Platelayers' trolley brakes

[Squirrel]

Was or is there a requirement for all rolling stock, including trolleys, to have working brakes?

[Trog]

Trolleys have had to have working automatic spring loaded brakes since about the end of BR. Before that you were supposed to use your common sense instead, and most trollies had either no brakes or broken brakes.

[russ p]

Were the rules changed after the Tebay tragedy where a trolley ran away and killed a gang working downhill from where it ran away from

[rockershovel]

Were the rules changed after the Tebay tragedy where a trolley ran away and killed a gang working downhill from where it ran away from

AFAIK the Tebay tragedy was caused by failure to observe existing requirements - specifically, not having working automatic (spring-loaded) brake. Under the particular local conditions, this meant that the trolley, once moving, over-ran another gang and (because of the complete closure) no watchmen were in place.

 

I'm open to correction on this, if anyone knows otherwise, but that's my understanding

Edited June 2, 2017 by rockershovel

[Trog]

Were the rules changed after the Tebay tragedy where a trolley ran away and killed a gang working downhill from where it ran away from

 

I think Tebay was an accident involving a trailer designed to work with a road rail machine, rather than a P-Way trolley. That would have been much larger, heavier and have better bearings than a standard P-Way trolley. So I would expect it to move much more quickly and with less noise than a runaway trolley.

 

So while neither are a good thing you perhaps stand a better chance of getting away from a run away trolley. Certainly in an incident I heard of a block road man heard a runaway welders trolley coming and was able to stand clear as it went through the dets and made its bid for the freedom of the open road at an alleged speed of ~40MPH. 

[TheSignalEngineer]

When I started on BR trolleys (aka Lorries) were unbraked. You had a brake stick which was like a half-finished baseball bat, round handle but square blade. There was a knack in getting it between the wheels and slowing them down. That winter after a heavy snowfall four platelayers had salted the points at Camp Hill and set off with a load of salt towards Bordesley Junction. Quite against the rules they climbed on as it went down the bank. Needless to say they lost the brake stick and gathered speed. The Bobby at Bordesley gave 'Train running away' to St Andrews, who set the points onto the level towards Exchange Sidings. The platelayers decided to abandon ship and dived off onto a snowdrift in the cutting, emerging shaken but otherwise unhurt.

[phil-b259]

For Road / Rail Vehicles  & their trailers these RAIB reports are worth reading

 

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/investigation-into-runaways-of-road-rail-vehicles-and-their-trailers-on-network-rail

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/road-rail-vehicle-runaway-incidents-brentwood-and-snow-hill

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/runaway-of-a-road-rail-vehicle-at-glen-garry

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/runaway-and-collision-of-a-road-rail-vehicle-near-raigmore-inverness

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/runaway-and-collision-at-bryn-station-wigan

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/runaway-of-a-road-rail-vehicle-and-the-resulting-collision-in-queen-street-high-level-tunnel-glasgow

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/collision-of-a-road-rail-vehicle-with-a-buffer-stop-at-bradford-interchange-station

 

 

For manually propelled plant - including P-way trolleys, 'Iron Men', etc these reports may be of interest

 

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/runaway-small-infrastructure-hand-trolley

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/incident-involving-a-runaway-track-maintenance-trolley-near-haslemere-surrey

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/near-miss-at-raven-level-crossing

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/runaway-permanent-way-trolley-at-notting-hill-gate

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/runaway-manually-propelled-trolley-between-larkhall-and-barncluith-tunnel

[Southernman46]

I think Tebay was an accident involving a trailer designed to work with a road rail machine, rather than a P-Way trolley. That would have been much larger, heavier and have better bearings than a standard P-Way trolley. So I would expect it to move much more quickly and with less noise than a runaway trolley.

Yes - it was an RRV trailer loaded with several tons of scrap rail sat at the top of a steep incline which also had its braking system deliberately tampered with by the plant operator / owner - who was quite rightly prosecuted as he had created a deadly weapon .................

 

Unfortunately I've had to discipline people for scooting along on trolley's and riding on iron men whilst transporting rail - the last of which was mainly because he was still too stupid to stop himself doing it even when he knew his boss was right beside him pushing the other side of the thing ...................

Edited June 3, 2017 by Southernman46

[rockershovel]

Wikipedia describes it as a "waggon" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebay_rail_accident. and describes the brakes as having been disconnected due to being faulty. I'm surprised at the implication that they have "positive pressure" braking systems with apparently, no back-up?

Edited June 3, 2017 by rockershovel

[18B]

what were the trolleys that directly upon the axels and could b lifted off? For I heard a platelayer telling me how they lifted one off once but forgot to chock the wheels and when they turned around they'd gone........................ ended up about 3 mile away wrapped around a brake of a train in the yard at the end of the line.

[Titan]

Wikipedia describes it as a "waggon" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebay_rail_accident. and describes the brakes as having been disconnected due to being faulty. I'm surprised at the implication that they have "positive pressure" braking systems with apparently, no back-up?

 

The brakes were fail safe - I think spring applied and hydraulic pressure to release. However the brakes had been criminally tampered with. They had failed, and rather than fix them properly they had been partially dismantled, and worse the hoses had been filled with ball bearings so that if the hoses were felt they would appear to be working properly - hoses hard with pressure and brakes off.

 

Brief details here:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/4624312.stm

[rockershovel]

The brakes were fail safe - I think spring applied and hydraulic pressure to release. However the brakes had been criminally tampered with. They had failed, and rather than fix them properly they had been partially dismantled, and worse the hoses had been filled with ball bearings so that if the hoses were felt they would appear to be working properly - hoses hard with pressure and brakes off.

 

Brief details here:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/4624312.stm

I have difficulty understanding that allegation (and it is only reported as an allegation, not as established fact). What sort of hoses were they? What sort of ends would they have? Edited June 3, 2017 by rockershovel

[18B]

I have difficulty understanding that allegation (and it is only reported as an allegation, not as established fact). What sort of hoses were they? What sort of ends would they have?

 

not sure why you have "Difficulty understanding that allegation"......

 

the hoses were for the brakes and I quote, "The disablement of the brakes resulting from an earlier application of an excessive hydraulic pressure"

 

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RSSB_Tebay2004.pdf

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4816206.stm

 

Prosecutor Robert Smith QC said Connolly, the boss of MAC Machinery Services, had deliberately disconnected the hydraulic brakes on two wagons because it was cheaper than repairing the wagons properly.

 

Connolly had deliberately disconnected the brakes on the two wagons because the hydraulic systems were in such a bad way they would not work properly in conjunction with the crane.

He then filled cables connecting the crane - usually filled with hydraulic brake fluid - with ball bearings, giving the impression everything was above board.

 

Rail boss Mark Connolly, 44, of north Wales, and crane operator Roy Kennett, 29, of Maidstone, Kent, were each found guilty of four counts of manslaughter.

On Friday, Connolly was jailed for nine years and Kennett for two years at Newcastle Crown Court.

Edited June 8, 2017 by 18B

[Titan]

I have difficulty understanding that allegation (and it is only reported as an allegation, not as established fact). What sort of hoses were they? What sort of ends would they have?

 

Might only have been an allegation at the time, but it has long since been established as fact. I respectfully ask that if you do not know the facts yourself then you should not suggest otherwise from those that do.

[rockershovel]

Might only have been an allegation at the time, but it has long since been established as fact. I respectfully ask that if you do not know the facts yourself then you should not suggest otherwise from those that do.

I'll repeat the question, since the link above to the Report does NOT state, or imply, anything about "ball bearings in the hoses". I am quite unable to find any such definitive statement, anywhere - only press reports of unsupported allegations in court, which bear indications of coming from a single source. The Report DOES say that the brakes were previously damaged by being over-pressured, that they had been disconnected, and that no proper regime existed by which such checks were carried out on site, or before mobilising to site.

 

I've spent many years in industries and locations where HSE is or was, flouted or neglected to varying extents. I also have considerable practical experience of hydraulic hoses and connectors. I've never encountered, or heard of, any practice of "filling hoses with ball bearings" and can't envisage how any such thing might be done. Quick-fit connectors won't pass any such obstruction, and they are swaged into place. What I CAN envisage, is inserting a ball-bearing or other such obstruction into a connector or valve, so as to block it open and thereby open a bypass or relief circuit, so as to create a flow through the lines from the pump to the obstruction, and back to the tank.

 

So, can anyone with any actual information, shed any light on this? It seems to me, reading the report, that it is a reporters' error rather than a fact, and the TRUE cause is the undisputed tampering with the brakes, combined with the absence of proper checking and testing procedures, probably exacerbated by excessive timetable pressure from the site; all of which certainly appears in the report, and will be easily understood by anyone with experience of such work.

[18B]

I'll repeat the question, since the link above to the Report does NOT state, or imply, anything about "ball bearings in the hoses". I am quite unable to find any such definitive statement, anywhere - only press reports of unsupported allegations in court, which bear indications of coming from a single source. The Report DOES say that the brakes were previously damaged by being over-pressured, that they had been disconnected, and that no proper regime existed by which such checks were carried out on site, or before mobilising to site.

 

I've spent many years in industries and locations where HSE is or was, flouted or neglected to varying extents. I also have considerable practical experience of hydraulic hoses and connectors. I've never encountered, or heard of, any practice of "filling hoses with ball bearings" and can't envisage how any such thing might be done. Quick-fit connectors won't pass any such obstruction, and they are swaged into place. What I CAN envisage, is inserting a ball-bearing or other such obstruction into a connector or valve, so as to block it open and thereby open a bypass or relief circuit, so as to create a flow through the lines from the pump to the obstruction, and back to the tank.

 

So, can anyone with any actual information, shed any light on this? It seems to me, reading the report, that it is a reporters' error rather than a fact, and the TRUE cause is the undisputed tampering with the brakes, combined with the absence of proper checking and testing procedures, probably exacerbated by excessive timetable pressure from the site; all of which certainly appears in the report, and will be easily understood by anyone with experience of such work.

 

I think you're digging a hole with this one, point is, the brakes were def tampered with, those responsible went to prison for it, sadly several people died because of their actions. Whether it was ball-bearings or whatever was used is kinda immaterial.   

[Titan]

I'll repeat the question, since the link above to the Report does NOT state, or imply, anything about "ball bearings in the hoses". I am quite unable to find any such definitive statement, anywhere - only press reports of unsupported allegations in court, which bear indications of coming from a single source. The Report DOES say that the brakes were previously damaged by being over-pressured, that they had been disconnected, and that no proper regime existed by which such checks were carried out on site, or before mobilising to site.

 

I've spent many years in industries and locations where HSE is or was, flouted or neglected to varying extents. I also have considerable practical experience of hydraulic hoses and connectors. I've never encountered, or heard of, any practice of "filling hoses with ball bearings" and can't envisage how any such thing might be done. Quick-fit connectors won't pass any such obstruction, and they are swaged into place. What I CAN envisage, is inserting a ball-bearing or other such obstruction into a connector or valve, so as to block it open and thereby open a bypass or relief circuit, so as to create a flow through the lines from the pump to the obstruction, and back to the tank.

 

So, can anyone with any actual information, shed any light on this? It seems to me, reading the report, that it is a reporters' error rather than a fact, and the TRUE cause is the undisputed tampering with the brakes, combined with the absence of proper checking and testing procedures, probably exacerbated by excessive timetable pressure from the site; all of which certainly appears in the report, and will be easily understood by anyone with experience of such work.

 

You really should have heeded my earlier warning.

 

Just because you don't understand it does not make it untrue.

 

Also, just because it is not mentioned in a report does not mean it is untrue either.

 

And just to refute your miss-reporting idea here are two more completely independent reports from different people that attended the trial also mentioning the ball bearings.

 

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/675301.Tebay_rail_workers_deny_manslaughter/?ref=ar

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1513305/Nine-years-for-the-rail-contractor-who-killed-four-workers.html

 

 

 

This is a quote from someone who attended the trial recounting the evidence presented:

 

"He then filled cables connecting the crane - usually filled with hydraulic brake fluid - with ball bearings, giving the impression everything was above board."

 

This was evidence that was presented and accepted in court. I am sorry but I think that if this was presented as evidence in court and accepted as true, there can be no doubt that it actually happened. 

 

The guy tampered with the brakes in the workshop. I am sure he had all the usual tools for maintaining hydraulic systems there. I see no reason why he could not have removed any valves or couplings, filled the pipes with ball bearings and then crimped them back on, before dispatching them to site.

 

I suggest in order to save yourself further embarrassment that you comment no further until you understand a bit more about this incident.

[18B]

You really should have heeded my earlier warning.

 

Just because you don't understand it does not make it untrue.

 

Also, just because it is not mentioned in a report does not mean it is untrue either.

 

And just to refute your miss-reporting idea here are two more completely independent reports from different people that attended the trial also mentioning the ball bearings.

 

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/675301.Tebay_rail_workers_deny_manslaughter/?ref=ar

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1513305/Nine-years-for-the-rail-contractor-who-killed-four-workers.html

 

 

 

This is a quote from someone who attended the trial recounting the evidence presented:

 

"He then filled cables connecting the crane - usually filled with hydraulic brake fluid - with ball bearings, giving the impression everything was above board."

 

This was evidence that was presented and accepted in court. I am sorry but I think that if this was presented as evidence in court and accepted as true, there can be no doubt that it actually happened. 

 

The guy tampered with the brakes in the workshop. I am sure he had all the usual tools for maintaining hydraulic systems there. I see no reason why he could not have removed any valves or couplings, filled the pipes with ball bearings and then crimped them back on, before dispatching them to site.

 

I suggest in order to save yourself further embarrassment that you comment no further until you understand a bit more about this incident.

 

well said Titan, thank you for going to the effort to find those sources, I'm afraid I didn't feel he was worth the effort to go digging for, but I appreciate your time and efforts to find these quotes.  

 

Like you say, plenty of people reported it from the court and its quite a specific thing that's states, ball-bearings!!!!  

[rockershovel]

Those two reports are quite interesting, and demonstrate my point.

 

They differ materially from the previously quoted reports; they refer to the "couplings" rather than "pipes" being filled with ball bearings, to provide the appearance of the circuit being under pressure. The term "cables" for the hydraulic connections is also incorrect.

 

Read my post again, where I describe short-circuiting the pump by putting an obstruction in the coupling. This provides the appearance of the circuit being under pressure, because it IS under pressure; but the brakes are not, because they are bypassed. I've never seen this done to mislead, but I HAVE seen purpose-made blocking pieces used as part of a Mechanical Isolation. So, testimony has been given in court which was probably accepted, because it is plausible, if not directly relevant. A reporter has misreported this, because he doesn't know the correct vocabulary, and it has been repeated by other journals that dont know the vocabulary either.

 

Note that the Railway Safety Report doesn't mention this, essentially secondary issue. THAT Report has more to say about the critical issues of excessive programme pressure, leading to failures of certification and verification and ultimately, to a piece of plant in lethally dangerous condition, being taken to a location which was particularly unsuitable for an item with such defects.

 

I've been in enquiries of this sort, on two occasions and they are thoroughly unpleasant affairs for all concerned. One in particular included the instructive experience of watching someone present the sort of hearsay included in the past few posts, and being reduced to tears on the witness stand by the prosecuting barrister. One thing I learnt, long ago, when writing Incident Reports is that the inability to distinguish between first-hand evidence and hearsay is quite common.

 

Incidents of this sort are very rarely as simple as they appear to third parties. The Court Reporter from the local paper, or his editor, has picked up a particular detail as "good copy" - but that doesn't make it true, least of all when what was actually said, isn't reported correctly.

Edited June 8, 2017 by rockershovel

[rockershovel]

Frankly, I think this thread should be deleted back to - and including - #11 on the grounds that no useful purpose is served...

[The Stationmaster]

Those two reports are quite interesting, and demonstrate my point.

 

They differ materially from the previously quoted reports; they refer to the "couplings" rather than "pipes" being filled with ball bearings, to provide the appearance of the circuit being under pressure. The term "cables" for the hydraulic connections is also incorrect.

 

Read my post again, where I describe short-circuiting the pump by putting an obstruction in the coupling. This provides the appearance of the circuit being under pressure, because it IS under pressure; but the brakes are not, because they are bypassed. I've never seen this done to mislead, but I HAVE seen purpose-made blocking pieces used as part of a Mechanical Isolation. So, testimony has been given in court which was probably accepted, because it is plausible, if not directly relevant. A reporter has misreported this, because he doesn't know the correct vocabulary, and it has been repeated by other journals that dont know the vocabulary either.

 

Note that the Railway Safety Report doesn't mention this, essentially secondary issue. THAT Report has more to say about the critical issues of excessive programme pressure, leading to failures of certification and verification and ultimately, to a piece of plant in lethally dangerous condition, being taken to a location which was particularly unsuitable for an item with such defects.

 

 

 

If you have been able to find a copy of the full RSSB Report online could you please provide a link.  the link via the railways archive is solely to the RSSB's summary report which (as i would expect) doesn't disclose any detail of the incident and simply refers to procedural matters although it does mention that the full Report has been circulated within the industry.