Tornado fails on ECML

[JimC]

In any case, if you get a seizure in the cylinder, think what is going to give. A full blown seizure at that speed would result in considerably more damage 

 

The statement I saw was a seizure of the valve, not the piston. That would seem potentially consistent with the mangled combination lever. I don't know enough about the detailed motion design to know whether, with the combination lever parted, there would be sufficient scope for the radius rod to carry on moving with the valve stationary. 

 

If it ain't broke, don't take it apart.

I'm not sure that's a wise maxim. Yes, maintenance assisted failure is a very real thing, but that doesn't mean its worse than crossing your fingers and hoping nothing is sick in there.There's a balance to be struck, which is of course why different components will have different service intervals.

[Titan]

 I don't know enough about the detailed motion design to know whether, with the combination lever parted, there would be sufficient scope for the radius rod to carry on moving with the valve stationary. 

 

 

It might just if the loco was running at a low cut off, as the travel on the radius rod gets less the closer you get to mid gear. At the speed Tornado was running I suspect that she would have been at only a few % cut off.

[ejstubbs]

this event is already under investigation by that bit of the ORR that is the Railway Inspectorate, and almost certainly by RAIB.

 

Would the RAIB normally get involved in the failure of a locomotive?  No-one was hurt, the train was brought safely to a halt and there doesn't seem [so far] to have been any suggestion that there was any loss of control beyond the failure of the drive system, or any other immediate risk to the train.  The locomotive suffered a mechanical failure which meant that it couldn't proceed, which impeded traffic for a while until the situation was sorted out.  A failed locomotive can't be that rare an occurrence to need investigating by the RAIB every time it happens, surely?  Although this appears to have occurred at relatively high speed, so do failures of the OLE of which there was a spate on the ECML last year but I don't recall the RAIB getting involved with those.

 

I'm just pondering the question out loud.  Quite happy to be told that I'm wrong!

Edited April 16, 2018 by ejstubbs

[Nimbus]

It might just if the loco was running at a low cut off, as the travel on the radius rod gets less the closer you get to mid gear. At the speed Tornado was running I suspect that she would have been at only a few % cut off.

Certainly the panning shot video on YouTube taken near Biggleswade suggests this was the case. The accompanying description mentions that steam was shut off during the shot, but the train does not seem to be braking. I wonder if the loco crew had noticed something amiss in the loco's riding or sound, shut off and wound to mid gear while deciding the severity of the problem. 

 

I didn't turn out to see this tour as it was routed slow line south of Welwyn.

 

The Nim.

[Nearholmer]

Ejstubbs

 

My reading is that the incident falls well within the remit of RAIB, if they decide to investigate, by virtue of The Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005, item 5-3(b).

 

“3) The Branch shall make the necessary arrangements to commence an investigation of an accident or incident—

 

(a)where the accident is a serious accident; or

(b)where it is not a serious accident but is an accident or incident which, under slightly different conditions, might have led to a serious accident and the Branch has determined that it will conduct an investigation,”

 

The ‘slightly different circumstances’ being that a significant chunk of valve-gear coming detached could have caused a serious derailment to the train in question or another one.

 

For the purposes of this question, it doesn’t matter what caused it to become detached, whether that was something integral to the loco, or something external such as an object thrown up from the track, it’s the potential consequence that is important. And, I read it that RAIB has the power, but not the obligation, to investigate in a case like this.

 

RAIB do, quite often, investigate and report on “near misses”.

 

Occurrences that have no potential, or only exceedingly remote potential, to lead to a serious accident don’t have to be reported to RAIB, and RAIB have no obligation (and I think no power) to investigate them. So, to use your examples, failures of locos or of the OLE would be of no interest to RAIB unless, under slightly different circumstances they could have led to a serious accident.

 

How do others read this?

 

Kevin

Edited April 16, 2018 by Nearholmer

[jim.snowdon]

Would the RAIB normally get involved in the failure of a locomotive?  No-one was hurt, the train was brought safely to a halt and there doesn't seem [so far] to have been any suggestion that there was any loss of control beyond the failure of the drive system, or any other immediate risk to the train.  The locomotive suffered a mechanical failure which meant that it couldn't proceed, which impeded traffic for a while until the situation was sorted out.  A failed locomotive can't be that rare an occurrence to need investigating by the RAIB every time it happens, surely?  Although this appears to have occurred at relatively high speed, so do failures of the OLE of which there was a spate on the ECML last year but I don't recall the RAIB getting involved with those.

 

I'm just pondering the question out loud.  Quite happy to be told that I'm wrong!

Technically, we have to wait and see, but when it involves substantial bits of hardware falling on to the track under a moving train, and/or the maintenance arrangements for privately owned steam locomotives, there is a more than fair chance that RAIB will want to get involved, at least initially. Their remit covers the investigation of anything that has the potential to cause serious damage and/or injury, irrespective of whether the event in question did. RAIB's objective is to establish what went wrong and what actions can be taken to learn from the experience and prevent future recurrences. ORR's interest is as the Safety Authority.

 

Jim

[rodent279]

Ejstubbs

 

My reading is that the incident falls well within the remit of RAIB, if they decide to investigate, by virtue of The Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005, item 5-3(b).

 

“3) The Branch shall make the necessary arrangements to commence an investigation of an accident or incident—

 

(a)where the accident is a serious accident; or

(b)where it is not a serious accident but is an accident or incident which, under slightly different conditions, might have led to a serious accident and the Branch has determined that it will conduct an investigation,”

 

The ‘slightly different circumstances’ being that a significant chunk of valve-gear coming detached could have caused a serious derailment to the train in question or another one.

 

For the purposes of this question, it doesn’t matter what caused it to become detached, whether that was something integral to the loco, or something external such as an object thrown up from the track, it’s the potential consequence that is important. And, I read it that RAIB has the power, but not the obligation, to investigate in a case like this.

 

RAIB do, quite often, investigate and report on “near misses”.

 

Occurrences that have no potential, or only exceedingly remote potential, to lead to a serious accident don’t have to be reported to RAIB, and RAIB have no obligation (and I think no power) to investigate them. So, to use your examples, failures of locos or of the OLE would be of no interest to RAIB unless, under slightly different circumstances they could have led to a serious accident.

 

How do others read this?

 

Kevin

I would expect that a failure of the OLE such that there was the potential to endanger life, as happened at St Pancras a while back, might warrant RAIB attention, even if only a near miss.

 

Similarly, a loco/unit failure involving braking or safety systems, again even if a near miss, would be investigated.

 

And that's the right approach. The objective of having investigations into these things is to learn, to understand what went wrong, and to pass that understanding on, hopefully to prevent or reduce the likelihood of such incidents being repeated.

Edited April 16, 2018 by rodent279

[Andrew Young]

My in laws who were on the train received an email yesterday from a senior member of the A1 Steam Loco Trust explaining what happened on Saturday. Plus compensation from the tour operator. Quite prompt service really.

 

Whilst I’ve not seen the email, I’m told that the failure was due to a loss of lubrication to the middle cylinder, I think that multi cylindered locos like Tornado have multiple mechanical lubricators for different cylinders. If that’s the case and having seen the damage, it’s likeky that the valve seized and why the valve linkage disintegrated and ended up in the 4ft whilst the conn rod and piston kept running. The fact that the Loco could be towed in mid gear supports that damage was done to the valve linkage but not the piston drive.

 

This defect would’ve caused failure at 75mph or 90mph, just that at 90mph the loss of lubrication would’ve been encountered sooner and with greater effect than at slower speeds. Hence the comment about not being speed related.

 

Andrew

[Nearholmer]

Rodent

 

I think that the definition of ‘serious accident’ in the legislation is ‘one fatality, or five major injuries’, or similar, so yes, the cases you cite would fall within RAIB remit.

 

Kevin

[rodent279]

Rodent

 

I think that the definition of ‘serious accident’ in the legislation is ‘one fatality, or five major injuries’, or similar, so yes, the cases you cite would fall within RAIB remit.

 

Kevin

On that basis, given the potential for pieces of valve gear or other items of motion work to cause a derailment involving fatalities and serious injuries, as shown by past history (Britannia on the S&C, can't remember which/where/when but there were fatalities), I would not be at all surprised if RAIB got involved.

 

And if that leads to improvements in maintenance & repair processes that reduce or prevent such things happening, that's got to be a good thing.

 

Edit: 70052, Settle, 21st Jan 1960. 5 dead, 9 injured. Different part of the motion work failed, I know, but the potential is there.

 

Edit no. 2-I'm not casting aspertions about the maintenance standards of 60163, or its carers, or implying that it's not up to scratch.

Whatever we do, if there is a way of making it better and more robust, we have an obligation to do so, especially in safety related matters, whether on the railway or elsewhere.

Edited April 17, 2018 by rodent279

[stewartingram]

The statement of "a privately owned steam loco" really ought to be taken in context nowadays. ALL locos (& units) on the network nowadays are privately owned, and their owners pay the appropriate fees to run on the tracks under the necessary regulations. So "privately owned" has no bearing on the matter. As for "steam", agreed that is a different form of propulsion to the norm today - not diesel or electric - but should that matter? All locos have to meet regulations. A class 66 or 68 for instance are (fairly) up to date technology, & have been approved for use so no problems there, and their owners have to maintain them to a satisfactory standard, or they would be banned. But older "heritage" type diesels - class 37 or 20 maybe - are not the latest designs. They have derogations in place to allow their use (think emissions for one), but again they have to be properly maintained. So what is the difference with a steam loco in reality? A proper design which has been approved for use (and in fine detail down to things like materials used and methods of machining, with a paper trail to prove it), a proper robust maintenance regime in place; no difference really. Not quite like Fred knocking something up in his lockup and wanting to run it!

 

Stewart

Edited April 21, 2018 by stewartingram

[Nearholmer]

Rodent

 

The exact definition is:

 

(3) “Serious accident” means an accident involving a derailment or collision of rolling stock which has an obvious impact on railway safety regulation or management of safety and includes such an accident that results in—

 

(a)the death of at least one person;

(b)serious injuries to five or more persons; or

©extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment.

 

The whole of the regulations is on line here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1992/regulation/2/made and, like most of these things, it is worth skimming the lot, to get a full picture of what is required, which can't be got from isolated extracts.

 

Kevin

Edited April 17, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Wickham Green]

Surely it's within the RAIB's remit to investigate any railway 'incident' - of whatever nature - to the point at which they decide whether they need to get fully involved or are happy to leave it to others .............. or should they wait to be called in by the Office of Roads and Roads..

[Pandora]

Is is true that during the early years of the  ECML electric working, a Class 91 electric threw a cardan shaft while running at speed.  The cardan shaft struck  a motor car and caused such damage the car was a write off. It may have been at Peterborough. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Pandora

[APOLLO]

Settle accident 1960

 

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=287

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settle_rail_crash

 

http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/nostalgia/nostalgia_history/4824214.The_night_Craven_folk_woke_to_rail_crash_horror/

 

Brit15

Edited April 17, 2018 by APOLLO

[Fat Controller]

Is is true that during the early years of the  ECML electric working, a Class 91 electric threw a cardan shaft while running at speed.  The cardan shaft struck  a motor car and caused such damage the car was a write off. It may have been at Peterborough. 

I don't know about it happening to a Class 91, but final-drive failures have occurred to Voyagers and Eurostars, whilst a DMU went one further near Nuneaton and dropped the whole engine raft.

[APOLLO]

A "Nodding Donkey" (Pacer) engine fell onto the track at Liverpool some years ago. Lots of damage, thankfully no one seriously hurt.

 

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/safety-check-call-after-trains-3448567

 

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpools-city-line-trains-putting-3440891 

 

The RAIB has refused to carry out a full investigation because it does not believe any “further significant lessons” could be learned.

 

Brit15

[david.hill64]

Is is true that during the early years of the ECML electric working, a Class 91 electric threw a cardan shaft while running at speed. The cardan shaft struck a motor car and caused such damage the car was a write off. It may have been at Peterborough.

Doncaster. It demolished the platform waiting shelter on its way.

Edited April 17, 2018 by david.hill64

[Phil Bullock]

Settle accident 1960

 

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=287

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settle_rail_crash

 

http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/nostalgia/nostalgia_history/4824214.The_night_Craven_folk_woke_to_rail_crash_horror/

 

Brit15

 

Thanks Apollo - great minds - I was hunting for that one to illustrate the discussions earlier

 

Phil

[cromptonnut]

Don't forget Crewkerne too... http://www.semgonline.com/location/crewk_01.html

 

 

Crewkerne Station's brief moment of fame came when, on 24th April 1953, Merchant Navy class locomotive 35020 Bibby Line hauling the 4.30pm Exeter Central to Waterloo service broke its crank axle while passing through the station at about 70mph. In the ensuing mechanical disruption a flying brake block struck a stanchion supporting the platform canopy, causing part of it to collapse, while another brake block struck the bridge abutment. Fortunately there were no human casualties. It was this incident that precipitated the rebuilding of the Merchant Navy class. The station canopy was rebuilt later and the changes are still recognisable today.

[Nearholmer]

The incident discussed here seems relevant to me too

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79006-a-nail-in-the-coffin-for-mainline-steam/

 

It was a dim recollection of this that made me ask my 'bits falling off of mainline certificated locos in a way that could lead to a derailment, per 100km in traffic' question further back up this thread.

 

Kevin

[uax6]

Don't forget Crewkerne too... http://www.semgonline.com/location/crewk_01.html

 

Shame that there's no report for this in the Railways Archive site, it, I'm sure would make interesting reading.

 

I seem to remember that an engine and gearbox fell from a 142 sometime in the late '80's and early 90's, that was amongst the time the re-engining/transmissioning of them was happening, and not the one mentioned above, but I can't for the life of me find anything on the net about it....

 

Andy G

[Bernard Lamb]

Now what was it a certain Mr Bulleid had to say on the matter of lubrication and the enclosing of moving parts on steam locomotives?

Bernard

[Nearholmer]

I've bored with this before, but I was on the track carrying out a survey for a cable route at Reading about thirty five years ago, when some chunks flew (not fell) off a passing DMU two roads away, crashing into the ballast near me and my lookout. Mildly perturbing!

[chris p bacon]

I've bored with this before, but I was on the track carrying out a survey for a cable route at Reading about thirty five years ago, when some chunks flew (not fell) off a passing DMU two roads away, crashing into the ballast near me and my lookout. Mildly perturbing!

 

 

But if it kept going did it really need them ?