Good advertising but would any sort of laser mapping have been able to forecast a large month of mainly dry hot weather followed by a very large downpour of rain which may have disturbed the ground and made this landslide?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Derailment near Watford Junction (16 September 2016)
- Thread starter jon01
- Start date
- Status
Good advertising but would any sort of laser mapping have been able to forecast a large month of mainly dry hot weather followed by a very large downpour of rain which may have disturbed the ground and made this landslide?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Nym
Established Member
350 264 is in Watford Yard...
Cab is now in plastic
Only significant damage appears to be to the DM.
QueensCurve
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,978
Down Main?
Driving Motor (standard open)
QueensCurve
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,978
Many thanks.
Nym
Established Member
Zoidberg
Established Member
From the RAIB announcement of it investigating at
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/derailment-and-collision-watford-tunnel
Could have been so much worse without the emergency comms facility.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/derailment-and-collision-watford-tunnel
Could have been so much worse without the emergency comms facility.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
It has been published on a Yahoogroup this morning by a member of LM staff quoting official internal sources that:
* 350 117 is now back in service.
* 350 233 will be removed from Northampton tomorrow on four low loaders to go back to the Siemens factory for assessment and possible repair.
* 350 264 will be removed from Watford in the next few days by four low loaders, also for the Siemens factory, and is most likely a write off to be withdrawn.
* 350 117 is now back in service.
* 350 233 will be removed from Northampton tomorrow on four low loaders to go back to the Siemens factory for assessment and possible repair.
* 350 264 will be removed from Watford in the next few days by four low loaders, also for the Siemens factory, and is most likely a write off to be withdrawn.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 12,249
Withdrawn and scrapped, or withdrawn and rebuilt?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Is that likely to mean one more Class 319 then?
XCTurbostar
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 2,134
I think its highly unlikely that a 350 will be scrapped. The need for it is very high.
Thanks,
Ross
Thanks,
Ross
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
I do suspect it may be rebuilt eventually, but the posting specifically stated that the cost of repair would be greater than the value of the unit so it could go either way. Apparently while it has been parked up at Watford yard, it's not just the exterior that has been covered in graffiti but the inside as well, plus a lot of the cab fittings have been stolen.
Makes you wonder about the security and CCTV given that the yard is literally opposite the platforms...
Andrew1395
Member
The exterior will be a vinyl that would be replaced anyway? Stick it on the Abbey branch. You only need one cab with controls and the guard can control the reverse.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The article says the collision between the two trains happened approx. 2 minutes after the derailment of the first.
It then mentions the emergency driver communications that allowed the northbound train to slow significantly before the impact.
What I don't quite understand is whether the signalling system (brand new at Watford) was able to detect the derailment and turn signals to danger automatically, irrespective of driver action.
The northbound train must have been near Watford Jn station when the derailment happened.
I'm just interested to know how "intelligent" the modern signalling system is with an incident of this kind.
Otherwise everything depends on driver actions, which in this case appear to have prevented a much more serious collision.
It then mentions the emergency driver communications that allowed the northbound train to slow significantly before the impact.
What I don't quite understand is whether the signalling system (brand new at Watford) was able to detect the derailment and turn signals to danger automatically, irrespective of driver action.
The northbound train must have been near Watford Jn station when the derailment happened.
I'm just interested to know how "intelligent" the modern signalling system is with an incident of this kind.
Otherwise everything depends on driver actions, which in this case appear to have prevented a much more serious collision.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm not clear how a signalling system could detect a derailment where not all axles were off the road.
The signalling system itself couldn't help, not using normal train detection methods. I'd like to know if any sensors on the fairly modern train could detect a derailment through unusual forces being experienced however. It can't be beyond the realms of possibility, if such an event could be detected on board, that the alarm could be relayed automatically through GSM-R, and could initiate emergency stops for other traffic in the vicinity.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
No, but the train itself would know all was not well and can report problems remotely.
Does the driver emergency activation also inform the signaller, so he/she can take action?
Just clutching at straws really.
The idea of an inevitable collision taking 2 minutes to unfold is quite chilling, like the Thorpe accident in 1874.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, but the problem is false positives grinding the network to a halt on a daily basis.
The GSM-R red button automatically informs all other trains directly, AIUI - no need for the signaller to do anything at all.
The thing is, it can take a long time to stop a train from linespeed. The GSM-R red button was activated, and the train was already slowing. This is why the collision's severity was reduced substantially.
Even at very low speed a train has a lot of kinetic energy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Possibly - but the driver did do exactly this using the "red button", hence the reduced impact of the collision. At full linespeed the collision could have been far worse.
Could the train have detected it more quickly? Possibly, but you're talking a couple of seconds I expect. The driver and guard (remember, these are double manned) will notice a problem quite quickly.
Last edited:
SpacePhoenix
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 5,491
Could tilt sensors be added to trains so that if a tilt of more then a certain amount is detected, an emergency GSM-R call gets made? Probably won't catch every derailment but would hopefully catch the worst ones
mikestone1952
Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 285
The report on the 350s did state that they are to receive four more 319s.
;
My thoughts are that may be two replacements plus two to cover the 350s ordered for Bromsgrove but already diagrammed elsewhere?
;
My thoughts are that may be two replacements plus two to cover the 350s ordered for Bromsgrove but already diagrammed elsewhere?
theageofthetra
On Moderation
The speed of reaction of the driver in hitting the GSMR Stop should be commended. Every second of delay would have increased the speed and severity of the subsequent collision.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Don't know, but it's to LM's credit that they are doing this rather than just short-forming and saying "suck it up, we're using all our trains" as I think some TOCs might, naming no names
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Agreed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That kind of thing could work; another thing that could would be to have some kind of "trip cable" between coaches that would break easily and trigger an alarm if broken, possibly well before the actual inter-coach cables fail, and some kind of shock sensors.
That's adding a lot of complexity - read cost to install and maintain - to deal with a very low probability event. If anything, spend the money on monitoring the infrastructure to stop the event happening in the first place.
That would be a good investment. Too much complexity could lead to unreliability if the normal running of trains requires so many safeguards and so much real time sensor monitoring on board, and the default response is not just to stop this train as in the the traditional behaviour of continuous brakes but, by extending the automatic response, to stop all trains in the vicinity. The system would have to be ultra-reliable and finely adjusted to avoid false positives. Unlike the highly dynamic on board environment, the infrastructure (hopefully) moves around to a lesser extent so technically it should be easier to monitor. If the infrastructure starts to move in unexpected ways I'd say alarms should be relayed automatically to signalling where that's possible, changing signals to red and sending emergency stop messages to trains in the area.
carriageline
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 1,897
Wow, Of course there is!! The REC call is primarily for the signallers benefit (in the sense that the driver pushes the red button, a very high priority call is made to the signaller to inform THEM of the circumstances. All other trains get some sort of alarm(?) in the cab telling them to stop, and can hear and partake in the call if need be)
It's absolutely no different from a member of staff ringing on the SPT to report a derailment. Signals MUST go back to danger to protect it and any attempts to stop trains must be made. GSMR is a good system, but it doesn't always work like it should. You can't just sit there and hope trains come to a stand with green signals leading into a derailed train!!!
The signaller may also need to get the juice off in an emergency etc. The signallers are still the guardians of the railway, I think people underestimate what we do. As technology moves on, the job doesn't change. Ok, ARS may be moving trains for us, but the potential areas of control are now much, much larger than before. ARS moves trains, it isn't programmed to stop them. As soon as something adverse happens, it gets turned off and back to "hands on"
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the signaller had nothing to do, quite the opposite as you say. The point I was making was that the signal to stop goes to all trains automatically rather than just to the signaller who then has to relay it.
I must admit to being surprised it doesn't automatically throw all signals to danger as well, though.
I must admit to being surprised it doesn't automatically throw all signals to danger as well, though.
tsr
Established Member
Yes, it most definitely is an alarm! In my experience it will also cut out audio from cab-to-cab / radio conversations and default to the emergency call, often at a heightened volume. Not sure how that may vary by traction or GSM-R equipment, including software.
Although it seems like it, it's not so much communication "between trains" as "between incident train and signaller, also created as a radio call in active cabs everywhere in a given radius". My understanding is that the equipment on the train involved in the incident doesn't really know or care if it's broadcasting between itself and other trains, though the radio call would involve any if need be.
- Status