Mishap on GCR

[Bruce Depot]

Out of interest, what has happened with the Loco and stock since? Any repairs in hand yet?

[The Stationmaster]

So once again the legal profession screw things up for the rest of us. I thought the whole point of the RAIB was to simply investigate issues and make recommendations - not apportion blame. If they are being constrained in this by lawyers then its the legal people that need to be dealt with rather than pandered to by shoving everything behind closed doors.

Totally irrelevant I think.  If someone gets hold of a report - which is after all a private document - and uses it to start legal proceedings of some sort they are the ones at fault and not RAIB.  I believe the situation remains that RAIB Reports will be published (but am open to correction should that not be the case) and that is not what is being talked about here.

 

As I have already mentioned the HRA has in place a mechanism for getting the information to its members (although it does not send it to non-members) and while it is not necessarily the best in the world as a system it does do something.  In many cases the heritage industry creates its own problems by, for example, using such ancient things as the BR 1950 Rule Book which fails to take account of much contemporary safety legislation and indeed there have been instances where railways have failed to keep pace with other safety improvements which have come through the RSSB Rule Book (although in its case that requires much sorting of the wheat from the chaff) or more recent changes in legislation.  

 

And of course even if there is no RAIB involvement following an incident it is more than likely that HMRI could start to turn their attentions to both the Railway concerned and the effects and consequences of the incident itself.  HMRI are not slow to take Railways to task over poor, inadequate, or even non-existent SMS (Safety Management Systems) or to indicate to a Railway that its Rule Book, and such things as workshop procedures, do not reflect current standards.  And their Reports are, of course, wholly private unless there happens to be a prosecution.

 

But none of that is really relevant to the question of disclosure and the possible consequences of it where those who lack expertise misunderstand or misread things and start chasing wild geese and red fish - sometimes at considerable expense to the Railway concerned.  Provided lessons learnt are circulated to, and acted on, by those who need to now then that is, in my view and experience more than ample.  Informing the public at large isn't really relevant or, to be honest, useful in many cases.

[ozzyo]

The gears could be interlocked with a device that would not allow any attempt at movement (maybe like on an automatic gearbox)

 

You can get big cables!

 

Keith

Yes both COULD work but!

 

Re: automatic gearboxes: You cannot tow whilst in Park, but you can tow (carefully) whilst in neutral.

The park position on them is very effective.

 

How do the parking brakes on 40 tonne lorries work?

They are quite effective and at 1/3 weight of a diesel loco, not so remote weight wise.

 

Cables stretch - yes, but adjustment mechanisms can take up the slack.

 

The trouble with too may people on here is that they dismiss ideas out of hand without considering how they might be developed.

 

Keith

 

You have just mentioned why it's not a good idea to move an automatic when in parked mode. Now just think about a loco standing there in the yard, another loco comes to buffer up but the driver is a bit heavy on the throttle and a bit light on the brakes. Standing loco moves say 2' . Normal hand brake no harm done. Locked up traction motor using the gears, possible damage to the gears. Trains do get bumped a lot more than road vehicles in the normal day to day running of a railway.

Cables are use on the railway, think of semaphore signals. It's just that things on the running side tend to be over engineered to take out the wear part of the factor.  

Also the class 37 is very similar to 10000/1 in it's design so that goes back to the mid to late 1940s.  

 

" as most preserved railways don't use hand brakes...we are told not too at the GWR as there is too much risk of them being left on as most locomotive types there is no warning, and what you end up with is either a burnt out traction motor or 50 pence piece shaped wheels! And also 99% of the loco's at todd yard are locked so if you need to shunt it you cant gain access."

 

Also how do you burn out a traction motor by leaving on the hand brake (if you watch you ammeters you should see that one traction motor is drawing a lot of power)? CHECK WHY. If your saying that it's on the loco that is under power, then the driver is not fit to drive as he has not checked his loco. Would you drive your car with the hand brake on?

Yes a Diesel may have two hand brakes to remove but that is all down to the driver to check that they are off before moving the loco. 

IIRC the start up proceeder for a diesel is some thing like this,

1] check hand brake is on in one cab, normal the cab that you are going to use to drive the loco,

2] check around loco for any  chocks and remove them,

3] start main engine and build up air/vacuum apply main brakes,

4] check "BOTH" hand brakes are off,

Most driver that I knew would check the hand brake was off in the second cab at No2.

 

A very sweeping statement. To say that "most preserved railways don't use hand brakes"

 

This just sound like a very dangerous practice. If the loco / stock are locked (good practice) and are in a planed shunt why not just unlock them and release the hand brake.

Or is it owner "A" wants to play trains and do some 'shunting' ie. just wants to move some stock / locos about in a random fashion.

 

Out of interest how do you stop them running away?

Do all the lines have buffer stops at the downhill side of the line? 

Scotches "bricks" both can be used as a secondary method of parking brake, but one of the problems with them is that they can be removed when they should not be.

 

When I was working on a preserved line, Rule one all stock must have it's hand brake applied when parked, if it's not fitted with a hand brake it should be coupled to a vehicle that is.

 

A hand brake on a Mk1 brake will stop a six coach train running away, but may not stop one when it has run away!

 

Better to have the hand brake on to start with, I think.

 

OzzyO.       

[11B]

 

When I was working on a preserved line, Rule one all stock must have it's hand brake applied when parked, if it's not fitted with a hand brake it should be coupled to a vehicle that is.

 

A hand brake on a Mk1 brake will stop a six coach train running away, but may not stop one when it has run away!

 

Better to have the hand brake on to start with, I think.

 

OzzyO.       

 

Hi  Ozzyo,

Is that the one that I go to? If so, that is still the case. From what I remember, the last time it was quoted in my presence it was something along the line of

 

"If you move it then it is your responsibility to check all the handbrakes of taken off, and put back on. If it doesn't have one couple it to some thing that does, and that the brake is on on that as well! and don't forget to check for scotches!! If it gets broken, we well all end you in the s##t, but the last one(s) to be involved in moving it will be in deeper that the rest of us...."

 

Ian

[ozzyo]

Hi  Ozzyo,

Is that the one that I go to? If so, that is still the case. From what I remember, the last time it was quoted in my presence it was something along the line of

 

"If you move it then it is your responsibility to check all the handbrakes of taken off, and put back on. If it doesn't have one couple it to some thing that does, and that the brake is on on that as well! and don't forget to check for scotches!! If it gets broken, we well all end you in the s##t, but the last one(s) to be involved in moving it will be in deeper that the rest of us...."

 

Ian

That sound like the new version from  from chairman M#### sounds like don't F### up or I'll have your B###'s for breakfast. Yum yum lambs sweet meats for breakfast. Fried on the shovel.

 

I'll be in Carnforth on Sun on my way home. Fancy a pint or seven? In the Snug?

 

OzzyO.

[roythebus]

Any railway that issues an instruction, verbal or written, not to apply a handbrake when leaving stock unattended should not be in the business of running a railway.

 

A for Ozzyo's preparing a loco, I'd suggest on a diesel with 2 handbrakes, make sure at least one of them is applied; if it's a class 40 make sure they are BOTH applied (see my thread elsewhere as to what happens when you don't); leave scotches in place and handbrakes on until the loco has built up enough air or vacuum to apply the loco brake.

 

Please take note from the professional railwaymen who frequent this forum!

[pheaton]

Apologies, my post is a little misleading... so I have deleted it, its the owners rather than the railway itself that seem to prefer scotch rather then handbrake for diesels.... steam you can always get to the handbrake so there is no excuse...out on the running line in the event of failure the handbrake would always be applied. If you had to leave for any period of time the guard would apply his handbrake, along with the train brake being applied as well as the straight air....making sure you lef the master controller in engine only.....not off.

 

The keys are always availiable so we can gain access if required.

 

maybe the outcome of the this, is the use of handbrakes will be rigoursly enforced.

[Boris]

If most preserved railways don't use handbrakes why did the HRA/RAIB issue advice to check handbrakes after the two run away incidents 3 years ago?

 

And the use of handbrakes might be why the SVR have valves attached to the handbrakes to stop vacuum being created with the handbrake applied.

[PhilH]

"most preserved railways don't use hand brakes"

 

Sorry matey, only one way to say this...nonsense.

[Blandford1969]

Apologies, my post is a little misleading... so I have deleted it, its the owners rather than the railway itself that seem to prefer scotch rather then handbrake for diesels.... steam you can always get to the handbrake so there is no excuse...out on the running line in the event of failure the handbrake would always be applied. If you had to leave for any period of time the guard would apply his handbrake, along with the train brake being applied as well as the straight air....making sure you lef the master controller in engine only.....not off.

 

The keys are always availiable so we can gain access if required.

 

maybe the outcome of the this, is the use of handbrakes will be rigoursly enforced.

If you have saftey concerns these should be raised internally on your railway and you should give them the opportunity to put such things right. Comments can be taken out of the meaning and can result in problems.

 

As you know the Railway Inspectorate are taking a much harder look at the operation of preserved railways.

 

It also really concerns me that sweeping statements like handbrakes not being applied was across the industry to suggest it without facts is getting into water which I am not sure someone would want to. They are also untrue. Handbrakes are applied on the SVR and as Borris says the gaurds vans have valves to prevent coaches being dragged as you cannot get a full vacuum. Indeed chocks are also used in some sidings in addition. Quite simply anyone failing to apply a handbrake when leaving a vehicle would be in breach of the rules.

[pheaton]

Blandford, your very and I agree, if anything ive learnt from this to explain a little carefully next time what I mean.

[andyram]

Like others have mentioned before it can be very damaging to speculate without all of the facts!

[Boris]

"most preserved railways don't use hand brakes"

 

Sorry matey, only one way to say this...nonsense.

And somebody clicked disagree with that?!?!?!?!?!

[Swindon 123]

Well said that man

 

Though all this talk of parking brakes has made me mildly curious* - how do the parking brakes on modern traction work - can any of our FOC members help? We have established BR diesels had a simple wheel linked to the brake shoes by a chain, but. How do they do it on the 66s, 67s, 68s and 70s?

 

There is also the follow on question about units of course as I imagine the technology has moved on there too.

 

*As a stand alone subject

With regards to modern traction I can only talk about the class 66 and can state the handbrake on them was next to useless. Shortly after they came into use there were edicts going out on handbrake failures and that they had to be scotched. No better than the 40's and in later years the 37's. In general when prepping a loco I left the handbrake on until I was ready to move the loco. Except on 40's you could usually rely on the handbrake being on in one cab to hold the loco on the gradients locos where stabled on. One exception to this was for a loco stabled in the headshunt at Finsbury Park which was almost at the station and on quite a grade. All locos where supposed to be scotched when stabled there as they could get up to quite a rate of knots before they reached the shed if they ran away. In later years the edict on 37's was to apply both handbrakes but I had at least one loco that started to move on me when testing the brakes on a slight grade and both handbrakes were on. Shortly after this the edict came out to scotch them as well as applying both handbrakes. Most of the problems by that time where lack of maintenance on them.

 

Paul J.

[sixteen 12by 10s]

Some preserved railways don’t use handbrakes on diesels, because ……… If an owning group wants to secure the loco, from the likes of metal thieving scumbags, then the cab doors have to be locked, so access to the handbrake is not available. Access to the Handbrake at all times, may be a requirement during shunting moves, and this would be an organizational nightmare, with whoever is doing the shunt requiring the keys to all the locked locos. Scotching the loco with the handbrake off is the best option, it is also wise to trap the wheel against the downhill scotch, to stop the “children” getting the scotch out and causing a runaway.

[The Stationmaster]

Some preserved railways don’t use handbrakes on diesels, because ……… If an owning group wants to secure the loco, from the likes of metal thieving scumbags, then the cab doors have to be locked, so access to the handbrake is not available. Access to the Handbrake at all times, may be a requirement during shunting moves, and this would be an organizational nightmare, with whoever is doing the shunt requiring the keys to all the locked locos. Scotching the loco with the handbrake off is the best option, it is also wise to trap the wheel against the downhill scotch, to stop the “children” getting the scotch out and causing a runaway.

In my view that is a very poor, and potentially dangerous, practice.  While some diesels, notably the EE Type 4/Class 40, have very poor handbrakes and therefore must be scotched (in addition to the handbrake being applied) the possibilities of a runaway are greatly increased if a loco does not have the handbrake applied as it needs very little force from a movement unintentionally coming into contact with it to crush or displace a scotch.  Don't forget we are talking about locos which might weigh 100 tons or more and judging by the number of crushed, split, or 'squeezed out' scotches you could see on some depots back in BR days I definitely would not place any reliance at all on them preventing a loco from being moved if something gives it so much as a gentle tap.

 

Add to that the fact that shunting around stock is probably one of the most risky things done on most heritage railways where some of those involved might not be used to such work and you are simply increasing the potential for something to go wrong and for equipment, infrastructure, and people to get damaged or hurt.  It is certainly a practice I would condemn outright if I were to come across it on an operational safety audit.

 

And in reality there is no need for it.  Unless locks have been changed BR diesel door locks were to a common pattern and there is a very simple answer of leaving keys available to those doing any shunting as well as ensuring that as part of their training and qualification they are well aware that the handbrakes will have been applied on diesel locos and will have to be released before the locos can be moved.  If they aren't capable of doing that then they shouldn't be qualified to shunt.  I'm sorry but unless people are able to abide by very basic safety procedures and operating Rules they shouldn't be allowed to do the work - and that isn't me speaking, it's the law of the land (and, it would seem from past experience, the view of the regulating authority). 

[Sam Moss]

At Butterley, common user loco's are generally hand braked as access to the cab is provided easily. On privately owned loco's the hand brakes are left off and are scotched securely making sure the downhill end scotch can't be taken out my kids etc etc. This is an accepted practise that has been risk assessed and accepted by ORR/HMRI. It would be an absolute nightmare to have keys for all loco's and even more so making sure they are locked up again properly in case the railway has a visit from the thieves. Pretty much all loco's have had their locked changed from the standard BR No.1 key as these are just far to easy to come by. Before suggesting its unsafe and bad practise, maybe consider that the railways carrying out the above practise actually have experience of its safe use and it has actually been deemed safe for use by the railway inspectorate and internal risk assessing.

 

Most people know what happened when the handbrake got left on 31 271 after the first abortive convoy move at 5am in the morning. It went a few days later with hand brake rubbing as nobody checked it was fully off due to the policy of not using handbrakes on diesel loco's (a non Butterley bloke applied it) It ended up setting hot axle box detectors off and being dumped at Thirsk with serious flats, being road transported back to Butterley, clattering down the Butterley branch and resulted in DB paying out for new tyres on a couple of wheel sets! Oh and the year it was out of traffic!

[Sam Moss]

By the sound of it the 37 ran away due to the fact it was secured on the straight air brake and then the drivers key was taken out. This shuts down the desk but also stops the compressors from running, hence air leaked off and it went for a trundle on its own.

[The Stationmaster]

At Butterley, common user loco's are generally hand braked as access to the cab is provided easily. On privately owned loco's the hand brakes are left off and are scotched securely making sure the downhill end scotch can't be taken out my kids etc etc. This is an accepted practise that has been risk assessed and accepted by ORR/HMRI. It would be an absolute nightmare to have keys for all loco's and even more so making sure they are locked up again properly in case the railway has a visit from the thieves. Pretty much all loco's have had their locked changed from the standard BR No.1 key as these are just far to easy to come by. Before suggesting its unsafe and bad practise, maybe consider that the railways carrying out the above practise actually have experience of its safe use and it has actually been deemed safe for use by the railway inspectorate and internal risk assessing.

 

Most people know what happened when the handbrake got left on 31 271 after the first abortive convoy move at 5am in the morning. It went a few days later with hand brake rubbing as nobody checked it was fully off due to the policy of not using handbrakes on diesel loco's (a non Butterley bloke applied it) It ended up setting hot axle box detectors off and being dumped at Thirsk with serious flats, being road transported back to Butterley, clattering down the Butterley branch and resulted in DB paying out for new tyres on a couple of wheel sets! Oh and the year it was out of traffic!

Just for information, apart from more years of railway operating experience than I care to remember, I am trained and qualified in railway operational audit (Lloyd's Register as it happens when I worked for them), am an experienced railway risk assessor (having carried out such work for that same company in the past including overseas) and have a wealth of experience in not only investigating incidents but in drafting Rules & Instructions (for, in the past, BR, NR, and others, to prevent such things happening).  So perhaps you would like to consider that before impugning my competence or abilities?

 

And as a matter of interest I have yet to see a letter from a member of the Inspectorate confirming that they accept vehicles being stabled without the handbrake being applied because certainly the on two occasions when I have had any dealings with them in that respect they were strongly against it and one in fact insisted it should be in a Rule Book I write (back in the 1980s).  However I will  check with the several former Inspectors who I know to see if any of them were aware of such concessions.  

 

Incidentally do I recall a letter about securing vehicles coming out from the HRA after the incident on the NYMR?  Oh, and when did HMRI start carrying out risk assessments for heritage railways - as far as I'm aware they are specifically excluded from doing that as it counts as 'consultancy' - which they are not allowed to do and haven't been for a considerable time now (and prior to that they didn't do RAs anyway).

 

Edit to correct typo.

[Richard E]

This is now being investigated by the RAIB who have the following on their website at http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/current_investigations_register/140512_loughborough_central.cfm. Some of the information in this post will show that a lot of the speculation on this thread may have been misguided:

 

 

RAIB is investigating a collision that occurred at around 12:35 hrs on Monday 12 May 2014 between an unmanned runaway train and a set of five coaches that was stabled on the down main line about 450 metres on the approach to Loughborough Central station. Nobody was injured as a result of the collision, although significant damage was sustained by some of the rail vehicles involved. The GCR was not open to the public when the collision occurred.

The train consisted of a Class 37 locomotive coupled to a single preserved Travelling Post Office (TPO) coach. It ran away on the down main line, with the TPO coach leading, from a position opposite Quorn signal box for a distance of about 1.8 miles (2.9 km) before the collision occurred.

The incident train following the collision

The RAIB’s preliminary examination has shown that the locomotive had been used during the morning of 12 May to undertake shunting operations within a section of line, around 4.4 miles (7 km) in length, that was closed to normal railway traffic (ie it was under a ‘possession’). As part of these shunting operations, the locomotive had been coupled to the TPO coach, although the braking systems of the locomotive and coach were not connected.

At around 11:50 hrs, the train was left unattended on the down main line opposite Quorn signal box (still within the possession). At this location the line has a 1 in 330 gradient, descending towards Loughborough. This descending gradient becomes steeper beyond Quorn before reducing and subsequently levelling out on the approach to where the collision occurred.

Evidence suggests that, before leaving the train unattended, the crew applied the locomotive’s air brakes, shut-down its engine and applied a single wheel scotch (also known as a chock) underneath one of the locomotive’s wheels. Neither of the two parking brakes (also known as hand brakes) on the locomotive were applied (the TPO coach is not equipped with a parking brake). While the train was unattended it ran away in the direction of Loughborough and exited the possession. Fortunately, no staff were working on the portion of line over which the train ran away.

The set of five coaches which was struck by the train had been stabled on the down main line outside of the possession and within the station limits of Loughborough Central station. The set had been secured by the parking brake of one of its coaches.

The RAIB’s investigation is independent of any investigation by the Office of Rail Regulation.

RAIB will publish its findings, including any recommendations to improve safety, at the conclusion of its investigation. These findings will be available on the RAIB website.

 

[avonside1563]

 

Incidentally do I recall a letter about securing vehicles coming out from the HRA after the incident on the NYMR?  Oh, and when did HMRI start carrying out risk assessments for heritage railways - as far as I'm aware they are specifically included from doing that as it counts as 'consultancy' - which they are not allowed to do and haven't been for a considerable time now (and prior to that they didn't do RAs anyway).

 

Mike, I presume you meant to say 'excluded' in the last paragraph?

 

Completely agree with all your comments regarding handbrakes and their use.

[The Stationmaster]

 

 

Mike, I presume you meant to say 'excluded' in the last paragraph?

 

Completely agree with all your comments regarding handbrakes and their use.

 

I did indeed - and have now amended it thanks.

[PhilH]

It will be interesting to see if the RAIB give a 'that's alright then' to the fact that the handbrakes were left off on the thing that ran away.

 

I could be wrong, it has been known, but I have my doubts on that score....

[Boris]

It will be interesting to see if the RAIB give a 'that's alright then' to the fact that the handbrakes were left off on the thing that ran away.

 

I could be wrong, it has been known, but I have my doubts on that score....

 

I suspect they'll take the line it's there so they should be using it.  In my opinion it's like saying I won't use a lever collar because its inconvenient, these things are provided for a reason, even if they aren't totally effective.

[Oldddudders]

While I am by no means in Stationmaster's league when it comes to rules and regulations - having not been examined, or been required to be so, for more than 30 years, when I ceased to be Operating Assistant for the South Eastern Division - some of the cavalier practices being touted as the norm in this thread are distinctly disturbing. The idea that the mere owner of a loco can dictate terms to the railway upon whose rails - and within whose Safety Case - it reposes, is frankly ludicrous.

 

If this is just the thin end of a very large wedge of safety-related "normal practices" in the preservation sector, it is only a matter of time before something deeply nasty happens. This train ran away for a distance of 1.8 miles. How many foot crossings and other interfaces with the real world might there be in such a distance? I predict the ripples from this unfortunate pebble in the pond may spread quite a long way - and a good thing, too.