ECS Derailment - Paddington

[Rivercider]

The managers can have as many bus company numbers as they want in their books. bus companies, like railways, have cut everything back to the bone. There is no luxury of spare staff or buses.

 

I was involved in providing buses for the Southall and Ladbroke Grove crashes, and trying to get staff and buses just to Paddington was a nightmare. We got some to Padd, They left for Ealing broadway which took about 2 hours from Padd. we sent a couple of Routemasters to Reading as they became available off daytime bus routes, that took 3 hours. Buses were sourced from all over the country to provide cover. Trying to get anything anywhere in London these days is far worse than it ever was. If you're very lucky you might get a few spare tourist coaches in the late afternoon and evening. 

 

To get the hundreds of buses to cover a major emergency like this will take days.

I travel from Weston to Exeter on Saturdays to watch football, and on a number of years there has been blockade lasting several weeks,

this is obviously known a long way in advance.

One year the pre-planned road timings were inadequate, and rail connections at each end were missed. 

The next year some of the cover for the Weston - Taunton road transport came from..... Penzance.

One journey I was sitting near the front, and as we were running into Highbridge it was obvious the driver had no idea where the station was, so I gave instructions. Another journey the driver ended up lost in a housing estate in Taunton with a tricky reversing move to extricate the coach.

 

This was with months of advance notice!

 

cheers

[Mark Saunders]

 

One journey I was sitting near the front, and as we were running into Highbridge it was obvious the driver had no idea where the station was, so I gave instructions. Another journey the driver ended up lost in a housing estate in Taunton with a tricky reversing move to extricate the coach.

 

This was with months of advance notice!

 

cheers

 

It is the 5 P's that say it all!

 

(6P's is the same)

 

Mark Saunders

[RJS1977]

Talking of buses I really think that the railway missed a trick when they were running emergency trains at Workington due to the railway bridge being the only usable one left nearby. That was a great opportunity for "Road replacement train"!

 

I think the WHR ran a 'bus replacement train' a few years ago when the road through the Aberglaslyn Pass was blocked by snow.

[John_Hughes]

I think the WHR ran a 'bus replacement train' a few years ago when the road through the Aberglaslyn Pass was blocked by snow.

 

... and the Llangollen Railway ran a 'train replacement bus' for some years until they were open to Corwen, which struck me as a bit of a cheek!

[stewartingram]

I've posted this before but think it quite appropriate at the bus stop!

 

 

Stewart

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

The other point is that accidents are much rarer these days.  The safety record of passenger trains has improved significantly in recent decades, but probably more important there are no longer all the loose-coupled freights and shunting which would have been putting something into the dirt somewhere on the network every couple of days.  So it simply isn't worthwhile to provide breakdown equipment and crews at every depot, and if they were still there then they probably wouldn't get enough practice to know what to do on the rare occasions they were needed. 

 

Breakdown gangs were becoming pretty spread out a long time ago on the Western with many depots no longer able to provide any sort of worthwhile breakdown cover even by means of MFD gear.  The reason was - as you say - as much due to the changing nature of the railway as anything else although even back in the early 1970s in South Wales only Canton and Landore had any really serious rerailing capacity although Ebbw Jcn and Margam could manage minor derailments.

 

However by any measure, the ohle mast apart, this Paddington SPAD would be a very straightforward rerailing job for any change worth their pay - as the pictures of it would seem to indicate.

[96701]

Breakdown gangs were becoming pretty spread out a long time ago on the Western with many depots no longer able to provide any sort of worthwhile breakdown cover even by means of MFD gear.  The reason was - as you say - as much due to the changing nature of the railway as anything else although even back in the early 1970s in South Wales only Canton and Landore had any really serious rerailing capacity although Ebbw Jcn and Margam could manage minor derailments.

 

However by any measure, the ohle mast apart, this Paddington SPAD would be a very straightforward rerailing job for any change worth their pay - as the pictures of it would seem to indicate.

I would guess that the hardest job was getting the traverse beams under it due to it proximity of the platform. After that it would be a straightforward lift, push, reset job.

[Talltim]

I've been reading elsewhere a couple of interesting points.

The NR standard minimum distance ahead of Trap Points that should be clear of obstructions is 50m.

A 2 car Turbo is approx 46 metres long and the rear bogie is still just on the track.

The OHE gantry J 00 42 was replaced or renewed in 2014 as part of the Crossrail upgrades. Not sure if it was relocated but looking at older aerial views in Google earth is appears not to have been

[Talltim]

Also, Crossrail tunnelling directly below the base of the gantry is making creating a new foundation more awkward than normal.

[martin_wynne]

RAIB report on this derailment published today:

 

 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/paddington-safety-digest/derailment-at-paddington-16-june-2016

 

Martin.

[The Stationmaster]

No big surprises there then - poor route knowledge (occurring far too often these days I suspect), abysmal lack of understanding of signal aspects (very worrying in a recently trained Driver) and some shortcomings in communication.   I would personally be concerned about the Driver's lack of proper, uninterrupted, rest and the impact of not consuming food at proper times as I have seen people in the past lose concentration if they are working long periods without eating and of course most Driver's turns do include a break which allows for a quick bite of food etc which has long been argued as necessary. 

 

I really don't place any particular responsibility on the Signalmanler as it seems to me entirely reasonable for him to expect Drivers to actually understand signal aspects and know the road irrespective of what any (seemingly unworkable and definitely unrealistic) Instruction might say.

 

And a remarkably rapid Report from RAIB.

[Talltim]

Not a full report, of course, which may be why it has come out quicker.

[Talltim]

Question for signallers and/or drivers.
If the instructions say not to clear signal SN6006 unless signal SN6004 is also cleared, what is the point of SN6004?

[david.hill64]

Question for signallers and/or drivers.

If the instructions say not to clear signal SN6006 unless signal SN6004 is also cleared, what is the point of SN6004?

I'm not a signaller, but presumably to allow the signalman to do what he did: enable the train to make space in Royal Oak sidings for another one.

[Supaned]

Looking at the RAIB diagram , SN6004 is there to protect the exit from Line 1 towards platform 1. SN6006 is to protect the exit to Royal Oak sidings. SN6004 has to be there otherwise there is no signal protection to prevent a train from carrying on into platform 1 (although there are catch points). 

 

Regarding route knowledge , it's sometimes difficult to retain the full knowledge for each and every move you are required to make , especially with a complex layout such as Paddington , where some of the moves a driver may only do once in a blue moon, however , the old instruction should apply about reaching a clear understanding prior to making any movement and if a driver is unsure , stopping and asking.

What the report doesn't go into is the full detail of the conversation between the Driver and Signaller , although it does mention that the signaller may have been under pressure due to the nature of operations at Paddington. Certainly whenever I've had to clarify details of an unfamiliar move , the signallers I've dealt with have always been very helpful, after all , at the end of the day it's in everyone's interest to get it right first time.

 

Obviously questions also need to be asked about the speeds of trains when running under position light signals given their meaning ie Proceed as far as the line can seen to be clear , being prepared to stop short of any obstruction , other vehicles or buffer stops. 

[Talltim]

I'm not a signaller, but presumably to allow the signalman to do what he did: enable the train to make space in Royal Oak sidings for another one.

I've since got got a better grip on the instruction not to clear SN6006 without clearing SN6004. The instruction has a caveat and if they really need to do it then they have to inform the driver. Hence the need for the signal.

[beast66606]

I've since got got a better grip on the instruction not to clear SN6006 without clearing SN6004. The instruction has a caveat and if they really need to do it then they have to inform the driver. Hence the need for the signal.

 

As StationMaster says, there shouldn't be any need to inform the driver, I also raised my eyebrows when I saw how recently the driver had qualified and still - apparently - made a basic mistake - treat a shunt aspect as a main one and apply too much power. (Supaned also mentions speed of trains under shunt signals)

 

The signal was probably provided as it's (looking at the photos / diagram) possible for a train (or engine) to run up to 04 and reverse into the another siding, (as well as then standing clear of the sidings), without 04 this move would block a main running line.

[4069]

As StationMaster says, there shouldn't be any need to inform the driver, I also raised my eyebrows when I saw how recently the driver had qualified and still - apparently - made a basic mistake - treat a shunt aspect as a main one and apply too much power. (Supaned also mentions speed of trains under shunt signals)

 

The signal was probably provided as it's (looking at the photos / diagram) possible for a train (or engine) to run up to 04 and reverse into the another siding, (as well as then standing clear of the sidings), without 04 this move would block a main running line.

If you read the report carefully you will see that at one stage in the sequence of events there was a train at all three shunt signals- 6004 and the traps were put as close as they could be to the station to maximise capacity.

[The Stationmaster]

Looking at the RAIB diagram , SN6004 is there to protect the exit from Line 1 towards platform 1. SN6006 is to protect the exit to Royal Oak sidings. SN6004 has to be there otherwise there is no signal protection to prevent a train from carrying on into platform 1 (although there are catch points). 

 

Regarding route knowledge , it's sometimes difficult to retain the full knowledge for each and every move you are required to make , especially with a complex layout such as Paddington , where some of the moves a driver may only do once in a blue moon, however , the old instruction should apply about reaching a clear understanding prior to making any movement and if a driver is unsure , stopping and asking.

What the report doesn't go into is the full detail of the conversation between the Driver and Signaller , although it does mention that the signaller may have been under pressure due to the nature of operations at Paddington. Certainly whenever I've had to clarify details of an unfamiliar move , the signallers I've dealt with have always been very helpful, after all , at the end of the day it's in everyone's interest to get it right first time.

 

Obviously questions also need to be asked about the speeds of trains when running under position light signals given their meaning ie Proceed as far as the line can seen to be clear , being prepared to stop short of any obstruction , other vehicles or buffer stops. 

 

I haven't been anywhere controlling the 1990s layout at Paddington but I spent more than enough (official) time in Old Oak panel (the second one) and with the Duty ASM in the old Arrivals 'Box (who effectively made all the re-platforming etc decisions) to take the line I did when I wrote this in respect of the Signalmanler's  part in the incident - '...  expect Drivers to actually understand signal aspects and know the road irrespective of what any (seemingly unworkable and definitely unrealistic) Instruction might say.'  Working that area is an intensive job at any time but even more so during the peaks and especially when alterations are being made to the service/set and platform working and such an Instruction is in my view unrealistic - in my view it was written by someone in order to cover their own back and without properly thinking through how it could actually be applied at busy times.

 

In addition the driver would have heard a perfectly good view of the second position light and should be more than absolutely aware of what the 'off' indication in a position light means - he clearly went (for whatever reason) far too hard after passing the signal which was cleared for him, whatever aspect the next one in advance was displaying.  I stand by - completely - what I said about the Driver's route knowledge and I'm afraid that it is things like this which do show up the shortcomings; the Driver had signed the road and that meant he knew all of it - not just a bit of it - and the Report makes it clear that he even had with him the necessary information to check things out for himself if he was unsure or he could have contacted the 'box (sorry TVSC), but he didn't. 

[Supaned]

Agreed , and I'm in no way trying to defend the driver's actions . As you say , a quick look at the route maps or a phone call to the box (and actually reaching a clear understanding) would have prevented this in the first place. Certainly when I've contacted signallers to verify a move , they've always been very clear about which signals apply and where I'm going, and I certainly wouldn't go charging about , whatever the linespeed.

 

Lack of route knowledge is one thing , but as well as the issue of the train speed when proceeding under position light signalling (especially given that the driver was unsure of the route) , how the driver failed to observe that the trap points were set to derail his train and then still failed to act until the train had passed over those points is something that should be looked into.

 

Driver training and route learning is another set of subjects that needs an industry-wide examination , there seems to be huge difference in standards and methods of training , and in some cases TOCs are training new entrant drivers with the bare essentials needed to operate their services on their routes - understandable in terms of time saving and cost management , but it's producing "Train Operators" rather than "Train Drivers", without the broad base of operating knowledge and skills to be able to carry out the job properly.

For example, I know of FOC drivers who have never driven a train equipped with a DRA (driver reminder appliance) and thus when they transferred to a passenger TOC where all traction is thus fitted , they have to be taught the rules and procedures for that equipment , which nowadays you would think is standard across the network. Likewise , an Urban passenger TOC driver who was trained to drive on that TOC's routes which are all colour light TCB signalled , and with an intensive service so the driver only pottered around at 50 or 60mph. That driver later transfers to another TOC who operate though semaphore signalled areas and AB signalling , which the driver had never seen before or been trained on , as their initial driver training program didn't deal with it as that TOC would never encounter them.

 

I've also heard of TOCs saving money and time on route learning by making the trainee drivers route learn at the same time as carrying out their basic train handling training - to my mind completely wrong as the driver should be learning how to drive , not necessarily the route as well - they may well pick up some of the route knowledge during their training period , but the route learning time should be separate.

 

What I'd like to see is a national core standard for driver training , probably modular , where certain essential modules MUST be taught , but then additional modules are TOC specific eg ERTMS, RETB , AOCL , Freight train working . Thus newly trained drivers are all to a similar basic standard when they qualify.

[royaloak]

Question for signallers and/or drivers.

If the instructions say not to clear signal SN6006 unless signal SN6004 is also cleared, what is the point of SN6004?

I dont care what the instructions say, it is the drivers responsibility to stop at the red signals!

 

Even if both have to be cleared, there are plenty of reasons why, after passing the first one, the signalmanler might have to put the second one back (or there is an issue which has caused it to go back) so never ever assume you are clear.

A cleared dummy has a very specific meaning and doing 25mph while running under them is foolhardy in the extreme, I certainly wouldnt be doing anywhere near 15mph in that situation, never mind 25mph!

[royaloak]

Likewise , an Urban passenger TOC driver who was trained to drive on that TOC's routes which are all colour light TCB signalled , and with an intensive service so the driver only pottered around at 50 or 60mph. That driver later transfers to another TOC who operate though semaphore signalled areas and AB signalling , which the driver had never seen before or been trained on , as their initial driver training program didn't deal with it as that TOC would never encounter them.

which is exactly what I did when I moved from SWT to FGW/GWR, do youknow what I did?

I went onto the RSSB website and looked at all the relevant information pertaining to AB and semaphore signals, in my own time, it was, after all for my own benefit!

 

I do look forward to seeing LD35 signal because I know I have arrived at the 'proper' railway!

[Wheatley]

in some cases TOCs are training new entrant drivers with the bare essentials needed to operate their services on their routes  ...  That driver later transfers to another TOC who operate though semaphore signalled areas and AB signalling , which the driver had never seen before or been trained on , as their initial driver training program didn't deal with it as that TOC would never encounter them..

But that's exactly how BR trained signallers thirty years ago, albeit the proportion of AB and TCB was probably the other way round. You spent 12 weeks learning AB, just AB. You only learned TCB (or any other block) if you had been appointed to a box which had it, and then you sat with Nellie until your DI/AI was satisfied you knew what you were doing. If you moved to another box with a different block you went back to school to do the relevant bit then back to sitting with Nellie.

 

Do Intercity and freight TOC/FOCs even recruit ab initio drivers ? The 'provincial' TOCs are well used to the shinier faster operators creaming off their drivers, indeed Alex Hynes once gave an interview to one of the mags in which he described Northern as a driver training company with a TOC attached. Why should the TOCs make it easy for other TOCs to pinch their staff ? 

 

If you got a job driving buses for first Leeds you would expect them to train you to handle a double decker on the routes around Leeds. Why would they teach you to handle an executive coach on the motorway just in case you fancied jumping ship to National Express ?

[Supaned]

I'd argue that AB signalling is the building blocks from which others were developed , that would be the way I'd expect signalling to be taught. Thus it could be argued , drivers should be taught the same. Let's be honest , TCB working is far simpler in reality than AB, certainly from a driver's point of view.

 

I understand why the TOCs do the training the way they do , I just don't agree with how it's been done. To my knowledge , DBS and Freightliner have done ab initio driver training in recent years. Great Western are still doing driver training , although I'm not sure if this is just for local working rather than their "Intercity" arm , although of course some depots do cross-cover eg Oxford & Gloucester. As I'm sure you're aware , the "market economy" for drivers created by privatisation has created this situation with the wide variety of salaries - who can blame someone for wanting to change and earn more doing so (and in a lot of cases , move from intensive suburban work to express passenger work).

 

Using the bus driving analogy , whilst you might not be trained to drive a coach on a motorway , I could argue that experience of driving a bus or large vehicle on a motorway or dual carriageway at higher speeds would be valuable for all bus drivers - who knows if their company might need them to drive a different service eg rail replacement , private hire or whatever which needs to do just that ,so again it should form part of the initial training.

[Supaned]

which is exactly what I did when I moved from SWT to FGW/GWR, do youknow what I did?

I went onto the RSSB website and looked at all the relevant information pertaining to AB and semaphore signals, in my own time, it was, after all for my own benefit!

 

I do look forward to seeing LD35 signal because I know I have arrived at the 'proper' railway!

 

Rightly so, though I'd have expected your new TOC to recognise that training need and ensure that you were taught accordingly.