West Coast Railway Company ECS catches fire near Salford Crescent

[woodenhead]

47500 has disappeared from the West Coast compound at Carnforth, after being moved from MOSi she was dumped on the line closest to the station at the end of a line of coaches.

 

Anyone know where it is now, still at Carnforth? Getting repaired?

[11B]

47500 has disappeared from the West Coast compound at Carnforth, after being moved from MOSi she was dumped on the line closest to the station at the end of a line of coaches.

 

Anyone know where it is now, still at Carnforth? Getting repaired?

I was wondering about it my self. I was parked quite visibly at Carnforth last month, then disapeared. 

A friend at work has a relative that works there, when I see him I'll get him to find out......

 

Ian

Edited October 25, 2013 by 11B

[Guest 838rapid]

Just asked a friend who works for WCRC about 47500.

 

Its not good news.

 

Quote

 

It's in the shed being stripped. Various cab parts already gone to other loco's. Power unit being removed and used to bring back 47787

 

So long 47500

[Trainshed Terry]

Just asked a friend who works for WCRC about 47500.

 

Its not good news.

 

Quote

 

It's in the shed being stripped. Various cab parts already gone to other loco's. Power unit being removed and used to bring back 47787

 

So long 47500

 

 

AAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!. RIP 47500 my fine Locomotive  :cry: :cry:

[newbryford]

I wouldn't worry too much, I bet WCRC have first dibs on the 47's that are likely to be released from DRS when the 68's arrive.............

 

Cheers,

Miick

[woodenhead]

I don't suppose I ever expected it to return to service but another one bites the dust.

[Gary H]

That's a shame!

Having spent 10 years of my bashing days in the Thames Valley area during the 80's, its like an old friend.

 

 500 was ofcourse one of the 4 chosen for the GW150 event.

628 was scrapped back in 06.

Just looking around Class47.co.uk, the other being 079 was converted to a 57.

Now 484 is the only one of the GW150 class 47's to survive.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Gary H

[newbryford]

RAIB report for 47500 derailment now published.

 

http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2014/report072014.cfm

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited March 31, 2014 by newbryford

[woodenhead]

And I am glad to see that WCRC were completely blameless in this accident.

 

After the incident at Stafford with the DCR 47 there was always the worry that another operator might be found to be cutting corners.

[Titan]

Yes indeed. Primary cause was lack of a check rail on the curve alowing the wheels to climb, when there should have been one provided on a curve that sharp.

 

Contributary was the lack of a working flange lubricator. Network rail had replaced about four or five mechanical ones with a single electric one, which was not working.

 

Presumably there will soon be a big cheque winging its way from NR to WCRC.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Titan

[Cornish Triang Paul]

.......to repair 500 !

[woodenhead]

Just asked a friend who works for WCRC about 47500.

 

Its not good news.

 

Quote

 

It's in the shed being stripped. Various cab parts already gone to other loco's. Power unit being removed and used to bring back 47787

 

So long 47500

.......to repair 500 !

Edited May 9, 2014 by woodenhead

[PenrithBeacon]

...

 

Presumably there will soon be a big cheque winging its way from NR to WCRC.

Won't it be covered by insurance?

 

Regards

[Titan]

Only if Network Rail are insured for this sort of thing. Either way a cheque should be coming from Network rail, unless Network rails insurers pay WCRC directly rather than via Network rail themselves.

[Gary H]

Im not sure how this knid of thing works but one would assume they (WCRC) would receive the market value of the locomotive from NR's insurers. Obviously taking into account engine hours, last general overhaul, extra equipment fitted like GSMR, etc etc.

[The Stationmaster]

Im not sure how this knid of thing works but one would assume they (WCRC) would receive the market value of the locomotive from NR's insurers. Obviously taking into account engine hours, last general overhaul, extra equipment fitted like GSMR, etc etc.

It depends on all sorts of things - the first of which is whether or not NR are prepared to accept the RAIB findings and report (and if I was NR I wouldn't!).  There appears to be a very open question regarding the wheel loadings on 47500 and if I was NR I wouldn't do anything or admit liability until those loads have been checked and are shown to be correct.  

 

It seems odd to me that a particular wheelset should decide to derail on the curve when another one didn't - the leading loco passed over satisfactorily it would seem, presumably other locos have also passed over equally satisfactorily (there are no derailment marks and all the metal filings look new in the pics) so what was different about this one?

 

Yes, the curve should have had a check rail but it's obviously not had one for a long time so have there been any previous derailments?  For some reason the leading axle on 47500's leading bogie appears to have been unloaded or had the loading reduced sufficiently to allow it to ride the rail and while we are relying on photos the marks made by that wheel are much less obvious than those I've seen made in the past by empty wagons.  

 

I long ago learnt that one of the first things you do when investigating a derailment is look for anything, and at at everything, which is different from what has gone on or happened in the past because logic suggests that something must have changed to cause the derailment this time.  The loco might well have been fire damaged but it should have been weighed as otherwise potentially critical evidence could be missed and its position in the train might also be relevant as might the handling of the leading loco.

[Gary H]

It depends on all sorts of things - the first of which is whether or not NR are prepared to accept the RAIB findings and report (and if I was NR I wouldn't!).  There appears to be a very open question regarding the wheel loadings on 47500 and if I was NR I wouldn't do anything or admit liability until those loads have been checked and are shown to be correct.  

 

It seems odd to me that a particular wheelset should decide to derail on the curve when another one didn't - the leading loco passed over satisfactorily it would seem, presumably other locos have also passed over equally satisfactorily (there are no derailment marks and all the metal filings look new in the pics) so what was different about this one?

 

Yes, the curve should have had a check rail but it's obviously not had one for a long time so have there been any previous derailments?  For some reason the leading axle on 47500's leading bogie appears to have been unloaded or had the loading reduced sufficiently to allow it to ride the rail and while we are relying on photos the marks made by that wheel are much less obvious than those I've seen made in the past by empty wagons.  

 

I long ago learnt that one of the first things you do when investigating a derailment is look for anything, and at at everything, which is different from what has gone on or happened in the past because logic suggests that something must have changed to cause the derailment this time.  The loco might well have been fire damaged but it should have been weighed as otherwise potentially critical evidence could be missed and its position in the train might also be relevant as might the handling of the leading loco.

I agree. You've made some good points there Mike.

I don't remember reading anything in that report that mentioned the loco's wheel loads being recorded post derailment! Or for that matter, the presence of any frame or bogie twist post derailment!

All of which as we know can and has been attributable to many freight vehicle derailments in the past.

[Catkins]

Presumably there will soon be a big cheque winging its way from NR to WCRC.

It might be a case of Network Rail being "at fault" for not providing a Check Rail or working Flange Lubricator - but as The Stationmaster, and Gary H, have pointed out there might have been a fault with the leading wheelset on the loco, that could have contributed to the incident.

It might also be feasible that in a case like this WCRC might actually 'self insure' their stock, and as such they might be better off (in monetary terms) by having a few spare parts for the other Brush Type 4s that they have.

Losing 47500 might only be a problem if they were short of motive power before the incident.

[Titan]

It seems that people have not read the report thoroughly as all the points mentioned above were addressed, and considered.

 

Firstly wheel loadings. RAIB do computer simulations, which are tried and tested and have been verified against the real world. the reason why they use this is because any post derailment check is pointless anyway since the derailment itself may have bent and twisted things such that any issue discovered could not be proven to exist prior to the derailment.  The simulations determined that a perfectly set up and sprung loco would have still derailed under those conditions on that day, so trying to blame poor springing won't get you very far.

 

Secondly, the reason why this particular wheelset derailed was that it was newly turned, and the profile of a newly turned flange is in fact more suseptable to derailment than a moderately worn one. It was also completely free of contaminants/lubrication and bone dry, meaning higher friction and therefore more likely to flange climb Indeed they ran the profile of the wheelsets of the leading 47 through the simulation, which confirmed that the moderately worn flanges would not have derailed, but the newly turned ones would.

 

Thirdly, the flange lubricator had recently failed, thus all trains passing over this stretch whilst the flange lubricator was working would not have been suseptable to derailment.

 

In other words all the issues you bring up were considered,  and the end result was no ifs, no buts, no maybes, the sole reason for the derailment was the track, and nothing but the track.   There is absolutely no scope or argument in any shape or form that NR could possibly come up with to change that fact, as that is indeed what it is - fact.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I agree. You've made some good points there Mike.

I don't remember reading anything in that report that mentioned the loco's wheel loads being recorded post derailment! Or for that matter, the presence of any frame or bogie twist post derailment!

All of which as we know can and has been attributable to many freight vehicle derailments in the past.

They did mention that the loco was bent but didn't give any measurements or comparative wheel loads, dismissing the damage in one sentence in Paragraph 55.

 

Examination of the derailed train

 

55 The RAIB examined locomotive 47500 after the derailment and identified that the underframe and the leading bogie were twisted in a way that could unload the leading right-hand wheel, thereby increasing the risk of flange climbing.

However, given that there was no significant wheel load variation recorded on recent passes over WILD sites (Salfords (paragraph 18) and Cheddington in Buckinghamshire, on 3 January 2013), these twists are most probably a consequence of the derailment, locomotive fire or handling during recovery and transportation.

The RAIB concluded that they are not significant to the cause of the derailment. 

 

Referring back to Paragraph 18 they noted that 47500 it had gone to Ardwick for wheel turning because of flats detected by the WILD at Salfords (Surrey) on 8th December 2012.

[The Stationmaster]

It seems that people have not read the report thoroughly as all the points mentioned above were addressed, and considered.

 

Firstly wheel loadings. RAIB do computer simulations, which are tried and tested and have been verified against the real world. the reason why they use this is because any post derailment check is pointless anyway since the derailment itself may have bent and twisted things such that any issue discovered could not be proven to exist prior to the derailment.  The simulations determined that a perfectly set up and sprung loco would have still derailed under those conditions on that day, so trying to blame poor springing won't get you very far.

 

Secondly, the reason why this particular wheelset derailed was that it was newly turned, and the profile of a newly turned flange is in fact more suseptable to derailment than a moderately worn one. It was also completely free of contaminants/lubrication and bone dry, meaning higher friction and therefore more likely to flange climb Indeed they ran the profile of the wheelsets of the leading 47 through the simulation, which confirmed that the moderately worn flanges would not have derailed, but the newly turned ones would.

 

Thirdly, the flange lubricator had recently failed, thus all trains passing over this stretch whilst the flange lubricator was working would not have been suseptable to derailment.

 

In other words all the issues you bring up were considered,  and the end result was no ifs, no buts, no maybes, the sole reason for the derailment was the track, and nothing but the track.   There is absolutely no scope or argument in any shape or form that NR could possibly come up with to change that fact, as that is indeed what it is - fact.

I've come across 'computer simulations' before - when I was doing some ISA (Independent Safety Assessor) work some years ago and a case on braking was presented based on 'computer simulations' and I refused to accept it and requested practical tests. The practical tests proved the 'computer simulations' were not correct and the lack of brake power which I anticipated was proven.

 

Weighing damaged vehicles is hardly a new thing.  And yes I note the point about the recently turned tyres - a contributory factor and an important thing when liability is considered.  But none of your comments answer my points regarding possible handling contributory factors or the formation of the train.

[TheSignalEngineer]

..........................................

 

In other words all the issues you bring up were considered,  and the end result was no ifs, no buts, no maybes, the sole reason for the derailment was the track, and nothing but the track.   There is absolutely no scope or argument in any shape or form that NR could possibly come up with to change that fact, as that is indeed what it is - fact.

In fact, due to the lack of a check rail this was an accident waiting to happen for several years.

[Gary H]

The upshot of it all is the fact that several contributory factors very unfortunately came together to cause the derailment.

I think it would be unwise to blame it on one single cause alone, eg, the track.

[Titan]

 

 

  But none of your comments answer my points regarding possible handling contributory factors or the formation of the train.

 

Read paragraph 73 of the report.

 

As I said, all the points were considered and the only cause was the track.

[Gary H]

In fact, due to the lack of a check rail this was an accident waiting to happen for several years.

We have an extremely sharp curve going into Liskeard yard from the mainline. Its so sharp that any passenger train that traverses it must not be carrying passengers when it does, ie, railtours etc. Passengers have to disembark and walk across to the Looe platform and wait until the train is reversed into the platform before they rejoin it.

Up until recently, PCA tanks would use it which are right mares for derailing at the best of times!

The curve has zero cant, no check rail and no lubricator yet we have never had a derailment on it.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Gary H