 

My original comment though, was more about what did happen here.

[Oldddudders]

4 hours ago, Ken.W said:

The 800 on the other hand, IS written off.

Driving Trailer, twisted frames; some coaches, end collision damage. Full set to be taken to Wolverton and completely stripped. Bodies, bogies, bar couplings (or whatever you wish to call them), gangways, dampers, springs, etc all scrap. Recovered components transported back for reassembly into a new set shipped from Japan.

That is dramatic news indeed. It will send a very real shiver through operators and leasing companies alike. The cost of what appeared to be a trivial overtaking accident at low speed is obviously enormous. People in high places, including the Department, should be sitting up sharply. 

[SHMD]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

That is dramatic news indeed. It will send a very real shiver through operators and leasing companies alike. The cost of what appeared to be a trivial overtaking accident at low speed is obviously enormous. People in high places, including the Department, should be sitting up sharply. 

 

Sod all those who should be "sitting up".

 

I, as a paying punter, wants to know if me and my family are safe on one of them when the whole thing appears to be a crumple zone!

 

 

Kev.

 

[stewartingram]

I think the questions should be raised to a higher profile about this!

 

Stewart

[Siberian Snooper]

I'm glad that the first incident was a relatively low speed minor knock with no injuries that has highlighted that these new trains may not be the best thing to be in when one has a more intensive impact with passengers aboard, of which I might be one. I wouldn't particularly like to be at the pointy end driving the things.

 

It looks as if it's going to be a very expensive exercise to put things right and who is going to pick up the bill?

 

 

 

 

[APOLLO]

800 written off in a  (approx) 15 mph head on with a HST (with its crumpable front end)  - Simply unbelievable and VERY worrying. Are the coach shells themselves write offs or just a number of replaceable components ?

 

As mentioned earlier, the Pendolino proved its integrity at Grayrigg. Perhaps time to fully crash test an 800 unit like they do with cars !!

 

Who will pick up the bill - US of course, the passenger.

 

What a way to run a Railroad !!

 

Brit15

 

[jim.snowdon]

I think that first, I should want to know the authenticity of the information to start with. Not what Ken.W said, but where the information he was given originated. Unless there has been some official statement by Hitachi or RAIB, it's the sort of information that "leaks" out via employees who are not necessarily in receipt of the full facts, and which is not unknown to get embellished by being passed on by successive people who are not in the know.

It's liable to be like the old chestnut - how "we're going to advance, send reinforcements" gets morphed by those who shouldn't be telling you this into "we're going to a dance, send three and fourpence".

If the damage were really that serious from such a minor incident, the RAIB and the ORR, not to mention NR, would be pulling the plug on allowing the train to operate at all. NR would probably also have insisted that the carriages went off the network on the back of lorries and not on their rails at all.

 

Jim

[APOLLO]

Not heard that for many a year Jim !!

 

But wasn't there a photo showing some bodywork end crumpling / rippling on the derailed 800 coaches ?

 

Yes - Perhaps it's best wait for "official" statements.

 

Brit15

[Oldddudders]

The fact that GB&NI is between Governments, and the Civil Service is in purdah, means that a conventional method of stirring the pudding is currently denied to concerned constituents. I do suspect that the new SoS for Transport will find he/she has urgent matters to attend to, on and from Friday 13th!

[chris p bacon]

7 hours ago, Ken.W said:

The 800 on the other hand, IS written off.

Driving Trailer, twisted frames; some coaches, end collision damage. Full set to be taken to Wolverton and completely stripped. Bodies, bogies, bar couplings (or whatever you wish to call them), gangways, dampers, springs, etc all scrap. Recovered components transported back for reassembly into a new set shipped from Japan.

 

If the damage is as severe as suggested then how or why did it move under its own power on the network only a week or so ago.

 

On 25/11/2019 at 10:45, 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

 

[jim.snowdon]

37 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

The fact that GB&NI is between Governments, and the Civil Service is in purdah, means that a conventional method of stirring the pudding is currently denied to concerned constituents. I do suspect that the new SoS for Transport will find he/she has urgent matters to attend to, on and from Friday 13th!

If urgent action were required, the fact that the country is in a pre-election period would be no impediment to either the ORR, RAIB or NR. 

 

Jim

[Hobby]

As the recent stabbing in London proves there is still someone in charge during an election campaign, the outgoing Government. So if they were needed to make a decision then they could.

[SHMD]

If (ok a big if) that unit is a write off, why not crash test the other (good?) end to record the various dynamics at play here?

 

 

Kev.