Failed track maintenance

[Derekstuart]

2 minutes ago, iands said:

So 10 in the last 15 years. Whilst I agree that is still 10 too many, for comparison, how many deaths have occurred on Britain's roads in the same time period?

 

That's my point. There are more people killed on roads than air crashes, yet every air crash is thoroughly investigated and the cause identified so that it doesn't happen again. I would question whether that's being applied by those involved in operating trains and the infrastructure they run on.

[phil-b259]

6 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

Hello Joseph.

 

Sorry, I wrote without thinking. These are all my imagination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents_in_the_United_Kingdom#1995_onwards:_Post-privatisation

 

And how many have occurred in the same time frame in France or Germany? No Network Rail to screw up in those places....

 

Sorry as far as I can tell you are using this incident as simply an opportunity to engage in a bit of National Rail bashing - which is not acceptable.

 

Why do you demand Network Rail be perfect yet ignore the fact that in all the time it has been in existence there have been millions more deaths injuries and near misses on our roads? Does it really matter whether your wife, mum, brother, gran, work colleague, etc dies as the result of a road accident or a train accident? The feelings of loss, emotional trauma and economic fall out is going to be the same.

[jonny777]

7 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

Didn't we have a mass go-slow not that many years back after the state of rail was exposed? Perhaps that was a turning point.

 

 

It was quite a few years back, because my daughter was at university at the time. 

 

She will be 40 next birthday. 

[Derekstuart]

3 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And how many have occurred in the same time frame in France or Germany? No Network Rail to screw up in those places....

 

Sorry as far as I can tell you are using this incident as simply an opportunity to engage in a bit of National Rail bashing - which is not acceptable.

 

Why do you demand Network Rail be perfect yet ignore the fact that in all the time it has been in existence there have been millions more deaths injuries and near misses on our roads? Does it really matter whether your wife, mum, brother, gran, work colleague, etc dies as the result of a road accident or a train accident? The feelings of loss, emotional trauma and economic fall out is going to be the same.

I don't know, Phil. I don't catch trains in France or Germany.

 

As far as I can tell you are telling me that as a rail passenger on NR metals I have no rights to voice concern over the safety of the network- that is not acceptable.

 

I don't demand anything, except that where something goes wrong it is learned from and not dismissed as you have done. The average death rate on UK roads is around 1,500 to 2,000 per year, which is 1,500 to 2,000 too many. But I fail to see what that has got to do with rail accidents. In fact, this is precisely my point- dismissing rail accidents on the basis that there are more road accidents is my concern. Aviation workers don't dismiss accidents on the basis that there are more car accidents, so why are you suggesting it's acceptable for rail to do so?

[iands]

10 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

 

Didn't we have a mass go-slow not that many years back after the state of rail was exposed? Perhaps that was a turning point.

That, I believe, was following the Hatfield crash. 

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

 

Not Grayrigg then? Granted the level of fatalities have decreased since the quite worrying number of crashes post-privatisation, but there have still been many other reports- credible reports- about track defects. Didn't we have a mass go-slow not that many years back after the state of rail was exposed? Perhaps that was a turning point.

 

I was at Liverpool St the day a Norwich train jumped on the dirt due to faulty track. A 90 minute delay and change of train.

 

But as a passenger- someone with no real inside knowledge- I am not really interested in whether it's a broken rail or train defect, all I know is there are too many accidents listed and simply explaining them away as 'less deaths than road accidents' isn't good enough.

 

I know all about Grayrigg thank you seeing as it was S&T equipment that caused it!

 

I am also able to directly compare before and after practices

 

Following Grarigg there was a sea change in point maintenance with an extensive set of measures taken to prevent a reoccurrence. As a result I can safely say the chances of that particular accident being repeated is practically Nil.

 

For those why have access to Network Rail standards see

NR/L2/TRK/6100 : ISSUE 3 THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF STRETCHER

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 minute ago, Derekstuart said:

I don't know, Phil. I don't catch trains in France or Germany.

 

As far as I can tell you are telling me that as a rail passenger on NR metals I have no rights to voice concern over the safety of the network- that is not acceptable.

 

I don't demand anything, except that where something goes wrong it is learned from and not dismissed as you have done. The average death rate on UK roads is around 1,500 to 2,000 per year, which is 1,500 to 2,000 too many. But I fail to see what that has got to do with rail accidents. In fact, this is precisely my point- dismissing rail accidents on the basis that there are more road accidents is my concern. Aviation workers don't dismiss accidents on the basis that there are more car accidents, so why are you suggesting it's acceptable for rail to do so?

 

This a rather Trumpian statement.

 

There is a difference between raising concerns and making misleading statements by exaggeration.

[Derekstuart]

Just now, phil-b259 said:

 

I know all about Grayrigg thank you seeing as it was S&T equipment that caused it!

 

I am also able to directly compare before and after practices

 

Following Grarigg there was a sea change in point maintenance with an extensive set of measures taken to prevent a reoccurrence. As a result I can safely say the chances of that particular accident being repeated is practically Nil.

 

For those why have access to Network Rail standards see

NR/L2/TRK/6100 : ISSUE 3 THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF STRETCHER

 

That's all I ask, Phil, that genuine lessons are learned.

 

Though I would take issue still with one point (sorry, not intentional)- a passenger on a train that comes off the track isn't going to really be bothered whether it's a team that deals with the fixed bit or the moving bit that got it wrong. We want to know that all the different teams and companies are doing their job properly. That's all.

[Derekstuart]

1 minute ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

This a rather Trumpian statement.

 

There is a difference between raising concerns and making misleading statements by exaggeration.

Sorry Joseph, I have no idea what point you are making there.

 

I am saying that whether there are 0 deaths or 10,000 per year on the roads should have absolutely no relevance to rail safety whatsoever.

[phil-b259]

11 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

I don't know, Phil. I don't catch trains in France or Germany.

 

As far as I can tell you are telling me that as a rail passenger on NR metals I have no rights to voice concern over the safety of the network- that is not acceptable.

 

I don't demand anything, except that where something goes wrong it is learned from and not dismissed as you have done. The average death rate on UK roads is around 1,500 to 2,000 per year, which is 1,500 to 2,000 too many. But I fail to see what that has got to do with rail accidents. In fact, this is precisely my point- dismissing rail accidents on the basis that there are more road accidents is my concern. Aviation workers don't dismiss accidents on the basis that there are more car accidents, so why are you suggesting it's acceptable for rail to do so?

 

What I am telling you is that the answer to your alarmist question "is the railway safe" is yes it is safe to use.

 

That does not mean everything is perfect - I have never said it is. There are many things which require improvement, but that is not the same thing as saying the railways are inherently dangerous to use (as you are implying with your question) - particularly when the alternative to the train  for 99% of people is going to be getting into a motor car and being far more likely to be involved in a serious accident on our road network!

Edited November 16, 2020 by phil-b259

[caradoc]

4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

??? Is the railway safe to use these days?

 

As far as I am concerned, yes. As a member of railway operating staff from 1984 to 2016 I think I have a fair idea of what can go wrong, but I do not have any qualms whatsoever boarding a train anywhere in the UK. The fact that the RAIB exists, and has published the report highlighted here, demonstrates that rail safety in the UK is taken extremely seriously (as it should be). 

 

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

 

That's all I ask, Phil, that genuine lessons are learned.

 

Though I would take issue still with one point (sorry, not intentional)- a passenger on a train that comes off the track isn't going to really be bothered whether it's a team that deals with the fixed bit or the moving bit that got it wrong. We want to know that all the different teams and companies are doing their job properly. That's all.

 

Which is fair enough - and why we have the RAIB.

 

If lessons are not being learned then this will become apparent - its why the RAIB have listed a number of other freight train derailments in this report and their subsequent recommendations made.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing - as HM Queen Elizbeth said on her visit to the Republic of Ireland "With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently or not at all". That applies just as much when it comes to railways as it does to Anglo-Irish relations

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

Sorry Joseph, I have no idea what point you are making there.

 

I am saying that whether there are 0 deaths or 10,000 per year on the roads should have absolutely no relevance to rail safety whatsoever.

 

In isolation you are right - but the point is if people don't use the train to convey themselves they are not going to sit at home doing nothing are they? Life doesn't stop and if they perceive the railway as dangerous then they will use the motor car instead - which is whether the massive disparity in accident statistics come into play.

 

Making people abandon what is a very safe mode of transport for a much less safe one is a stupid idea - hence any suggestion that UK railways are inherently unsafe to use should be resisted.

[Derekstuart]

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

In isolation you are right - but the point is if people don't use the train to convey themselves they are not going to sit at home doing nothing are they? Life doesn't stop and if they perceive the railway as dangerous then they will use the motor car instead - which is whether the massive disparity in accident statistics come into play.

 

Making people abandon what is a very safe mode of transport for a much less safe one is a stupid idea - hence any suggestion that UK railways are inherently unsafe to use should be resisted.

 

That is true. But I like the Japanese work ethic; they strive for 100% perfection (even if they can't achieve it they may get 99%, but if they set 99% target they may get 98% etc).  They wouldn't judge their performance in one sector by comparing it to another.

 

I still travel by train and I wouldn't consider it unsafe, but equally I am not foolish enough to think that what has happened before could not happen again.

 

Can I give you an example? Colchester up fast crossover- I noted that two timbers were without Pandrol keys. Six months later I noticed they were still without them. Now I'm not qualified to know how many keys need to be missing to represent a danger, but it is clear that they had been like that for at least six months. Fortunately that crossover is restricted to (IIRC 25 MPH).. however if it did jump the dirt, it would be only feet away from oncoming 90MPH expresses.

 

As an academic point, is the above safe? (I ask that out of genuine interest).

 

EDIT: I should add this was from 2018. I add that in case the poor sod responsible for it in 2020 gets the blame.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Derekstuart

[iands]

2 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

 

That is true. But I like the Japanese work ethic; they strive for 100% perfection (even if they can't achieve it they may get 99%, but if they set 99% target they may get 98% etc).  They wouldn't judge their performance in one sector by comparing it to another.

 

I still travel by train and I wouldn't consider it unsafe, but equally I am not foolish enough to think that what has happened before could not happen again.

 

Can I give you an example? Colchester up fast crossover- I noted that two timbers were without Pandrol keys. Six months later I noticed they were still without them. Now I'm not qualified to know how many keys need to be missing to represent a danger, but it is clear that they had been like that for at least six months. Fortunately that crossover is restricted to (IIRC 25 MPH).. however if it did jump the dirt, it would be only feet away from oncoming 90MPH expresses.

 

As an academic point, is the above safe? (I ask that out of genuine interest).

Hi Derek,

Afraid I can't answer your specific question(s), but if you have a concern about your observations regarding the cross-over at Colchester, did you try to report your concern to Network Rail or ORR?

[kevinlms]

27 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

 Aviation workers don't dismiss accidents on the basis that there are more car accidents, so why are you suggesting it's acceptable for rail to do so?

Boeing have disproved that theory, with their cavalier attitude to safety, regarding the 787MAX! Saving money, was FAR more important. What a mistake that proved to be?

[Robert Shrives]

Hi For ten pence! The act of buying a ticket is an expectation of a save arrival , hopefully on time with luck a seat !  NR have a fine safety mantra, Everybody home safe everyday.  All its business is driven by this . So much so  that Tomorrow and Wednesday all lines north of Wick and west of Glen Douglas will run at a max of 20mph due to increased landslide risk due to rainfall. IF this is the standard that the notwork has descended then the latest copy of Rail magazine with the headline of closures to save money then the self inflicted surgery is clear to see.

Worrying that in many cases rather than have a bomb proof network NR will close lines and the TOCs default to road transport... what was it  we were saying about road safety !

 

Off to get my coat !

Robert    

[phil-b259]

6 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

 

That is true. But I like the Japanese work ethic; they strive for 100% perfection (even if they can't achieve it they may get 99%, but if they set 99% target they may get 98% etc).  They wouldn't judge their performance in one sector by comparing it to another.

 

I still travel by train and I wouldn't consider it unsafe, but equally I am not foolish enough to think that what has happened before could not happen again.

 

Can I give you an example? Colchester up fast crossover- I noted that two timbers were without Pandrol keys. Six months later I noticed they were still without them. Now I'm not qualified to know how many keys need to be missing to represent a danger, but it is clear that they had been like that for at least six months. Fortunately that crossover is restricted to (IIRC 25 MPH).. however if it did jump the dirt, it would be only feet away from oncoming 90MPH expresses.

 

As an academic point, is the above safe? (I ask that out of genuine interest).

 

I have no idea what the p-way standards are for this.

 

However if you are concerned, best course of action is to take a photo, highlight the area of concern, then e-mail it in with as much information as the where it is (things like road bridges can be useful as they should all have an ID plate stating the Engineers line reference (ELR) and a mileage on them. you can then state something like "defect is 50m London side of Bridge XYZ on line ABC")

 

It can then be passed to the appropriate department (It works because I have seen items on the p-way fault list like 'loud bangs heard by MOP as trains go past location X)

 

If you feel that it is being ignored then keep bothering NR - like any large organisation its not perfect but persistence pays off.

 

See https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/contact-us/

https://communications-crm.custhelp.com/app/ask?var=incident

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Robert Shrives said:

Hi For ten pence! The act of buying a ticket is an expectation of a save arrival , hopefully on time with luck a seat !  NR have a fine safety mantra, Everybody home safe everyday.  All its business is driven by this . So much so  that Tomorrow and Wednesday all lines north of Wick and west of Glen Douglas will run at a max of 20mph due to increased landslide risk due to rainfall. IF this is the standard that the notwork has descended then the latest copy of Rail magazine with the headline of closures to save money then the self inflicted surgery is clear to see.

Worrying that in many cases rather than have a bomb proof network NR will close lines and the TOCs default to road transport... what was it  we were saying about road safety !

 

Off to get my coat !

Robert    

 

Yes but a lot of this is down to legal considerations

 

Fact:- the reason it took so long to reopen the railway at Stonehaven is Police Scotland had declared it a crime scene and were quite reluctant to give it back. I think they were hoping they could find something to charge NR with...

 

Fact:- The day it happened the SOS for transport vowed to make sure it never happened again (funny how you never see them say that about road accidents isn't it) but he has no control over the weather - plus since when has he had the power to stop climate change.

 

Fact:- If it did happen again then you can be sure that the relatives of those who died would be pushing for cooperate manslaughter as well as the ORR looking to massively fine NR.

 

Fact: In the legal world the Stonehaven derailment has now set a president - if there are ANY concerns about the stability of earthworks then the failure to reduce train speeds etc is an act of negligence and WILL be pursued by the courts.

 

Fact:- The standards the Victorians used to build our network are very poor when it comes to earthworks. In days when labour was plentiful and nobody cared much about deaths (unless they were of the upper classes) plus the need to look after shareholders meant making cutting / embankment slopes suitably shallow to cope with extreme weather was seen as a waste of money.

 

The upshot of all this is that unless HM Treasury decide to grant NR millions of pounds over the next decade and facilitate the CPOing of vast amounts of land, the imposition of weather related speed limits is the only solution NR have.

[billbedford]

What I found surprising about the Stonehaven derailment was that the train was travelling at line speed when it hit the land slip. This was after being stopped and returned further south because of a similar slip. I would have thought that caution would have suggested that a slower speed would have been preferable, especially as the previous slip had blocked the line and so there was no possibility of delaying other services. 

[john new]

32 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Yes but a lot of this is down to legal considerations

 

Fact:- the reason it took so long to reopen the railway at Stonehaven is Police Scotland had declared it a crime scene and were quite reluctant to give it back. I think they were hoping they could find something to charge NR with...

 

Fact:- The day it happened the SOS for transport vowed to make sure it never happened again (funny how you never see them say that about road accidents isn't it) but he has no control over the weather - plus since when has he had the power to stop climate change.

 

Fact:- If it did happen again then you can be sure that the relatives of those who died would be pushing for cooperate manslaughter as well as the ORR looking to massively fine NR.

 

Fact: In the legal world the Stonehaven derailment has now set a president - if there are ANY concerns about the stability of earthworks then the failure to reduce train speeds etc is an act of negligence and WILL be pursued by the courts.

 

Fact:- The standards the Victorians used to build our network are very poor when it comes to earthworks. In days when labour was plentiful and nobody cared much about deaths (unless they were of the upper classes) plus the need to look after shareholders meant making cutting / embankment slopes suitably shallow to cope with extreme weather was seen as a waste of money.

 

The upshot of all this is that unless HM Treasury decide to grant NR millions of pounds over the next decade and facilitate the CPOing of vast amounts of land, the imposition of weather related speed limits is the only solution NR have.

 

Running slower to mitigate a possible risk makes perfect sense to me as a passenger. SWR do it regularly through the New Forest, I would rather arrive a bit late than be smashed up  along with the train if it hits a tree on the line. If they had taken the same decision re bad weather 12 months ago presumably the Stonehaven incident would have been closer in the outcome result to the earlier one near Corby. RAIB link = https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-04-2020-train-collision-with-material-washed-out-from-a-cutting-slope-at-corby-northamptonshire   People make on the spot judgements based on what they know at the time - only hindsight, and often the luck of a minute or so either way,  answers was it the right one.

 

NB The intention of this post is observation as a retired Emergency Planning Officer it IS NOT about apportioning blame.

 

Edited November 16, 2020 by john new

[martin_wynne]

This topic has wandered off course. The RAIB reported that the track-recording train recorded the same fault SIX times in less than a year, and every single time the location was not transmitted to the maintenance team correctly. How is that possible? Surely after the first couple of times someone would have investigated?

 

The result was a derailment which could have been prevented, and could have had far worse consequences.

 

How many people died on the roads that day doesn't come into it.

 

Martin.

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, billbedford said:

What I found surprising about the Stonehaven derailment was that the train was travelling at line speed when it hit the land slip. This was after being stopped and returned further south because of a similar slip. I would have thought that caution would have suggested that a slower speed would have been preferable, especially as the previous slip had blocked the line and so there was no possibility of delaying other services. 

 

At the time there was no suggestion the down line was obstructed so quite naturally the staff on the spot did not see the need to tell a train travelling in the right direction (down the down line) under clear signals to proceed at caution.

 

I'm sure that those involved wish they could turn back time.....

 

However the whole point is unless you want every train to run at a crawl a certain amount of assumption about the line ahead is necessary to run a railway. In this case it was a landslip which occurred - but back in 1988 it was a herd of cows, at Heck it was a vehicle on the tracks which caused a high speed crash.

 

A previous poster has moaned about speed restrictions being imposed - a case of dammed if you do damned if you don't for NR

[john new]

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

At the time there was no suggestion the down line was obstructed so quite naturally the staff on the spot did not see the need to tell a train travelling in the right direction (down the down line) under clear signals to proceed at caution.

 

I'm sure that those involved wish they could turn back time.....

 

However the whole point is unless you want every train to run at a crawl a certain amount of assumption about the line ahead is necessary to run a railway. In this case it was a landslip which occurred - but back in 1988 it was a herd of cows, at Heck it was a vehicle on the tracks which caused a high speed crash.

 

A previous poster has moaned about speed restrictions being imposed - a case of dammed if you do damned if you don't for NR

 

Fully agree, and I thought my post was worded to NOT attribute any blame for decisions taken on the day, that was certainly my intent. Slight tweak now made to it to make that clearer. 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2020 by john new

[Trog]

2 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

This topic has wandered off course. The RAIB reported that the track-recording train recorded the same fault SIX times in less than a year, and every single time the location was not transmitted to the maintenance team correctly. How is that possible? Surely after the first couple of times someone would have investigated?

 

The result was a derailment which could have been prevented, and could have had far worse consequences.

 

How many people died on the roads that day doesn't come into it.

 

Martin.

 

Somewhere that the GPS signal is poor so the train gives a false mileage, that just happens to coincide with a section of track that has a similar but non actionable fault, might explain a couple of times. But you would expect the lesser fault to have been corrected out of existence after a couple of goes, in which case questions should have arisen in the minds of the maintainers.