CAF to build new LHCS for Caledonian Sleeper

[russ p]

There are quite a few things that BR brought in as a result of accidents that seem to be slipping by the wayside.

As Mike says above cocks in low level locations without pistol grip handles that were brought in as a result of a smash at Darlington in the 70s and gravity locks on hatches that were brought in after the west ealing accident where a open battery box on a western smashed a point motor and turned the points under its train .

I don't like to make suggestions before all the facts are in , but would the driver have used his brake after leaving carstairs ? 

Hope he did a running brake test

[Ken.W]

Following on from our close encounter with out train from Tweedbank having crossed the path of the sleeper 2 or 3 minutes ahead of it, we then waited and watched until the charter stock was able to get in.

After various preparations by NR staff, the sleepers were eventually propelled back into Waverley, at walking pace, by the 92. As it came back in some passengers were at the windows gesturing to be let out.

In all, the east end of the station, so many local services as well as the ECML, was blocked for around two hours.

 

Heard bits more about it through the day.

At Aberdeen, talking with a fellow railtour passenger, he said he'd been at the west of Waverley at the time and saw the sleeper coming in "at about 40 mph" (permissible 20). It had apparently also missed Haymarket station. He also said passengers on the train had been getting thrown about before it came into Waverley, two of them being thrown out of top bunks.

 

 

[russ p]

Thing is all well and good putting Tpws and other systems on trains but if the brake won't physically apply all are useless 

[Bucoops]

54 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

 

(iii)The brake must be capable of being applied to every vehicle of the train, whether carrying passengers or not;

 

 

Apologies for veering off, but I read today or yesterday that the Gresley Quints for the LNER GE section had their Westinghouse cylinders on either coaches 1,3 and 5 or possibly 2 and 4 only. Which would be contrary to part iii? Or does the fact that they are a fixed set get around that?

[jim.snowdon]

The fact that it is an indivisible set gets round it, and with four of the six bogies shared between vehicles, the only practical option is to put the brake cylinders on the 1st, 3rd and 5th vehicles. 

 

The same principle would not apply to a set of non-articulated carriages connected by draw bars, as all the vehicles remain viable in the event of a drawbar failure.

 

Jim 

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, Ken.W said:

Following on from our close encounter with out train from Tweedbank having crossed the path of the sleeper 2 or 3 minutes ahead of it, we then waited and watched until the charter stock was able to get in.

After various preparations by NR staff, the sleepers were eventually propelled back into Waverley, at walking pace, by the 92. As it came back in some passengers were at the windows gesturing to be let out.

In all, the east end of the station, so many local services as well as the ECML, was blocked for around two hours.

 

Heard bits more about it through the day.

At Aberdeen, talking with a fellow railtour passenger, he said he'd been at the west of Waverley at the time and saw the sleeper coming in "at about 40 mph" (permissible 20). It had apparently also missed Haymarket station. He also said passengers on the train had been getting thrown about before it came into Waverley, two of them being thrown out of top bunks.

 

 

The first real clues that it may be anything fundamental will be the emergence of any urgent notices across the industry in relation to the rolling stock or a sudden withdrawal of the stock from service. Until the RAIB, whom I expect are already involved, release any information, we are all in the dark. 

 

Jim 

[cal.n]

From what I understand, it was malfunction with the weight detection system on the secondary suspension air bags. So it thought it was a lighter train and therefore only applied a lower brake force which turned out to be next to nothing.

This is third hand info so take with a pinch of salt but I believe may be true.

[ColinK]

On the BBC News it says ‘the train manager deployed the emergency brake’.  Just as well it wasn’t driver only operated.

[jim.snowdon]

34 minutes ago, cal.n said:

From what I understand, it was malfunction with the weight detection system on the secondary suspension air bags. So it thought it was a lighter train and therefore only applied a lower brake force which turned out to be next to nothing.

This is third hand info so take with a pinch of salt but I believe may be true.

Since air suspension systems and load compensation on the brake system are normally on a per carriage basis, I would take the information with a definite pinch of salt until proven otherwise. There are a lot of budding amateur railway inspectors out there, and few people with actual knowledge of what happened, and they won't be publicising that at the moment, especially if the RAIB are involved, as I would assume they are from the nature of the event.

 

Jim 

[david.hill64]

What is the operation procedure when the train splits at Carstairs? Does the Edinburgh portion get a new loco?

 

The comments made by Serco's managing director for the sleeper services are indicative of human error. Did somebody forget the brake continuity test I wonder? The indication that the train manager could apply the brakes is supportive of this. The investigation will show all.

 

Also interesting is the strength of the TSSA reaction and the lack of comment from ASLEF or RMT.

[jim.snowdon]

With the junction being to the south of the station, the Edinburgh portion of any northbound train has to depart southwards behind a new locomotive, whilst the remainder of the train continues northwards behind the original locomotive that brought it north from Euston.

 

Jim

[david.hill64]

2 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

With the junction being to the south of the station, the Edinburgh portion of any northbound train has to depart southwards behind a new locomotive, whilst the remainder of the train continues northwards behind the original locomotive that brought it north from Euston.

 

Jim

Which is as I remembered: hence my speculation.

[Bucoops]

11 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

The fact that it is an indivisible set gets round it, and with four of the six bogies shared between vehicles, the only practical option is to put the brake cylinders on the 1st, 3rd and 5th vehicles. 

 

The same principle would not apply to a set of non-articulated carriages connected by draw bars, as all the vehicles remain viable in the event of a drawbar failure.

 

Jim 

 

Thank you, makes perfect sense

[Fat Controller]

I wonder how similar this incident is to the one, involving a mail train and a train of coal wagons, at Lawrence Hill station on 01/11/2000?

[The Stationmaster]

On 03/08/2019 at 01:03, david.hill64 said:

What is the operation procedure when the train splits at Carstairs? Does the Edinburgh portion get a new loco?

 

The comments made by Serco's managing director for the sleeper services are indicative of human error. Did somebody forget the brake continuity test I wonder? The indication that the train manager could apply the brakes is supportive of this. The investigation will show all.

 

Also interesting is the strength of the TSSA reaction and the lack of comment from ASLEF or RMT.

And hence my earlier comment about the possibility of certain things not being done.  However the answer is that we simply don't know what the cause was be it human error ( on the part of at least two humans) or something else) - and that is for the relevant inquiry/inquiries to establish.

 

I take no notice whatsoever of any TSSA  utterances because I find it rather difficult to believe that their HQ and public mouthpieces (particularly their more recent mouthpieces) have actually, after many years, managed to finally acquire some knowledge of railway operation.  I speak as a former member of said union (and they were bad enough back in the past in this respect).

[The Stationmaster]

On 02/08/2019 at 19:35, jim.snowdon said:

The actual requirements of the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act in respect of brakes are:-

 

and use on all their trains carrying passengers continuous brakes complying with the following requirements, namely:—

(i)The brake must be instantaneous in action, and capable of being applied by the engine-driver and guards;

(ii)The brake must be self-applying in the event of any failure in the continuity of its action;

(iii)The brake must be capable of being applied to every vehicle of the train, whether carrying passengers or not;

(iv)The brake must be in regular use in daily working;

(v)The materials of the brake must be of a durable character, and easily maintained and kept in order.

 

 The key requirement is that the brake must self applying in the event of a failure of the continuity of its action, ie in the event of the train becoming divided. The automatic air brake is not fail safe at a detail level but it does satisfy the requirements of the Act as a system provided that it is used as designed.

 

Jim 

Ah, but that was the 1889 Act and that, long ago (22 years to be precise), ceased to have effect in respect of those  Requirements.  What applies now isn't too much different on some respects but is much condensed and comes from The Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1997 which says -

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by The Stationmaster
Edit punctuation

[Hesperus]

On 02/08/2019 at 22:36, ColinK said:

On the BBC News it says ‘the train manager deployed the emergency brake’.  Just as well it wasn’t driver only operated.

 

For all the good it did?

[Reorte]

Just now, Hesperus said:

 

For all the good it did?

 

That suggests it didn't - where might've it ended up if it hadn't been?

[caradoc]

6 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

That suggests it didn't - where might've it ended up if it hadn't been?

 

At where the gradient heading east out of Waverley changes. as with the Class 90 that ran away, or more horribly when it met another train, as the Class 37 that ran away did with an HST.

 

Assuming no TSRs or ESRs, or signal checks (which seems unlikely approaching Edinburgh in the morning rush hour, but is possible), the first serious brake application may well have been approaching Waverley (the sleeper does not call at Haymarket).

 

[Davexoc]

On 02/08/2019 at 22:36, ColinK said:

On the BBC News it says ‘the train manager deployed the emergency brake’.  Just as well it wasn’t driver only operated.

That just sounds like he pulled the rip-cord on a parachute, or dropped an anchor out the back of the train.....

[Ken.W]

2 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

At where the gradient heading east out of Waverley changes. as with the Class 90 that ran away, or more horribly when it met another train, as the Class 37 that ran away did with an HST.

 

Assuming no TSRs or ESRs, or signal checks (which seems unlikely approaching Edinburgh in the morning rush hour, but is possible), the first serious brake application may well have been approaching Waverley (the sleeper does not call at Haymarket).

 

 

Well, as I related previously, it missed the 170 we were traveling on, crossing over it's path at Abbeyhill Jnc where it did stop, by about 3 minutes.

 

But approaching Haymarket from the Carstairs direction's on a steep falling gradient with linespeed progressively dropping - from what I remember when we worked through to Glasgow - from 95 to 70, to 60 and finally 40 for the curve approaching, and  through Haymarket East Jnc. It then drops to 20 on exiting Haymarket Tunnel into Princes St Gardens.

Lucky it didn't derail if it couldn't slow down through that lot.

And that 70, IIRC, was also the timings for approaching an AHB  crossing.

[roythebus]

From reports on railway footplate staff FB groups, certain members have had access to Control Logs. One member states a brake test was done at Carstairs and a running brake test was done. There was some debate as to the train brake needing to be used on the journey.

 

I'm not familiar with modern locos and stock, but surely the rheostatic brake on the loco would take the brunt of braking for PSRs? Also, the technique we used to use at KX was that the sleepers were "generously" timed, so a lot of coasting was involved to keep the speed down to keep time. Maybe this is the case here?

 

Somebody above mentioned the incident at Darlington back int he 1970s. I was the secondman who helped prepare the loco involved in that one.

[Davexoc]

Oh dear, in the news again.....

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49298131?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk&link_location=live-reporting-story

 

Cancelled at Preston at 05.20

[woodenhead]

20 minutes ago, Davexoc said:

Oh dear, in the news again.....

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49298131?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk&link_location=live-reporting-story

 

Cancelled at Preston at 05.20

Interesting angle to the story, I am sure Serco would have said to reclaim for the onward journey to London from the outset but it does seem they were rather slow to gain agreement with Virgin and LNW to accept the passengers from their service.

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, Davexoc said:

Oh dear, in the news again.....

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49298131?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk&link_location=live-reporting-story

 

Cancelled at Preston at 05.20

Hmm, interesting to see that having sometime back become 'customers' passengers are now being called 'guests'.  When we have guests we don't charge them for their stay with us.

 

And I do wish that twit Corte would shut up, permanently.  Boy am I glad I declined the TSSA's invitation to remain a member when I retired with a clown like him now at the helm.