Urgent notice from RAIB today

[LMS2968]

I'm not convinced that the trolleys would have operated the track circuits. There were certain classes of small diesel shunters which, when on the main line, had to have a brake van attached. The van was to operate the TCs, the shunters being unreliable in this.

[Reorte]

A couple of questions this has raised for a non-expert like me:

 

On the track circuit front (assuming they're present, which makes it more of an academic question) - aren't they deliberately shorted when working on a line with them?

 

As for which line people are on, is there no liasing with the signaller? Still doesn't help if people on the ground give the wrong information I suppose.

[martin_wynne]

What we don't know is which line actually needed work done to it. Presumably if there was nothing wrong with it, you wouldn't start working on it? And if you have removed the Pandrol clips, or dug out the ballast under it, a train approaching at 49mph has more problems than a couple of trolleys in the way? There must be more to this than meets the eye.

 

Martin.

Edited April 12, 2018 by martin_wynne

[iands]

I'm not convinced that the trolleys would have operated the track circuits. There were certain classes of small diesel shunters which, when on the main line, had to have a brake van attached. The van was to operate the TCs, the shunters being unreliable in this.

 

I'd agree with you first comment LMS2968 regarding the trolleys not necessarily operating the TCs, but the reason the smaller shunters had "runners" was because the shunters had small wheelbases and could (momentarily at least) disappear off the signalling panel when moving across S&C because of the positioning of the TC feeds etc. - the runner effectively extending the wheelbase to ensure the shunter didn't get lost between TCs. However, I remember following a relaying job at Selby Canal junction a cock-up with the way the track cables had been installed resulted in the "momentary loss" of a 37 and guards van on the panel when moving from the Down to the Up. Only spotted by a vigilant signaller the day after. 

 

Regards, Ian.

[iands]

 

On the track circuit front (assuming they're present, which makes it more of an academic question) - aren't they deliberately shorted when working on a line with them?

 

 

 

The short answer is "NO".

 

Regards, Ian.

[Oldddudders]

The tunnels south of here gave up on unreliable T/Cs years ago, and use axle counters. Does that extend this far?

[LMS2968]

I'd agree with you first comment LMS2968 regarding the trolleys not necessarily operating the TCs, but the reason the smaller shunters had "runners" was because the shunters had small wheelbases and could (momentarily at least) disappear off the signalling panel when moving across S&C because of the positioning of the TC feeds etc. - the runner effectively extending the wheelbase to ensure the shunter didn't get lost between TCs. However, I remember following a relaying job at Selby Canal junction a cock-up with the way the track cables had been installed resulted in the "momentary loss" of a 37 and guards van on the panel when moving from the Down to the Up. Only spotted by a vigilant signaller the day after. 

 

Regards, Ian.

It was a caption to a photo which gave me this: I don't pretend any great knowledge of Pway or S&T than that needed by a guard, so thanks for clearing it up.

 

You learn something new every day!

[iands]

It was a caption to a photo which gave me this: I don't pretend any great knowledge of Pway or S&T than that needed by a guard, so thanks for clearing it up.

 

You learn something new every day!

 

No worries, 44+ years on the railway and I'm still learning something new on at least a weekly basis if not more frequently!

 

Regards, Ian.

[The Stationmaster]

I'm not convinced that the trolleys would have operated the track circuits. There were certain classes of small diesel shunters which, when on the main line, had to have a brake van attached. The van was to operate the TCs, the shunters being unreliable in this.

 

But then a track circuit operating clip is considerably lighter than either a trolley or a diesel shunter and it will fairly reliably operate a track circuit (provided it is applied correctly of course).  And diesel shunters which had to have runner wagons on some parts of BR were quite happily accepted elsewhere in track circuited areas because of the wheelbase situation ,mentioned by iands (in fact The Western Region's Regiona Appendix specifically stated that certain types of diesel shunter could be relied on to operate track circuits while on another Region the same type of shunter was only allowed out when firmly attached to a runner wagon.

 

Going back to the OP I would expect some very searching questions to be asked about the briefing given to the staff concerned, and hope fully some equally searching questions to ascertain what they understood of such a briefing. 

[4069]

Almost beyond belief that they confused the fast and slow lines.

 

But I think that one of the reasons that sort of thing happens more these days is because of the fragmented nature of the modern railway with contract staff working here there and everywhere.

Back in the good old days of BR (Before Railtrack) any P-Way staff working there would have been local, and almost everyone would have known which line was which. So if a Supervisor for example made a mistake, the gang would have questioned why do you want a trolley on the UF when we are working on the slows?

 

One of the other advantages of the old way of doing things was that the staff were all known to each other, and we knew who needed watching, checking up on or could be trusted, and for what jobs.

For clarity, these were not p-way staff, but contractors engaged in laying cables in connection with conversion of the area to axle counter working, the kind of job which even in BR days would have been done by staff of the signalling contractors.

[royaloak]

A couple of questions this has raised for a non-expert like me:

 

On the track circuit front (assuming they're present, which makes it more of an academic question) - aren't they deliberately shorted when working on a line with them?

 

As for which line people are on, is there no liasing with the signaller? Still doesn't help if people on the ground give the wrong information I suppose.

Most areas are now fitted with axle counters when they are modernised so nothing to short out.

 

They would have liaised with the signaller when they took a block on the slow line but then started working on the fast line instead.

[martin_wynne]

They would have liaised with the signaller when they took a block on the slow line but then started working on the fast line instead.

 

What we don't know is whether they should have been working on the slow line, or should have asked for a block on the fast line?

 

Martin.

[Oldddudders]

Near-misses are the best sort of incident, because everyone is still able to give evidence, and whatever is found out and any subsequent actions initiated do not have a hint of the stable door about them. 

[Edwin_m]

Presumably if the staff in question were fitting cables for axle counters, the line was still track circuited at the time. 

 

Doesn't a track circuit operating clip scrape the rail as it is applied, to clear it of any rust?  A trolley wouldn't do that, although it would sit on the top of the rail which isn't rusty if recently used.  I suspect it would intermittently operate track circuits (unless it was also insulated) so couldn't be relied on either way. 

 

As a graduate trainee I accompanied a survey team for a day, who had an insulated track trolley so it wouldn't affect track circuits.  That was because the method of working was to lift it off when a train approached, and put it into the cess closely followed by the people who had done the lifting.  This was on a nice quiet bit of railway with excellent visibility, the Up line just south of Peascliffe tunnel. 

[Supaned]

Track Circuit clips have a copper strip with two prongs which do indeed scrape the top of the railhead to improve conductivity. I suspect this is also the reason that they can only be used once - the copper bit needs replacement.

 

Although you can't operate a track circuit in an axle counter area per se , I'd have thought running a trolley over an axle counter would cause the system to register and thus replace the appropriate signal to danger? At the very least because of an axle count mismatch.

[Titan]

Track Circuit clips have a copper strip with two prongs which do indeed scrape the top of the railhead to improve conductivity. I suspect this is also the reason that they can only be used once - the copper bit needs replacement.

 

Although you can't operate a track circuit in an axle counter area per se , I'd have thought running a trolley over an axle counter would cause the system to register and thus replace the appropriate signal to danger? At the very least because of an axle count mismatch.

 

Trouble with trolleys is that they can be placed on the line, and moved a distance without passing or triggering any axle counters, so as far as the signalling system is concerned there is nothing there.  If it does pass an axle counter then there will be a miss-match, but until then it is invisible. And seeing as many trolleys are put on the line close to where they are needed, then it is quite possible for them to be moved to site without triggering anything.

[Mark Saunders]

Track Circuit clips have a copper strip with two prongs which do indeed scrape the top of the railhead to improve conductivity. I suspect this is also the reason that they can only be used once - the copper bit needs replacement.

 

Although you can't operate a track circuit in an axle counter area per se , I'd have thought running a trolley over an axle counter would cause the system to register and thus replace the appropriate signal to danger? At the very least because of an axle count mismatch.

 

Clips are really only used in emergency but TCODS (Track Circuit Operating Device) are for normal use as they are fixed under the rail and are not disturbed/damaged by the passage of trains!

[Edwin_m]

The axle counter thread mentioned a useful mode where the axle counters could be switched off for possessions so not affected by any passing trains/RRVs/trolleys, and then restored on confirmation that the possession is lifted and the line is clear.  Although, as seen elsewhere on the RAIB website where a long welded rail was left across the running rail, checking that the line is clear after possession can go wrong too! 

[The Stationmaster]

For clarity, these were not p-way staff, but contractors engaged in laying cables in connection with conversion of the area to axle counter working, the kind of job which even in BR days would have been done by staff of the signalling contractors.

 

Which bit of BR was that then?  On virtually all the original (pre 1960s, 1960s and early '70s) WR resignalling schemes plus pole route replacements the work was carried out by WR staff or WR staff working with contractors under their direction.

 

But in this particular case it doesn't matter who they were - they were on-track and should have been briefed in accordance with the standards and procedures which have been in force since the early 1990s including being told which lines were which, the permitted speeds on those lines and which lines were 'live' or under possession.  Either they were briefed correctly and didn't understand, or pay attention to, what they were told or they weren't briefed.   Everything else stems from what did or didn't happen before they even set foot lineside, including whether or not they were competent in the necessary safety procedures to be there at all in an area not fenced off from the live railway.

What we don't know is whether they should have been working on the slow line, or should have asked for a block on the fast line?

 

Martin.

 

Or if they knew which line was which?  Back to briefing.

[martin_wynne]

Who in their right mind would leave a bit of rail like that even during possession work, it is an obvious accident waiting to happen for any staff working near it.

 

As for giving up the line like that unbelievable!

 

RAIB report today on this incident: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safety-digest-052018-cradlehall/passenger-train-striking-rail-on-the-track-at-cradlehall-near-inverness-25-february-2018

[Bruce Depot]

Does not make very good reading, glad I got out a while ago....

Feel for the driver coming round the corner to be met by this

[MarkC]

RAIB report today on this incident: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safety-digest-052018-cradlehall/passenger-train-striking-rail-on-the-track-at-cradlehall-near-inverness-25-february-2018

Good grief - that could SO easily have gone horribly, horribly worse than it actually did.

 

There's a few folk who shouldn't bother buying any Lottery tickets for the foreseeable future, methinks.

[jamie92208]

Without knowing the actual rule book, the thing that jumps out to me is that several people seem to have site safety responsibility either stated or implied in their title which appears from the outside to be a recipe for confusion.  I am just glad that it happened the way it did with no one being hurt.

 

Jamie

[The Stationmaster]

Without knowing the actual rule book, the thing that jumps out to me is that several people seem to have site safety responsibility either stated or implied in their title which appears from the outside to be a recipe for confusion.  I am just glad that it happened the way it did with no one being hurt.

 

Jamie

 

In my view the Rule Book is a total shambles in this respect and that isn't helped by the way in which it is sometimes used (not exactly misused but not used with sufficient thought).  Possession planning in terms of the work to be done is a relatively straightforward task even if some of the work itself is complex and dividing possessions into work sites is a very straightforward task BUT in all of this the roles and responsibilities of various jobs - such as the PICOP - need to be very clearly set out and not shoved in one of the daft 'Handbooks' but kept in a decent Rule Book where the roles and responsibilities are visible to all trained staff.

 

None of this is new, some things went wrong in BR days - usually due to inadequate training and the occasional 'devil may care' attitude of some CE ground level staff - but having said that it is not difficult to put the procedures right if you understand how they will have to be used.  And regrettably those in charge of the production of this stuff, let alone some of those actually writing it, are so far removed from the reality of the work they simply churn outa load of back-coverring mumbo-jumbo.  Rules and procedurres for this sort of thing are not difficult to express in clear terminology, they are not difficult to condense into short meaningful, and properly inter-related Rules and that then makes them easier to train in, makes them easier to enforce, and easier to audit compliance and  effectiveness - but you have to start with teh tasks and what you are really trying to ensure is done safely.

 

PS Yes, I have written such Rules and procedures and in a number of cases based them on what risk assessments have shown to be an ALARP procedure.  It auin't rocket science and it certainly isn't difficult if you actually unmderstand how a railway works and how possessions need to be managed safely.

[adanapress]

Agree entirely with what has been said above,  One other thing   needs to be beaten into the skulls of the senior levels of all departments of the Civil Service,   if a bit of paper, no matter how fancy, has a cash value it will,l it will, it will, be forged.  From passports  through union cards in the old days in Fleet Street right down to certificates of competence of individual sub-contractors staff.   Now matter how fancy,   And how do I know?,  45 years in the security printing industry trying to stop the naughty boys.