Carlisle Freightliner disaster avoided - Forty years ago today

['CHARD]

Wow! How time flies!  The signalman has been honoured by the naming of a GBRf Class 66/3. It was a fascinating episode too.

 

Story here:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceq3w919xd2o

 

 

[PatB]

What was up with the automatic continuous brakes? Surely they're supposed to come on in the event of a train dividing?

['CHARD]

I need to consult the HMRI report to see what failed here. Research for later over a brew, perhaps!

[Jeremy Cumberland]

If anyone can find the accident report, please post a link, for I can't find one.

 

Other sources say that earlier in the run some of the brakes were dragging and so the train was stopped and these brakes were isolated (closing a valve between the brake pipe and the distributor and draining the air reservoir on the vehicle). Although this renders the brakes on that vehicle inoperative, it won't affect any other vehicles on the train, but perhaps it meant the detached portion no longer had enough brake force to stop on the downhill gradient.

 

This isn't the whole story by any means, because the automatic brake didn't apply on the front portion either, which means that a train pipe isolation valve must have been closed, presumably the one on the last vehicle where the coupling broke. It is conceivable (and I think there have been incidences) that the action of breaking the coupling also closed the valve. Alternatively (and probably the most common cause of runaways) is not opening the train pipe valves in the first place (and not doing a brake continuity test from the rear vehicle), but this seems at odds with the report of the brakes dragging. Perhaps a train pipe valve was closed as part of the investigation into dragging brakes and not reopened.

[keefer]

The Railways Archive has a page for the accident but doesn't have an Official report.

['CHARD]

It's curious that there's no report when so much infrastructure was terminally destroyed!  Not to mention the loss of life that was probably prevented. 

 

Given what Jeremy has explained above, it seems that an investigation into working practices and major re-education and training of staff would have been required.

[APOLLO]

I believe the damage was such that the electrified Carlisle avoiding lines were closed for good. A pity as there is a lot of freight running through Carlisle station these days.

 

Brit15

[jjb1970]

Of particular interest to this forum is that Willie was an extremely accomplished modeller.  Not just railways (he had a garden railway and and avid model railway enthusiast) but ships and probably anything that could be modelled. He had a wonderful large scale scratchbuilt ferry, and a lovely RC Leander class frigate. He also made the famous Matchbox 1/72 kit of the Flower class Corvette as an RC model.

 

I was at school with his youngest son and we were very close friends. I remember Mr Taylor, a lovely man, his shed was every modellers dream. He used to take us to sail his warship flotilla.

 

Considering some asinine locomotive names this is richly deserved (overdue), a wonderful gesture.

[nigb55009]

At the time of the derailment, freight services were in decline. British Rail would have found this a convenient time to "review" whether or not it would be financially viable to repair the 

avoiding lines. It would have been all done without too much fuss. Just let the accident fade away, then announce the closure of the lines. The damage to the bridge over the River Caldew

would have been reason enough. The lines that connected to avoiding lines are still in situ around Currock,Bog and Rome St Junctions. Once the lines closed there seems to have been very little

effort put into removing any of the trackwork, apart from the actual avoiding lines themselves. At the northern end part of the former Down Departure Sidings are also still in use.

 

[woodenhead]

I was watching this video about it yesterday

 

 

['CHARD]

3 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I was watching this video about it yesterday

 

 

 

Yes, that popped up on my Google (?) feed too, obviously the algorithm was working well!

[jjb1970]

As an 80's spotter in Carlisle it made spotting a lot easier.

[woodenhead]

Much gentler curves had they retained the old NBR/NE route that led to the yards too.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

I've found an account elsewhere on the forum:

I don't know how accurate it is, but it seems to be missing some information.

 

If the guard at Weaver Junction never reopened the air valves after reconnecting the brake pipes, the brakes of the rear 10 wagons (of a 15 wagon train) would have been fully applied, something that is almost impossible to imagine, even with 10000 horsepower on the front end (double-headed class 87s).

 

[Daddyman]

Info in the comments here: 

 

[F2Andy]

Possibly a question no one knows the answer to, but how far apart were the two sections of the train as they approached Carlisle? I am wondering how long he had to change the points so one section went one way, and the other a different way.

[Reorte]

Wasn't there some talk a few years ago about possibly reinstating the avoiding lines? They've not been built on with more than the odd bit of car park AFAICT.

 

Also seems odd that a small stub was left, although I suppose on a little-used line it might be easier just to clip the points in place than remove them. But the OHLE masts were removed.

[The Johnster]

If I understand what happened correctly, and I'm not sure I do from the information reported at the time, the train had been running with the rear portion's brakes disconnected and isolated after having had dragging brakes earlier.  Had the proper procedure been followed, a brake continuity test would have established that the brakes were not operating at all and did not leak on on the rear portion, which suggests to me that the brake was isolated throughout that portion not just on one wagon.  It looks as if the brake pipes were disconnected at the front of the trailing portion and the cocks closed, in which case the set would run free but the brakes would begin to leak on after a while

 

The story become plausible once the train clears Shap summit and begins to be braked on the falling gradient towards Carlisle.  The unbraked portion will now buffer up against the braked train, and in this set of circumstances a screw coupling that is stiff, dirty, and inadequately greased can easily lift out of the hook on the adjoining set.  By this time the brakes are

starting to leak on on the rear portion, slowing it, but the weight does not allow it to come to a stand or even a low speed as it approaches the junction.  Thus, as the train arrives at Upperby Bridge Junction, it is in two portions, the front under control but the rear a runaway that is going to hit the front hard when it catches up at Citadel, where it is to stop for relief.  The crew on the loco have no idea anything is wrong at this point.

 

The rear portion is therefore diverted by some very smart work by Mr.Taylor, and comes to grief relatively harmlessly on the avoiding lines, though it leaves a terrible mess.  The guard has definitely let the side down badly, and I do not know if any action was taken against him; it probably should have been, and against the driver if he was not certain that the brake continuity test had been properly carried out.  On the WCML there is pressure to get going and clear the line, but I would have done a continuity test and satisfied myself that the brakes applied and released properly on both bogies of the rear flat, irrespective of what anyone had told me to do, signalman, driver, yard foreman, who cares, this is my job not yours, ferk off and do yours, I'll let the train go without me if I have to but I'm doing this brake test, and we'll see who gets a Form 1 for not obeying procedure.

 

The roots of the incident are in the earlier brake dragging problem, and as the media were more interested at the time with the damage and the hero signalman (fair enough) I never quite understood what had gone wrong.  Was the train put into a loop for attention; if so there is even less excuse!  But there have been other incidents of air-braked trains running away with isolated brakes, some years ago with a Royal Mail train coming down Filton Bank and more recently a Caledonian Sleeper, split at Carstairs and the rear Edinburgh portion running away, apparently because an air pipe cock had been accidentally closed during the operation, possibly by a swinging coupling.  If the continuity test is performed properly every time it should be performed this will not happen as any discrepancy in the procedure will be shown up. which is why the continuity test should always be performed whenever the train brake pipe has been parted for whatever reason and irrespective of a) how well you know the brake to be performing or b) how many times you've done it before and got away with it.  It is one of the few bits of proper railway work left to drivers, guards, and shunters, and should be taken a pride in, though I can see how pressure to get moving in the case of late running may be a problem.

 

On a 70s FLT, the brake continuity test involves the guard or train preparer walking back along the length of the train, a fair schlep with 20 FLT flats, checking that the hoses (there are two, red train brake and yellow reservoir) are coupled and that the pipr cocks are opened between all the vehicles and that the hoses are on their hooks and the pipe cocks closed on the rear of the train.  You then open the red train brake pipe cock, and check that the brakes are applied to the rear flats' bogies, by kicking them and seeing that they are solidly on the wheel.  If your driver is worth his salt, he has noticed the train brake valve drop to zero and acknowledged this by a tip on the rear horn.  You then close the train brake cock, and signal  to the driver to blow the brakes off (pumping handsignal), and while he is doing this you confirm that the bogie brakes have released, by kicking them and seeing that they are hanging loose, dude. 

Edited May 2 by The Johnster

[Titan]

A slight diversion - 2 x class 87 on 15 wagons up Shap - what kind of speed could they maintain on the grade?  Can't have been much below the 75mph max.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

15 minutes ago, F2Andy said:

Possibly a question no one knows the answer to, but how far apart were the two sections of the train as they approached Carlisle? I am wondering how long he had to change the points so one section went one way, and the other a different way.

They'd have to be far enough apart to show an unoccupied track section between them, and indeed, for the track circuit at Upperby Bridge Junction to he unoccupied by either train for Bob Taylor to have changed the points between the two portions.

 

News reports at the time say that the train divided three miles south of Carlisle. This might not be the actual place it happened, just where the first track circuit fault showed up. Looking at the gradient profile, it really has to have been after Plumpton, otherwise I would have expected the 2 miles of level to have caused tha gap to have widened to a detectable distance a lot earlier, but I suppose it depends on how long the track circuits are in that area. In any case, it would have to be after Penrith:

 

[The Johnster]

Depends on what's in the boxes and how heavy they are, and it is alway possible that what's in the boxes isn't always what is said to be in the boxes or the amount of it that is said to be in the boxes, so the load on an FLT is nominal at best.  But I would expect a pair of 87s to clear Shap at over 60 even on a wet rail, and if the load was moderate 75mph is feasible.  The managed 90 singly with passenger trains.

[Michael Hodgson]

12 hours ago, keefer said:

The Railways Archive has a page for the accident but doesn't have an Official report.

That tends to suggest that there wasn;t an HMRI investigation.

If nobody was hurt, I think the criteria at the time were such that a freight train derailment would not have been considered worth investigating, especially if the staff on duty  had handled a runaway safely