Failed track maintenance

[phil-b259]

11 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.

 

 

It does if you are trying to suggest the railway is inherently unsafe - because unless you are a hermit those passengers scared away are not going to use the road network which is far more dangerous than the railway currently is

 

How hard is that concept to understand!

 

But to return to the RAIB report which started this thread, yes it is concerning that the RAIB have uncovered an issue with the passing on of the location of the track defect, etc. However thats why we have the RAIB in the first place to uncover issues which have thus far remain hidden.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2020 by phil-b259

[martin_wynne]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

It does if you are trying to suggest the railway is inherently unsafe

 

 

??? I have suggested no such thing. I asked a rhetorical question to start this topic. Are you not able to recognise such?

 

Martin.

 

[phil-b259]

15 minutes ago, Trog said:

 

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.  

 

It should have done - and I'm sure the RAIB will have investigated possible reasons for this.

 

In some previous reports it has been something as simple as staff shortages and frequent staff turnover meaning 'obvious' things fall down the cracks and get forgotten / overlooked. Not saying thats a desirable state of affairs, but equally finding people willing to do such jobs long term (and thus provide much needed organisational stability) can be a challenge.

Edited November 16, 2020 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

??? I have suggested no such thing. I asked a rhetorical question to start this topic. Are you not able to recognise such?

 

Martin.

 

 

 

It didn't sound like a rhetorical question to me - more someone looking to deliberately start disparaging NR.

 

If you wanted to discuss the report why not simply say so from the start?

Edited November 16, 2020 by phil-b259

[alastairq]

24 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

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

Absolutely agree...

Apples and pears?

 

Besides, [along with passenger air transport] a passenger's safe arrival is entirely out of their control ….They are driven by a driver, and the infrastructure is controlled by others.

Same on an aircraft. The passenger is purely passive.

On the roads, each and every road user is responsible for their own safety [as well as others, sometimes].....They are actively involved.

A plane crashes, or a train crashes, and the numbers of casualties may look high, but they occur ''in one hit'' so to speak.

On the roads, casualties occurs in one's or twos, not often more.

 

Perhaps it would have been better, when considering comparative safety between rail, air, and on the roads, to look at the numbers of casualties, on buses?

 

I am thankful I can neither afford, nor wish to use, air travel, or train travel.

Edited November 16, 2020 by alastairq

[john new]

24 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. 

 

The final reports will answer that but unless staff are made specifically aware of the landslip risk(s) at point X their decisions will be influenced by an assumption of normality.  [and it had been normal when the train passed the same spot not long beforehand going the other way] This is why, IIRC, there is now a RAIB recommendation to survey and risk assess the network for slope stability following the recent incidents. A logical progression from becoming aware that ageing infrastructure and our changing climate is increasing this risk and then investigating site conditions to see how to mitigate it. An interim step, if you are worried about a specific route, is run slower.

 

Out of curiosity is this the same line (or area?) where they recently lost a freight loco derailed by a landslip where it was too remote to recover it and have also had an incident with a Sprinter and a mudslide? My memory is both were in Scotland but I could be wrong.

[martin_wynne]

10 minutes ago, Trog said:

Somewhere that the GPS signal is poor so the train gives a false mileage

 

 

The GPS chips can get a fix several times per second, and can report to the software how reliable it is. The train software could default to counting wheel revolutions between each good fix, if the next fix is not accurate enough to determine distance travelled.

 

My handheld GPS tracker can "see" 20-24 satellites in open country, and reports an accuracy of +/- 1 metre when it does. That's less than the track gauge. It works too -- if I take 2 steps forward the cursor moves on the map, and an arrow appears to show the direction of movement.

 

When under tree cover or other obstructions, the satellite count goes down to typically 7 or 8 satellites visible, and the accuracy drops to around +/- 5 metres -- still less than a 60ft rail length.

 

The tracker cost £300 and uses standard GPS chips. I'm sure Network Rail could run to that.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, alastairq said:

Absolutely agree...

Apples and pears?

 

Besides, [along with [passenger air transport] a passenger's safe arrival is entirely out of their control ….They are driven by a driver, and the infrastructure is controlled by others.

Same on an aircraft. The passenger is purely passive.

On the roads, each and every road user is responsible for their own safety [as well as others, sometimes].....They are activey involved.

A plane crashes, or a train crashes, and the numbers of casualties may look high, but that occur ''in one hit'' so to speak.

On the roads, casualties occurs in one's or twos, not often more.

 

Perhaps it would have been better, when considering comparative safety between rail, air, and on the roads, to look at the numbers of casualties, on buses?

 

I am thankful I can neither afford, nor wish to use, air travel, or train travel.

 

 

 

Whether the mode of transport is driven by yourself or someone else is irrelevant. Just because you are sitting in the driving seat doesn't confer a magic ability that makes all other vehicles simply bounce off you! In fact I would venture to suggest your sentiments are exactly that sort of attitude which gives rise to so many road incidents.

 

Holding a driving licence is not a right - its a privilege that comes with massive responsibilities, something far to few drivers recognise - and when technology is introduced to ensure correct behaviour rather than recognising that we get howls of protest about it!

 

The statistics don't lie, when it comes to land transport, travel by train comes out as far safer than by car. Being dead in the driving seat is far less appealing than being alive in a train.

 

 

[keefer]

6 minutes ago, john new said:

 

The final reports will answer that but unless staff are made specifically aware of the landslip risk(s) at point X their decisions will be influenced by an assumption of normality.  [and it had been normal when the train passed the same spot not long beforehand going the other way] This is why, IIRC, there is now a RAIB recommendation to survey and risk assess the network for slope stability following the recent incidents. A logical progression from becoming aware that ageing infrastructure and our changing climate is increasing this risk and then investigating site conditions to see how to mitigate it. An interim step, if you are worried about a specific route, is run slower.

 

Out of curiosity is this the same line (or area?) where they recently lost a freight loco derailed by a landslip where it was too remote to recover it and have also had an incident with a Sprinter and a mudslide? My memory is both were in Scotland but I could be wrong.

IIRC the other incident was on the Highland main line

[phil-b259]

15 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The GPS chips can get a fix several times per second, and can report to the software how reliable it is. The train software could default to counting wheel revolutions between each good fix, if the next fix is not accurate enough to determine distance travelled.

 

My handheld GPS tracker can "see" 20-24 satellites in open country, and reports an accuracy of +/- 1 metre when it does. That's less than the track gauge. It works too -- if I take 2 steps forward the cursor moves on the map, and an arrow appears to show the direction of movement.

 

When under tree cover or other obstructions, the satellite count goes down to typically 7 or 8 satellites visible, and the accuracy drops to around +/- 5 metres -- still less than a 60ft rail length.

 

The tracker cost £300 and uses standard GPS chips. I'm sure Network Rail could run to that.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Its not about the signal being received - its about what the happens afterwards. A vehicle travelling at 30mph may not sound like much but in one second it still covers a fair distance. A fast refresh rate is thus important to keep the location position accurate.

 

That position also is only as good as the software - if there is a bug which introduces a 15m off set then you will always be 15m adrift from the correct position without knowing it.

 

Now because of the sheer volume of information being processed, the NR track monitoring trains don't have someone sat there with a sat nav who writes down the location when a big red light flashes. The location data will be fed into the same recording system as the defects to allow all sorts of options as regards displaying defects. If that software has a bug then it wouldn't necessarily be as obvious as some like to think, particularly if in 99% of cases the defect is found and the track gang / section manager don't see it as a necessity to make an issue of 10m difference say.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2020 by phil-b259

[billbedford]

10 minutes ago, john new said:

 

The final reports will answer that but unless staff are made specifically aware of the landslip risk(s) at point X their decisions will be influenced by an assumption of normality.  [and it had been normal when the train passed the same spot not long beforehand going the other way] This is why, IIRC, there is now a RAIB recommendation to survey and risk assess the network for slope stability following the recent incidents. A logical progression from becoming aware that ageing infrastructure and our changing climate is increasing this risk and then investigating site conditions to see how to mitigate it. An interim step, if you are worried about a specific route, is run slower.

 

Yes, but weather events tend to cover a much wider area than, say, a herd of cows.  If it's found that one river/burn in an area is in spate enough to cause a land-slip then there are likely to be others that could do the same. It is probably something that is fairly obvious to someone with good local knowledge, but less so for someone working from a distance. 

[martin_wynne]

16 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

That position also is only as good as the software - if there is a bug which introduces a 15m off set then you will always be 15m adrift from the correct position without knowing it.

 

 

This is getting silly -- all safety software is rigorously tested to discover and fix bugs.

 

In this case testing should be easy, you just compare the result from the on-train GPS receiver at different test speeds, with that from a few ordinary handheld trackers at the lineside.

 

Most trackers export their trace in a GPX file which could contain additional data such as track technical details. There lots of programs which can display GPX traces on a map. Correcting any offsets should be simple -- as the on-train receiver passes under a bridge, say, there will be a slight wiggle in the trace. The map can then be moved slightly to align the bridge on the map with the trace.

 

Martin.

Edited November 16, 2020 by martin_wynne

[iands]

56 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

......... 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?

H Martin,

I think paras 88 - 94 of the RAIB report offer an explanation as to why PWay staff visited "a fault site", but the information they were acting on was "masking" another fault that ultimately became the actual derailment site. Para 94 states that NR were actively reviewing the recorded track data on the day of the derailment, so investigations were being done. Yes, in hindsight, I agree it should, ideally, have been investigated sooner, but what we don't know is that NR staff may have been actively investigating other track data in the period in question that had identified  similar faults, and put in place remedial actions that have prevented another derailment or derailments! 

We (the travelling public) never seem to acknowledge the good work that the whole of the rail industry does on a day-to-day basis to keep the railways safe (because that detail never gets reported), yet when something does go wrong (with thankfully no injuries in this particular incident) we are very quick to point the finger of blame, and express disbelief/incredulity that this could possibly happen in this day and age and query if the railway safe to use.

 

[Railfreight1998]

26 minutes ago, keefer said:

IIRC the other incident was on the Highland main line

West highland line - I think it was a GBRf 66 from an alcan train that was cut up in situ.

[phil-b259]

7 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Yes, but weather events tend to cover a much wider area than, say, a herd of cows.  If it's found that one river/burn in an area is in spate enough to cause a land-slip then there are likely to be others that could do the same. It is probably something that is fairly obvious to someone with good local knowledge, but less so for someone working from a distance. 

 

Given the line is still mechanically signalled and the train had used the emergency crossover at the nearby signal box to regain the down line, then 'local knowledge' was easily available in this case - and that local knowledge did not express concerns.

 

Granted the signalman obviously had rules and regulations to follow that may have dissuaded him from offering a personal viewpoint, but its not as though the line was controlled from hundreds of miles away with no local input.

 

 

[alastairq]

26 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Whether the mode of transport is driven by yourself or someone else is irrelevant. Just because you are sitting in the driving seat doesn't confer a magic ability that makes all other vehicles simply bounce off you! In fact I would venture to suggest your sentiments are exactly that sort of attitude which gives rise to so many road incidents.

 

Holding a driving licence is not a right - its a privilege that comes with massive responsibilities, something far to few drivers recognise - and when technology is introduced to ensure correct behaviour rather than recognising that we get howls of protest about it!

I find those comments rather missing the point entirely.

As well as ignoring the fact that drivers and other road users have control over their actions [and destinies.].

My ''sentiments', as you put them, are arrived at after a couple of decades of instructing at a high level, driving and associated skills. This sojourn in the driver education industry was preceded by a 25 year stint as a bus driver....

So I can only presume the driving skills referred to by you, are your own?

Your ''suggestion'' needs some serious reorientation indeed.

 

So, indeed, the mode of transport is  very relevant. With  a train journey, the only real control over my own safety comes at the start...whether I board a train, or not!  Should I choose to board the train, then my safety and well being lies entirely in the hands of others.

When I get behind the wheel of a road vehicle, then my safety and well being lies entirely in  my hands. This, despite what others may or may not do.

As a bus driver, I would have been acutely aware that I also held responsibility for the safety and welfare of , often, more than 90 individuals on my vehicle.

Not to mention  that of other road users.  

[SM42]

41 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The GPS chips can get a fix several times per second, and can report to the software how reliable it is. The train software could default to counting wheel revolutions between each good fix, if the next fix is not accurate enough to determine distance travelled.

 

My handheld GPS tracker can "see" 20-24 satellites in open country, and reports an accuracy of +/- 1 metre when it does. That's less than the track gauge. It works too -- if I take 2 steps forward the cursor moves on the map, and an arrow appears to show the direction of movement.

 

When under tree cover or other obstructions, the satellite count goes down to typically 7 or 8 satellites visible, and the accuracy drops to around +/- 5 metres -- still less than a 60ft rail length.

 

The tracker cost £300 and uses standard GPS chips. I'm sure Network Rail could run to that.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

The problem comes when you can only get line of site to 1 or 2 satellites or even none at all.

 

My satnav goes into guessswork mode in a tunnel.

 

Driving in Sienna, Italy, it would be next to useless due to the narrow streets and high buildings.

 

The report is only as good a the technology will allow it to be.

 

Andy

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

This is getting silly -- all safety software is rigorously tested to discover and fix bugs.

 

 

In which case how exactly has the error come about?

 

The RAIB have been quite clear - the data being provided to the maintainers was wrong by 15m (and had been for some time).

 

As you say if its known about it should be easy to fix.

 

The evidence suggests it wasn't known about.

 

My hunch is that because the offset is relatively small (i.e. not 500m say) then it was still close enough for most defects to be found by those charged with fixing them (remember - this train does not simply patrol this line, it covers some serious mileage across the network and so an awful lot of other defects will have had incorrect locations identified). If the defects reported by the train were out by say 1 mile then I bet it would have been noticed before the incident the RAIB investigated had a chance to happen.

 

Given the small nature of the offset if the track gangs did report any discrepancies back up the chain then it may not have been apparent to their managers how crucial they could be (after all most defects were still being fixed) thus setting the scene for what the RAIB have found.

 

 

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, alastairq said:

When I get behind the wheel of a road vehicle, then my safety and well being lies entirely in  my hands.

 

 

Not so!

 

You can the perfect driver yourself yet be driven into by someone who is drunk, under the influence of drugs, evading the police, texting on their phone, arguing with their co-occupants, has a mechanical failure, is driving an unroadworthy vehicle, etc.

 

Yes it stands to reason that a good driver will also try and consider other 'bad' drivers as a risk and try to mitigate it - but there is only so much you can do. You cannot do anything about a lorry following your bus which has an air line burst and ploughs into the back of you as you slow for a bus stop can you?

 

That is the point everyone forgets - on the road how you personally drive is only a tiny percentage of the risk. Its an 'open' network which anyone can access at any time in any vehicle.

 

I also point out roads are also the only transport system which doesn't have a dedicated accident investigation board where crash investigations are used to enhance safety. With the volume of incidents it is rather impractical but without such a body potential issues could go unnoticed for decades

 

On the railways, by virtue of it being a 'closed' system we have systems that enforce other drivers to behave correctly and intervenes if they don't. Inspection, legal and regulatory aspects are all far stricter. The net result is a far safer (if more expensive) travelling experience.

[Trainshed Terry]

6 hours ago, Crisis Rail said:

Only thing hi-tec in BR days was something called a spanner.

 

And the human interface for looking for track defects.

 

Terry.

[96701]

4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

No, but it gives you an accurate location. Presumably you can then ring the person who chucked it out and ask them for the reason and the technical details?

 

Martin.

No it doesn't, not at the speeds that some infrastructure trains travel at.

[e30ftw]

This subject seems a bit out of place on a model railway forum, you may get more answers on a froum dedicated to the 12"/1ft .

 

However there are people who work on the real railway in these forums, they seem to be airing their point of view which may or may not satisfy  the laymen as it were.

 

As previously stated the railway system is very safe, after the failed profit before safety years of railtrack post privatisation. Network rail and the rest of the industy has pushed safety to higher standards. To sugest otherwise is wrong.

 

Is it going to be perfect? No, no system is planes still crash, trains still crash these are facts. As long as heavy bits of metal are moving at high speed with human interaction, mistakes will be made.

 

This is the crux of the matter, it will probably come down to human error. Did the p-way keep going to the same place and not finding the fault? Did they raise this to there section manager? Did he raise it to his engineer? Did he raise to to the on track monitoring team? At some point there was a brake down in comunication in to why the defect was consistently being reported and no fault being found. When netrwok rail identify the issue it will be addressed and should not happen again.

 

Or was the risk not identified in the hardware/ softwhare? was this the human errror?

 

With regards to the loose or missing pandrol clips, the tracks should be patroled once a week and its probably a known fault and with-in the p way standards, if it is a concern by all means raise it to Network Rail.

[Grizz]

7 hours ago, Crisis Rail said:

Only thing hi-tec in BR days was something called a spanner.

Yeah and big hammers!!! We loved big hammers. If we couldn’t hit it with a big hammer then we weren’t really interested. 

 

Although these days this is totally not allowed. Only baby hammers these days. Anyway it is now called a ‘technical adjuster’, and you have to go on a manual handling course, have specific type training, be aware of space awareness’ before you can use one and have a certificate and everything.......Boring

[96701]

I do know that there are discussions at very high level as to how to measure and map the location of railway assets. In the interim some assets have been removed from some mapping systems simply because people found them to be out by some considerable distances. 

 

A lot of people seem to think that it is a simple matter, I can assure them that it is not easy to be absolutely confident that all assets have a known and repeatable location.

Edited November 16, 2020 by 96701

[iands]

3 minutes ago, 96701 said:

A lot of people seem to think that it is a simple matter, I can assure them that it is not easy to be absolutely confident that all assets have a known and repeatable location.

Quite agree Phil.

Many years ago we (Telecoms) were involved in providing masses of data for telecoms assets for TADS (Telecoms Asset Database System) which was ultimately used for informing the Emergency Services of locations of incidents on the railway. Whilst more accurate data could be provided even back then, the Emergency Services required the OSGR to be in the format of two letters and six numbers (e.g. NU 123 456), which gives an area of 100 metres square. Obviously no good for pin-pointing track faults (as in the subject of this topic), but it was perfectly okay for the Services to muster their resources in emergencies. This format is still used today for info displayed on SPT labels.