Salisbury collision - RAIB report published

[Mol_PMB]

Network Rail now have a mandate placed on them to maintain and increase habitat and biodiversity on their land. Where they have to apply scorched earth in some places it must be offset elsewhere. Unless that changes, no amount of money or gnashing of teeth will see the trees cut down. 

 

RHTT diagrams are pretty intense in the season, often 20-hour days running with just enough time to refuel and do minor repairs before heading out again. When there are equipment failures, crew shortages, planned or unplanned possessions requiring diversions, parts of the route have to be missed out. To deliver 100% every day would require a big increase in the resource allocated. 

[PaulRhB]

21 hours ago, great central said:

According to a post on WNXX he's doing pretty well.

Yes Robin is doing well all things considered thanks. I can’t give any details as it’s all part of the investigation but we were very impressed that the RAIB / ORR decided to clarify things so quickly to stop the ridiculous media rumours in the days afterwards. 
As noted above this interim report only clarifies the areas being investigated and the final report will be the only time details will be released. Until then it’s speculation. 
Thanks to Andy for the dignified way he deals with these threads and locking them is usually the best way to control peoples admittedly natural interest and speculation and stop it becoming ‘internet facts’. 
 

Yes SY29R shows Y , YY  or G as it is a three aspect distant for SY29. 

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, Lurch said:

 

I disagree. Some provide some assistance to hillside rigidity and also provide noise screening where stations are in urban areas for example. I've been in properties where the trees have been cleared and you can then hear all station announcements and the general "station noises".

No they don’t! That’s a myth stuck out there to justify not doing anything.

 

Trees suck in a huge amount of moisture causing earthworks to shrink (particularly those on / through / in clay based soils) this causes cracks / subsidence in dry weather then letting rain to get between the layers in wet weather (which also causes clay based soils to expand / bulge)

 

The best type of vegetation is GRASS full stop - enough to stop surface run off but without deep penetrating roots to cause problems.

Edited February 22, 2022 by phil-b259

[uax6]

21 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Because it is plated with an "R" suffix it has no red aspect.  Thus having 3 aspects it can display Y/YY/G.

 

21 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Does it not have a red, as a repeater?

 

Doh! Of course, its the effects of night turn....

 

Andy G

[The Stationmaster]

On 22/02/2022 at 04:56, uax6 said:

What I don't understand is how signal SY29R could display double yellows as stated in the report, but yet the photo shows it as being a 3 aspect head....

 

Andy G

It acts as the distant for SY 29 and provides a double yellow for SY 31 due to inadequate braking distance between SY 29 and SY 31.  Thus the three aspecte it can show are single yellow, double yellow or green.   As I mentioned previously the Interim Report leaves a lot unsaid which I expect to see in the final report.

 

21 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Thankyou Simon. Drivers would know all that, having been given a 'Yellow Peril', or modern equivalent when new systems were installed, or been route trained if afterwards. 

The relevant Notice clearly showed the distances between all running signals and the colours in the head of each running signal, with a reference to the relevant part of Section C of the Rule Book which of course explained the meaning of colour light signal aspects.   Signal SY29R is not mentioned in the list of signals because, like a number of other running signals, it had only one route so there was no need for further explanation of the meaning of route indications etc..   

 

As far as lineside treees are concerned they are undoubtedly a real menace to safety.  In past years the incidence of trees landing on running lines was almost unknown - for the simple reason that there were few. if any, there to fall or be blown down onto the railway.  The big change came - as somebody has already surmised - with the end of steam traction when lineside vegetation clearance was more or less totally stopped in order to reduce costs.  There was another factor as well because in some areas, especially on the WR, it had long been the practice to burn off vegetation twice a year to keep it under control and encourage certain types of regrowth but the increasing prevalence of S&T cabling caused this practice to be outlawed (nowadays it would no doubt be banned on environmental grounds).

 

What subsequently became noticeable was that approximately 20 years after the end of attention to lineside vegetation wheel slide incidents started to become much more frequent and serious, especially  at a particular time of year and the obvious culprit was leaf fall where previously there had been none or very little before trees reached maturity.  The other thing which started to gradually become more noticeable was tree falls - sy till nothing like today on the WR back in the 1980s - again the obvious culprit was trees reaching maturity.  So there is indeed a simple answer - cut the ruddy things down before they reach maturity - that is what used to happen and the differences in the consequences of having or not having lineside trees are pretty stark (and rather frightening).   The railway either believes and looks after the safety of its staff and passengers ottr it doesn't and tree fall incidents are a known, and readily mitigated, hazard with barely a need to apply a risk assessment.

 

And will they regrow - yes, unless the stumps are killed which is a simple business and costs peanuts.   The contractor who deals with the trees in my back garden (he also contracts for NR on tree clearance and pollarding etc) last attended my garden about 3-4 years ago and I wanted several of the hazel trees permanently 'stopped' while a couple would be allowed to regrow - so they were all felled to almost ground level and two were left to regrow while the other two had 'killer pellets' knocked into the stumps and I now have only two thriving hazel trees.  This year when he attends next month, one of the sycamores will be similarly dealt with while the others will simply be trimmed well down and the wimpish elm will also be despatched but the other two - which are healthy - won't be touched at all.  BTW almost all of my trees (some people call it a copse) are on a steep bank, steep enough to make the average railway cutting side look almost level and quite as high as some lesser railway cuttings otr embankments.

 

[Dunsignalling]

Recent weather events have demonstrated, once again, that considerable numbers of trees within "blocking distance" of railway lines had become unstable.

 

Does any regime for regular professional assessment and selective precautionary felling exist, or are they only dealt with after they come down?

 

My own garden is annually plagued with self-seeding ash saplings (including one half a metre long that I recently extracted from a downpipe! If I can't dig them up, I lop them off at ground level and bang a copper nail into what's left.

 

John

Edited February 23, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Wheatley]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Does any regime for regular professional assessment and selective precautionary felling exist

Yes. Google "Varley report"  and "NR/L2/OTK/5201" for details.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Wheatley

[Lurch]

19 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

No they don’t! That’s a myth stuck out there to justify not doing anything.

 

Oh, I was slightly hesitant about leaving that bit in, heard arguments for both sides but never really cared enough to look into it.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Lurch said:

 

Oh, I was slightly hesitant about leaving that bit in, heard arguments for both sides but never really cared enough to look into it.

The problem is people get confused between two different things.

 

In some parts of the world trees (particularly the developing world) with inherently poor soils trees and tree roots can indeed stabilise the ground and promote soil retention preventing desertification or drought. As such there have been campaigns by NGOs to encourage tree planting to restore / preserve the land in a state that can support local farmers / wildlife.

 

However that is very different to the situation as applies to railway line sides in the UK.

[Michael Hodgson]

So there's no point in inviting HRH the Prince of Wales to be Patron of Great Bistish Railways when it's formed then.

[DCB]

9 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

So there's no point in inviting HRH the Prince of Wales to be Patron of Great Bistish Railways when it's formed then.

Why not, he could talk to the trees and persuade them by kindness and logic that shedding their leaves on the rails was ecologically irresponsible. I think he would be good at that.  

[PaulRhB]

Before we get too carried away with jests can I just remind people that passengers were injured and hospitalised and some of us work with people who were seriously injured and affected by this. 
 

Thank you. 

[Southernman46]

This may have already been mentioned and I haven't read the report & it's recommendations

 

A potential factor in this incident that I feel is a simple fix ..............................

 

The CF - Ports & vice versa service is timetabled through Tunnel Junction not too far ahead of the Down Waterloo Service - in my personal experience my train (on time) has been held many times at this signal protecting Tunnel Junction for these trains to clear Tunnel Junction. Surely a simple exercise with the timetable would quickly remove this potential obstruction and the severe consequences of future SPAD's without expensive infrastructure alterations ?

Edited February 24, 2022 by Southernman46
Sense

[Mike_Walker]

1 minute ago, Southernman46 said:

This many have already been mentioned and I have read the report & it's recommendations

 

A potential factor in this incident that I feel is a simple fix ..............................

 

The CF - Ports & vice versa service is timetabled through Tunnel Junction not too far ahead of the Down Waterloo Service - in my personal experience my train (on time) has been held many times at this signal protecting Tunnel Junction for these trains to clear Tunnel Junction. Surely a simple exercise with the timetable would quickly remove this potential obstruction and the severe consequences of future SPAD's without expensive infrastructure alterations ?

But the idea is to provide connections for passengers coming from Portsmouth, Southampton, etc. who wish to continue towards Exeter.

 

One thing I'm waiting to see in the final report is to see if the RAIB makes any comment on SY31 signal.  It would appear that this has a sub-standard overlap in a critical location.  Personally, I question the need for it at all, SY29 could provide protection for both Tunnel Junction and Laverstock North Junction without impacting on the service.  An additional repeater (distant) SY29RR would probably be needed.  The same applied on the Down Dean line too.

[Southernman46]

You've missed the point ............ small timetable change whilst maintaining the connections without infrastructure modifications as a quick simple risk reduction solution.

[PaulRhB]

46 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

  The same applied on the Down Dean line too.

Not really the approach to the preceding SY35 is the 30-35mph Milford curve so you are already down to a much lower speed on the approach to the 20mph on tunnel Jn curve and SY37 protecting tunnel Jn. 
 

I won’t comment on the other points as that is all involved directly in the investigation. 
 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by PaulRhB

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Southernman46 said:

This may have already been mentioned and I haven't read the report & it's recommendations

 

A potential factor in this incident that I feel is a simple fix ..............................

 

The CF - Ports & vice versa service is timetabled through Tunnel Junction not too far ahead of the Down Waterloo Service - in my personal experience my train (on time) has been held many times at this signal protecting Tunnel Junction for these trains to clear Tunnel Junction. Surely a simple exercise with the timetable would quickly remove this potential obstruction and the severe consequences of future SPAD's without expensive infrastructure alterations ?

Which could well introduce other potential SPAD traps at other locations!

 

The WOE services have to slot in amongst all the other SWML traffic inwards of Basingstoke (which includes the flat junction at Woking) plus take into account the crossing loops on the single line west of Wilton.

 

Thats before we get onto the desire of passengers for connections between services such as the two involved in the Salisbury collision.

 

In short timetabling is nowhere as simple as many assume!

 

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by phil-b259

[boxbrownie]

On 22/02/2022 at 13:45, KingEdwardII said:

Clear all the trees is exactly what should be done - the ones growing directly alongside railway lines are nothing less than a menace. If they are not dropping leaves all over the lines, they are playing kamikaze and falling across the lines. Even worse where the lines are electrified and the trees take the overhead equipment with them as they go.

 

Trees close to the track are a clear safety hazard - any 'environmental backlash' should be given short shrift. Safe and efficient operation of the railway comes first here - plant trees elsewhere.

 

Yours, Mike.

We went on the Newquay branch before the lockdowns, just for a ride and we were astonished at the undergrowth/tree intrusion on the line, most (and I really mean most) of the time we had bits of branches/leaves coming in through the window vents, you could hear the undergrowth hitting and brushing along the train, I was actually shocked at the state of the line.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Southernman46 said:

This may have already been mentioned and I haven't read the report & it's recommendations

 

A potential factor in this incident that I feel is a simple fix ..............................

 

The CF - Ports & vice versa service is timetabled through Tunnel Junction not too far ahead of the Down Waterloo Service - in my personal experience my train (on time) has been held many times at this signal protecting Tunnel Junction for these trains to clear Tunnel Junction. Surely a simple exercise with the timetable would quickly remove this potential obstruction and the severe consequences of future SPAD's without expensive infrastructure alterations ?

Not really relevant is it?  Unless of course you take the view that trains on one of the routes approaching the junction will always pass the protecting signal at danger if there happens to be another train crossing the junction but that won't happen on the other route approaching the junction?  One of the critical elements of a signalling system is to prevent trains from colliding when conflicting movements are taking place and altering orders of train precedence at a junction are irrelevant in that context.  It is - as already noted - a timetabling matter, not one of collision avoidance.

 

I too will refrain from further comment in reference to the collision because, as I have already pointed out, the Interim Report leaves out a lot more than I would expect the final Report to include.  It is really entering into speculation to discuss either what that might be or, more importantly, to delve into any such detail or reach anything approaching  conclusions (which might or might not be accurate).  I think that if people are inclined to start speculating on the content of the final Report this thread too might have to be locked.

[Nearholmer]

British signalling is based on space, not time interval, and for good reasons, is it not?

 

The report is a good summary of some of the “what”, but barely, if at all, gets to the “whys”, although I have to say that it teed-up a huge number of “whys”, by no means all of which were in my mind before I read it.

 

My gut feeling is that the recommendations could well be very far-reaching when the process eventually arrives at them.

 

 

[phil-b259]

13 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

We went on the Newquay branch before the lockdowns, just for a ride and we were astonished at the undergrowth/tree intrusion on the line, most (and I really mean most) of the time we had bits of branches/leaves coming in through the window vents, you could hear the undergrowth hitting and brushing along the train, I was actually shocked at the state of the line.

 Vegetation management is an issue - but as has been said countless times before everything from the types of weedkiller, politically well connected neighbours to modern H&S practices plus the ever present demands to cut workforce costs mean it’s not as easy as people like to assume it should be.

 

Yes NR could do better - but that requires the ability to run less trains (to provide safe access), employ more people and tell complaining neighbours to get stuffed without MPs wading in.

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Nearholmer said:

 

 

My gut feeling is that the recommendations could well be very far-reaching when the process eventually arrives at them.

 

 

Yes and no.

 

In a nutshell there were no deficiencies with the signalling infrastructure - the focus is squarely on railhead conditions plus braking abilities of stock.

 

As such any ‘wide ranging’ implications will be more procedural (grater priority for RHTTs) better ways of advising drivers of poor conditions in advance etc than large scale infrastructure interventions.

 

What won’t come out is a recommendation to chop down all the line side trees across the UK rail network (though there may be some waffle about vegetation management) or moving signals en mass to protect against wheel side.

[PaulRhB]

I agree leave the speculation and patiently await the report, the interviews are still going on and it’s incredibly thorough and has wholehearted support because of the way it’s being done and handled. 
 

On a positive note I’d like to say thank you to all the locals who provided blankets and food on the night and the church for opening up as a rest centre. There were piles of blankets and food. 
There were takeaways arriving people had just ordered up for the emergency services. A true indication that despite our despondency about the world in general there are still a lot of people out there who will pull together and do their little bit when it goes wrong. 
The disruption of the road over the approach being closed for several days also passed without any real fuss. 
Those people won’t get thanked in any report but it was hugely appreciated and commented on by the staff and rescue crews. 

[AY Mod]

7 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

I agree leave the speculation and patiently await the report, the interviews are still going on and it’s incredibly thorough

 

I think that's a suitable point to lock this again pending the final report.

[AY Mod]

Hopefully, now, the driver affected, Robin Tandy, can look forward to a long and happy retirement from the railway.

 

https://lovesalisbury.co.uk/2022/08/09/veteran-train-driver-retires-with-one-last-drive/?fs=e&s=cl

 

Thanks to @PaulRhB for the alert.