Chiltern Railways train stuck for 5 hours

[The Planner]

Mentioned too during this "block" that no LNW service ran to Coventry - one wonders why not as reversing there in the past was straightforward enough.........presume they just went to Rugby....

Engineering trains stacked back to the station?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Is it just me who sees this and thinks the time has come to get rid of the loco hauled?

Presumably, if this had been one of the 16x fleet then they would have been able to rescue it with another train?

You have hit the nail on the head - a locomotive hauled train has always had a single point of failure: the locomotive.

In the case of this weekends failure the engine was overheating and shut down, total failure. In the case of a Diesel Multiple Unit they have more than one engine so total failure is less common and they are more likely to be able to limp on at a reduced speed to the most appropriate place to be taken out of traffic in an organised manner.

 

[E16 Cyclist]

The rescue loco would have come from either Wembley or Stourbridge, most likely the former.

The question is going to be what happened between it leaving Wembley and getting to the failed train that caused it to take so long?

People overlook that Chiltern operates on a two track railway and there was stock impacted both by the broken down train and by signalling problems at the London end of the line

Whilst it’s not excusing the length of time it took it would’ve been a lot more complex than people realise and would’ve been a very large game of chess just getting the rescue loco to the loco

 

[HSTEd]

The sooner the Class 68s are gone the better, and hopefully they don't get dumped on anyone else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The sooner the Class 68s are gone the better, and hopefully they don't get dumped on anyone else.

I'd not say it was a 68 problem, but rather a microfleet and incompatible coupler problem. If everything going to Birmingham was 68s, you'd just buffer up the one behind and shove it out of the way.

Do the 168s not carry an emergency screw coupler adapter? Or is that only designed for moving a failed 168 using a loco rather than being able to do the other way round? (Or would it destroy the transmission to do that? I know a Voyager can pull a Pendolino, I've seen a video of it during testing, but those don't have hydrodynamic transmission).

 

[Topological]

You have hit the nail on the head - a locomotive hauled train has always had a single point of failure: the locomotive.

In the case of this weekends failure the engine was overheating and shut down, total failure. In the case of a Diesel Multiple Unit they have more than one engine so total failure is less common and they are more likely to be able to limp on at a reduced speed to the most appropriate place to be taken out of traffic in an organised manner.

I had of course gone to the point of complete failure. The fact that the DMU/EMU has multiple engines makes complete failure less likely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I had of course gone to the point of complete failure. The fact that the DMU/EMU has multiple engines makes complete failure less likely.

Though there are other things that get trains stuck that have nothing to do with that and tend to result in very long strandings due to poor planning. I had one a few weeks back - nearly 4 hours because of a series of trees down. Didn't even take the power out; trains could have been moved back under hand signalling to platforms to evacuate but weren't.

Fundamentally the railway mostly only cares about operational things when dealing with such an issue - passengers just aren't prioritised. It has always been so.

 

[najaB]

I had of course gone to the point of complete failure. The fact that the DMU/EMU has multiple engines makes complete failure less likely.

Though that does, all things being equal, mean more frequent partial failures.

 

[Topological]

Though there are other things that get trains stuck that have nothing to do with that and tend to result in very long strandings due to poor planning. I had one a few weeks back - nearly 4 hours because of a series of trees down. Didn't even take the power out; trains could have been moved back under hand signalling to platforms to evacuate but weren't.

Fundamentally the railway mostly only cares about operational things when dealing with such an issue - passengers just aren't prioritised. It has always been so.

Or DMUs without enough fuel: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/bridgend-train-failure.250109/ (Does not have a great quote to include, sorry Mods)

There will inevitably be times when things cannot move, but where decisions like microfleets of loco-hauled stock are at play, and there are plausible cascades to maintain capacity, then I think the railway does need to proactively do something about it.

 

[43066]

Fundamentally the railway mostly only cares about operational things when dealing with such an issue - passengers just aren't prioritised. It has always been so.

There’s certain more awareness of the risks of trains being stranded these days, and the risk of people self evacuating. It sounds as though the passengers were evacuated long before the train was moved in this case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Though that does, all things being equal, mean more frequent partial failures.

Or the toleration of them - there are a lot of 80x with an engine out (or two in a 9 car) causing sloppy delays all over the place, but it's accepted because they still move.

There’s certain more awareness of the risks of trains being stranded these days, and the risk of people self evacuating.

In our case there was power (and as it was a long journey I had a book to read and films to watch on my iPad). Had there not been toilet facilities available it would have been very different. That does need to be part of the decision making too. Though I was getting quite dehydrated by the end of it and a request had gone out over the PA for water for someone to take tablets (wouldn't be hard to put a few slabs of mineral water in the old buffet of a 444 just in case, and portable emergency toilets are a thing)...it does just need some thought that it isn't a big train set and does have real people in it.

The other thing in our case was that we were on the SWML fast lines on which there are middle island platforms but they have been allowed to decay to a condition where they aren't even safe for evacuation purposes. Had they been maintained to a basic level (no need to be good enough for routine use, just supervised evacuation from a single door) this would have made things a lot easier.

 

[43066]

In our case there was power (and as it was a long journey I had a book to read and films to watch on my iPad). Had there not been toilet facilities available it would have been very different. That does need to be part of the decision making too. Though I was getting quite dehydrated by the end of it and a request had gone out over the PA for water for someone to take tablets (wouldn't be hard to put a few slabs of mineral water in the old buffet of a 444 just in case)...it does just need some thought that it isn't a big train set and does have real people in it.

Agreed - four hours is extreme. Power and toilet facilities will make all the difference, as was discovered during the “beast from the east”.

 

[najaB]

Fundamentally the railway mostly only cares about operational things when dealing with such an issue - passengers just aren't prioritised. It has always been so.

That just demonstrates that the is a difference between "the passenger" and "passengers".

The railway usually prioritises the latter over the former: the archetypical example being not holding a departing train for a late incoming service because of further delays that would cause further down the line.

In your example, where would the hand signallers have come from? What else might not get done as a result?

People want a reliable, resilient railway that's also cheap - that combination doesn't exist in the real works.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

One aspect of the UK railway that is noticeably different to other European nations‘ networks is the general lack of bi-directional signalling and pairs of facing crossovers on dual-line routes. Go to France, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy… etc etc and you tend to find every route has full bi-di and fully signalled crossovers every 5 miles or so. When I travelled over the Arlberg last Autumn on a Railjet we were about 45 minutes late and yet we still managed to maintain good progress by simply passing the stopping passenger and freight trains via bi-di arrangements. Similarly a failure would cause some minor disruption but does not ‘stop the job’.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That just demonstrates that the is a difference between "the passenger" and "passengers".

The railway usually prioritises the latter over the former: the archetypical example being not holding a departing train for a late incoming service because of further delays that would cause further down the line.

I do get the whole "needs of the many" thing, but equally there's a point where a delay is more than an irritation and where it does justify prioritising a smaller group. I would say it is definitely better to delay five trains' worth of people one hour than one train of people five hours, particularly in the absence of working toilets and water.

I'll be honest - if there had been no toilets (I used them twice in that time I think, despite being heavily dehydrated by the end) I'd have stood up in Court and defended the use of the egress after a while of nothing being done. And dehydration would for some be a situation requiring an ambulance.

Even frequent communication of what was happening and why to the guard (and then us) would have helped. The impression I had was that I was getting more information from Twitter than the guard was being told, which is appalling.

 

[najaB]

Similarly a failure would cause some minor disruption but does not ‘stop the job’.

All that comes at a price.

Reliable, resilient, cheap: pick two.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reliable, resilient, cheap: pick two.

I don't think that's quite true, not least because the first two are related.

Fast, resilient/reliable, cheap is probably your list for railways. You can have all three but it costs a fortune (see HS2).

 

[LordCreed]

Not sure where the five hours came from on this thread.

Evacuation started in under two hours, and was complete an hour later.

 

[najaB]

I don't think that's quite true, not least because the first two are related.

Related but not quite the same.

As I'm using the terms, reliable refers to how the service operates in the absence of disruption and how useful it is. Can I rely on the railway to transport me where I need to go, more or less when I want to go there?

Resilience refers to how much perturbation the system can tolerate before it breaks down, and how quickly can it recover from any breakdowns.

A reliable commuter service is one that has frequent trains, that run to a schedule that is useful for commuters. But if the schedule falls to bits if a single train is one minute late and it takes all day to recover, then it's not resilient.

I could have a very resilient "commuter" service by only running one train a day in each direction and spending the rest of the day doing maintenance on the track and rolling stock. But 99% of my potential customers can't rely on the railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure where the five hours came from on this thread.

Evacuation started in under two hours, and was complete an hour later.

Comparisons with other situations, as well as the thread title stating "Chiltern Railways train stuck for 5 hours"!

If they indeed did start evacuation within two hours in this case, then that's pretty good and should be what happens in every case!

A reliable commuter service is one that has frequent trains, that run to a schedule that is useful for commuters.

Ah, we're working to different definitions.

I'm using railway definitions, where "punctual" = "not late" and "reliable" = "not cancelled". Frequent/useful is a different measure entirely.

 

[najaB]

Not sure where the five hours came from on this thread.

Evacuation started in under two hours, and was complete an hour later.

I believe from people speaking at cross purposes, and making the assumption that a train blocking the line for five hours means that there were passengers on board for five hours.

 

[12LDA28C]

Fenny Compton is hardly the Outer Hebrides. Even if the axles were totally locked up, skates should have allowed the train to be dragged to a nearby loop (e.g. at Kineton) within a couple of hours.

Of course, this is the British rail industry we're talking about... everything takes far longer than it does in sensible countries with well-organised railways.

Have you any idea how long it would take to source wheel skates and get them fitted to a train?! Clearly not.

 

[Horizon22]

Probably this is a rough timeline:

Train failed - 20-45 minutes
Evacuation decision made - 45/60 minutes
Train evacuation started - 2 hours
Train evacuation finished - within 3 hours
Train moved - 5 hours

The technical and long bit is the last one and I’ve seen it take a lot longer than 5 hours (if skates are needed)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Train failed - 20-45 minutes
Evacuation decision made - 45/60 minutes
Train evacuation started - 2 hours
Train evacuation finished - within 3 hours

I think that's pretty respectable, to be honest. I'd have been a lot happier with my SWR experience if it had proceeded like that (and that had been communicated to the guard and onto us). I'd still have missed my flight from Southampton and had to go the next day, but would at least have had a nice afternoon trail running in the New Forest instead of just getting to the hotel at teatime.

 

[LRV3004]

There is still a Thunderbird loco at Rugby ? - used to be - now a bit of prudent planning would have moved that to say Banbury to "protect" the West Midlands traffic which was pretty much all off Marylebone , obviously with qualified and competent staff present. All possible at a cost of course.

Mentioned too during this "block" that no LNW service ran to Coventry - one wonders why not as reversing there in the past was straightforward enough.........presume they just went to Rugby....

Rugby Thunderbird loco has been axed, no longer one there.

 

[12LDA28C]

What exactly is the point of this comment? Hyperbolic criticism of the entire industry, and the entire country, based on one event adds nothing to the situation.



Indeed. It would be interesting to hear some actual facts as to why it took as long as it did rather than the usual rush to judgment.

As I understand it the evacuation took longer than expected due to a wheelchair passenger being on board the failed train, although it was still completed within three hours. Also the rescue loco was not permitted to depart Banbury until the evacuation was complete and all passengers were safely on the other train. Further issues were experienced gaining brake release once the assisting loco had been attached. Not sure who the expert commentators on this thread would like to blame for these particular issues...

Do the 168s not carry an emergency screw coupler adapter? Or is that only designed for moving a failed 168 using a loco rather than being able to do the other way round? (Or would it destroy the transmission to do that? I know a Voyager can pull a Pendolino, I've seen a video of it during testing, but those don't have hydrodynamic transmission).

No.

The sooner the Class 68s are gone the better, and hopefully they don't get dumped on anyone else.

You're not a fan of the proposal for Chiltern to take on the ex-TPE locos and stock then? What alternative would you suggest instead to replace the Mk3 stock which is life-expired?

 

[Falcon1200]

Fenny Compton is hardly the Outer Hebrides. Even if the axles were totally locked up, skates should have allowed the train to be dragged to a nearby loop (e.g. at Kineton) within a couple of hours.

Determining the need for, arranging and fitting wheelskates, adjacent to an open running line in a fairly remote location, is not going to be achieved in two hours, ever. Not anywhere near it.

Not sure where the five hours came from on this thread.

Presumably how long the train stood for, not how long the passengers were trapped for! But saying five hours makes the railway look worse.

 

[Watershed]

Determining the need for, arranging and fitting wheelskates, adjacent to an open running line in a fairly remote location, is not going to be achieved in two hours, ever. Not anywhere near it.

On well-organised railways, it's the kind of thing that's absolutely possible. By British standards, of course, it's considered fast

I was on a train that had a 'one under' in Germany on a multi-track mainline. Despite some bureaucracy (including the police interviewing passengers), trains were passing the site within about an hour, and we were underway after 2 hours.

In this case, it sounds like this was merely a problem with the loco's engine, so there is absolutely no excuse for it to have taken 5 hours to drag the train out of the way.

But saying five hours makes the railway look worse.

The only reasonable route between Birmingham and London that day was shut for 5 hours, with ongoing disruption afterwards. The impact of this on passengers was very significant and the railway deserves every bit of reputational damage it got from this own goal.

 

[43066]

In your example, where would the hand signallers have come from? What else might not get done as a result?

Hand signallers wouldn’t necessarily be required. There are things like wrong direction moves and emergency permissive working but these are also time consuming to implement given that you have one one signaller controlling long areas of track, and dozens or scores of trains. You don’t just start driving trains backwards without signalling protection at the drop of a hat.

As I understand it the evacuation took longer than expected due to a wheelchair passenger being on board the failed train. Also the rescue loco was not permitted to depart Banbury until the evacuation was complete and all passengers were safely on the other train. Further issues were experienced gaining brake release once the assisting loco had been attached. Not sure who the expert commentators on this thread would like to blame for these particular issues...

Thanks. So it sounds as though the train was evacuated promptly, and the move made within a reasonable time given the circumstances. Hence most of the early posts in this thread are shown for what they are; just the usual suspects falling over themselves to criticise and find fault for the sake of it, despite having no knowledge of the situation.

On well-organised railways, it's the kind of thing that's absolutely possible. By British standards, of course, it's considered fast

I was on a train that had a 'one under' in Germany on a multi-track mainline. Despite some bureaucracy (including the police interviewing passengers), trains were passing the site within about an hour, and we were underway after 2 hours.

How charming to use the example of a fatality. Trains in the UK are often on the move again within 1:30.

Cherrypicked comparisons with Germany, and elsewhere, miss the point; as they operate under a totally different legal and regulatory regime (and indeed according to other threads their railway is in a poor state at the moment for various reasons).

 

[Falcon1200]

On well-organised railways, it's the kind of thing that's absolutely possible. By British standards, of course, it's considered fast

I would very much doubt that to be the case on any railway, unless you can provide examples. Or relate your own knowledge and experience of fitting wheelskates?

I was on a train that had a 'one under' in Germany on a multi-track mainline. Despite some bureaucracy (including the police interviewing passengers), trains were passing the site within about an hour, and we were underway after 2 hours.

A fatality is obviously a different kind of incident from that being discussed here and, even here in the UK, every effort is made to get trains moving as quickly as possible. Only when there are exceptional circumstances, such as a suspicion of criminality, are delays excessive.

But I do agree that there was heavy delay, and great inconvenience to passengers. Bi-directional signalling (something which, as a Controller, I argued for, usually without success, until I was blue in the face) would have helped; Albeit both lines would still have been blocked for however long the train-to-train transfer took.