Runaways on NYMR and Pontypool & Blaenavon Railway.

[industrial]

Saw this on another forum http://www.bbc.co.uk...-wales-15784150

[craigwelsh]

Yes the discussion was locked down on both National Preservation and wnxx websites to stop speculation.

 

The NYMR has also had a runaway this week of coaching stock damaging a teak coah and disrupting Network Rail, http://railways.nati...html#post446170

 

 

They seem to have got a slightly different story to the official P&B one that 37216 ran away, see http://www.pontypool...0-%20page1.html

[Guest baldrick25]

Discussed in depth, and not locked on "four foot eight and half "forum.

 

http://fourfooteightandahalf.freeforums.org/

[Boris]

It must be Evel Knieval week on heritage railways.

 

Good grief, some strong stuff on that Nat Pres forum. Most of it supposition or incorrect I might add - how can people say what the damage to things are when the engineering team in question hadn't even inspected the vehicle?

[Blandford1969]

i just hope that people on here do not start widley speculating. A good amount of what has already been written on Nat Pres on the subject has already been shown to be wide of the mark. The best thing to do is wait and see what is published at the end of the respective enquiries.

[Boris]

And the wild speculation on Nut Pres has in the past been published as the gospel truth by the railway press.

[Blandford1969]

I think you got it in one 'Nut Pres' - sadly our hobby appears to attract some that hear something and can make sweeping statements without any evidence behind them. Perhaps thats why some key people think most of them are not worth the paper they are written on?

[avonside1563]

It does seem that the heritage railway press enjoy the ease of stories sourced from online forums such as this, NP etc. In particular the article by Mr Wilcox in the latest Steam Railway on Sutherland's livery poll. Very disappointing reporting and, if that is indicative of the way they are obtaining their stories, then their reputation and credibility must eventually suffer!

[steve fay]

Yesterday there was a heavy lift crane in place to rerail the class 31 and industrial shunter.

Do the rail inspectors visit the site now as a mater of cause?

[Fat Controller]

Yesterday there was a heavy lift crane in place to rerail the class 31 and industrial shunter.

Do the rail inspectors visit the site now as a mater of cause?

I believe they visit as a matter of course, but are not obliged to submit a full report or, indeed, any report at all.

If you wish to view the RAIB site, here is a link:-http://www.raib.gov.uk/home/index.cfm

[The Stationmaster]

I believe they visit as a matter of course, but are not obliged to submit a full report or, indeed, any report at all.

If you wish to view the RAIB site, here is a link:-http://www.raib.gov.uk/home/index.cfm

ORR currently has a strong ongoing interest in safety matters on 'heritage & leisure' railways and has the power to close a Railway if it considers that Railway is not doing what it should be doing as far as safety is concerned. Similarly RAIB will investigate incidents if considered of sufficient import and if it does so a formal report must be published (ORR stuff need not be published with the exception of Improvement Notices and various enforcement Notices).

 

As far as the NYMR incident is concerned there are several versions circulating regarding the initial part of the incident and some slight variation on the final part (relating wholly to the extent of damage, or not, to the bridge); I understand that not even NR folk who ought to know about the cause have no knowledge of what really led to the 'runaway' (if indeed it was a runaway). In view of the result with an NR passenger line potentially fouled plus the NYMR's 'previous' I would be surprised if the RAIB do not carry out an investigation and publish a report - the latter probably appearing in 12 months hence although they have occasionally been a bit quicker.

Whether or not ORR need to take any sort of Improvement or Enforcement action in the meanwhile is a separate matter and wholly within the hands of its Inspectors.

[Boris]

ORR currently has a strong ongoing interest in safety matters on 'heritage & leisure' railways and has the power to close a Railway if it considers that Railway is not doing what it should be doing as far as safety is concerned. Similarly RAIB will investigate incidents if considered of sufficient import and if it does so a formal report must be published (ORR stuff need not be published with the exception of Improvement Notices and various enforcement Notices).

 

As far as the NYMR incident is concerned there are several versions circulating regarding the initial part of the incident and some slight variation on the final part (relating wholly to the extent of damage, or not, to the bridge); I understand that not even NR folk who ought to know about the cause have no knowledge of what really led to the 'runaway' (if indeed it was a runaway). In view of the result with an NR passenger line potentially fouled plus the NYMR's 'previous' I would be surprised if the RAIB do not carry out an investigation and publish a report - the latter probably appearing in 12 months hence although they have occasionally been a bit quicker.

Whether or not ORR need to take any sort of Improvement or Enforcement action in the meanwhile is a separate matter and wholly within the hands of its Inspectors.

Damage to the bridge was effectively cosmetic apparently, 20 feet of safety rail damaged and 3 cap stones from the abutment dislodged. As for it being a runaway, the set had no loco attached when it wandered off, so that may rule out a shunting accident.

[papagolfjuliet]

Here's what actually caused the runaway at Grosmont: http://www.nymr.org.uk/Urgent_Safety_Alert_-_111121_-_NYMR_-_Handbrake_linkages.pdf

 

There but for the grace of God...

[noiseboy72]

I would not dream of entering into the discussion around this incident other than to say that on a recent visit to another large heritage line, they were keen to point out they were a commercial railway first and a heritage line second. They claim all their systems and checks are fully compliant with main line operating standards. I am sure most heritage lines have the same aspirations.

[The Stationmaster]

I would not dream of entering into the discussion around this incident other than to say that on a recent visit to another large heritage line, they were keen to point out they were a commercial railway first and a heritage line second. They claim all their systems and checks are fully compliant with main line operating standards. I am sure most heritage lines have the same aspirations.

I sincerely hope they have something rather more concrete than 'aspirations' as they are all required to comply with ROGS so they should all have a Safety Management System and the necessary disciplines in place although the detail of their systems need not be the same as 'main line operating standards' (and many of them would be wasting large sums of money if they were) although they might find it reassuring to think that way. The NYMR is probably currently in the position of having its systems closely examined and it would seem that one area might already have been found to be not exactly as it should be - hence the 'strong hint' to others in the HRA to make sure they have appropriate systems in place (which in fact they should have already). However as far as I'm aware no sort of similar advice has been given to Railways which are not members of the HRA. Alas the NYMR is not the first to come to notice in this respect although one always hopes that the background to such incidents will be the last.

 

As for the other features of this incident and its causes we might see a publicly available report at some time in the future although it is not mentioned, as far as I can see, on the RAIB website but will obviously have been reported to the ORR. Further speculation would obviously be pointless but no doubt the outcome of any investigation will become known at someone time in the future although possibly not in the public arena.

[papagolfjuliet]

As for the other features of this incident and its causes we might see a publicly available report at some time in the future although it is not mentioned, as far as I can see, on the RAIB website but will obviously have been reported to the ORR. Further speculation would obviously be pointless but no doubt the outcome of any investigation will become known at someone time in the future although possibly not in the public arena.

 

AIUI the RAIB has not taken an interest in this case because of the nature of the accident. The NYMR has held an internal review already, chaired by a former member of HM Railway Inspectorate, and this has been passed to the ORR and the HMRI for comment. All of this information is incidentally in the public domain on the NYMR's own forum.

[Happy Hippo]

From an engineering point, I think that as heritage railways are using 'antique' rolling stock, it is only to be expected that as their stock gets ever older, fatigue is going to set in and they are going to get failures of equipment. We are not talking about whole coaches disintegratingat 25 mph, but components that are subjected to frequent stresses and strains. Since some of these components, are not readily visible or accessible, then the chance of the failure will become higher. (I am not suggsting for one minute that heritage railways are sloppy with maintenance or inspections........but when did you last see a wheeltapper checking wheels at say Bridgnorth?

 

I noticed a similar trend amongst older aircraft in the general aviation world. In these cases there seems to be a glut of incidents (usually fatigue related) then it tails off. This reduction coinciding with airframes being scrapped as being beyond economic repair or in some cases where a rebuild is not possible, time expired. Those that remain flying, do so at ever increasing cost to the owner/operator.

 

Regards

 

Richard

[sir douglas]

this was recently posted on facebook..

 

http://www.freak-search.com/en/thread/6067632/nymr_accident_closes_whitby_line

[The Stationmaster]

From an engineering point, I think that as heritage railways are using 'antique' rolling stock, it is only to be expected that as their stock gets ever older, fatigue is going to set in and they are going to get failures of equipment. We are not talking about whole coaches disintegratingat 25 mph, but components that are subjected to frequent stresses and strains. Since some of these components, are not readily visible or accessible, then the chance of the failure will become higher. (I am not suggsting for one minute that heritage railways are sloppy with maintenance or inspections........but when did you last see a wheeltapper checking wheels at say Bridgnorth?

Richard

As rolling stock ages it obviously needs increased maintenance attention and more frequent inspection (which in some respects explains why BR got rid of it) but that should not come as either a problem or a surprise to the operator and should be taken into full account in their SMS and the relevant subordinate documentation and procedures/work instructions etc. However it might be pertinent to mention (as a general comment and not in respect of this case) that experience suggests this area is particularly one where procedures have been found to be weak or lacking on a number of 'heritage' railways - including some with a good public reputation.

[Blandford1969]

........but when did you last see a wheeltapper checking wheels at say Bridgnorth?

 

 

I can't talk for other railways, however the pattern on the SVR is that there is normally 1 set of coaches being maintaned and checked in the carriage shed at Kidderminster weekly. I cannot comment on whether they tap the wheels, only that they pick up quickly on faults and do red card coaches when they feel it is neccessary.

[MarkC]

this was recently posted on facebook..

 

http://www.freak-sea...ses_whitby_line

 

Hmm, that looks like a thread about it that was on NatPres...

[roythebus]

I was given certain information by my manager at the KESR early on this week and told not to mention it as it was confidential. however, As that info has now been made public, what has been mentions confirms what I was told. I also understand the RAIB will not be directly involved as it was a shunting movement, no passengers involved.

 

However, it is likely that the ORR and others will take a keen interest, and that the NYMR insurance premiums are likely to rise as a result!

 

Likening this particular failure to an incident on the Blackpool tramway a while ago where a tram brakes failed ; the RAIB found this was due to the failure of something very simple: the jubilee clips on a rubber brake hose has corroded away allowing the brake pipe to fall off. It's always the simple things that cause disasters.

 

Re the runaway class 37, ISTR the handbrake mechanism on those is similar to that on the Deltics and class 40s, being chain operated from a lever under the cab to the bogie. I believe the hand brake only works on the centre wheels on each bogie.

 

I had a class 40 run away one day in Finsbury Park diesel depot after the driver told me to go in the back cab and take the handbrake off; the handbrake in the other cab was already off and the loco rolled away. Luckily, the driver started the engine and built up enough air to stop the loco which had already see-sawed along the siding a couple of times!

 

So, preserved railway, if you're working on those classes, make sure the wheels are scotched as well!

[PhilJ W]

There is nothing to stop heritage railways using modern testing techniques such as ultrasound testing therefore lessening the need for such as wheel tappers.

[The Stationmaster]

I was given certain information by my manager at the KESR early on this week and told not to mention it as it was confidential. however, As that info has now been made public, what has been mentions confirms what I was told. I also understand the RAIB will not be directly involved as it was a shunting movement, no passengers involved.

 

However, it is likely that the ORR and others will take a keen interest, and that the NYMR insurance premiums are likely to rise as a result!

 

Likening this particular failure to an incident on the Blackpool tramway a while ago where a tram brakes failed ; the RAIB found this was due to the failure of something very simple: the jubilee clips on a rubber brake hose has corroded away allowing the brake pipe to fall off. It's always the simple things that cause disasters.

 

Re the runaway class 37, ISTR the handbrake mechanism on those is similar to that on the Deltics and class 40s, being chain operated from a lever under the cab to the bogie. I believe the hand brake only works on the centre wheels on each bogie.

 

I had a class 40 run away one day in Finsbury Park diesel depot after the driver told me to go in the back cab and take the handbrake off; the handbrake in the other cab was already off and the loco rolled away. Luckily, the driver started the engine and built up enough air to stop the loco which had already see-sawed along the siding a couple of times!

 

So, preserved railway, if you're working on those classes, make sure the wheels are scotched as well!

It was a requirement to scotch stabled EE Type 4s/Class 40s back in BR days as the it was known that the handbrakes were somewhat on the dodgy side.

 

And while I understand - from information in this thread - that the RAIB are not involved in any investigation into the Grosmont shunting incident that does not mean that they have no interest in investigating such incidents. In fact they have in the past investigated and reported on another shunting incident on the NYMR (RAIB Report 29/2007) although that one did involve a collision with vehicles containing passengers, coincidentally it was also an item of Gresley stock.

 

However the ORR are currently directed to have a very strong interest in safety on 'heritage' railways and it is in any case required that the internal report of the inquiry into any reportable incident be copied to them - at which point they will carry out such further investigation and other action as they consider necessary.

[LMS2968]

It was a requirement to scotch stabled EE Type 4s/Class 40s back in BR days as the it was known that the handbrakes were somewhat on the dodgy side.

 

I can confirm that from my time at Edge Hill in 1973. Two things come to mind: a driver complaining at the need to use scotches. "When you tied a steam engine down, it stayed tied down!", and that most drivers forgot to remove the scotches before moving off, so there were numerous piles of splinters all over the stabling point!