Train Hits Buffers at Brighton

[Darandio]

Quite agree. Some of the silliest mistakes I make on Train Simulator at at low speed.

I wouldn't mention it if I were you!

Many seem to get very defensive on here if commercial train simulation is mentioned in the same breath as real driver safety/training. No correlation apparently.

 

[Bromley boy]

I wouldn't mention it if I were you!

Many seem to get very defensive on here if commercial train simulation is mentioned in the same breath as real driver safety/training. No correlation apparently.

Ironically the latest commercial sims look a good deal more realistic than the sims used during driver training.

 

[rebmcr]

I wouldn't mention it if I were you!

Many seem to get very defensive on here if commercial train simulation is mentioned in the same breath as real driver safety/training. No correlation apparently.

IIRC, hasn't that software been used with custom routes as part of real-life training courses?

 

[Darandio]

IIRC, hasn't that software been used with custom routes as part of real-life training courses?

Yeah, it's part of the initial Crossrail training program. Originally it was simply because the sheer amount of drivers being recruited couldn't work with one or two full size simulators, at least on the initial basic training, so there are several desks in the classroom.

Not sure if that was expected to be it, but now other TOC's have taken an interest.

 

[Phil.]

I've been told that when the TPWS ovespeed grids were first installed at terminal platforms they were set at 5mph so the problem was even worse. Can anyone confirm?

It became worse in the last days of the slammers because trains were now approaching the stops at slower speeds than they were previously causing impatient punters to open the doors and step out. There were several falling and tripping accidents that were blamed on this at Waterloo.
A fine example of when so-called safety measures had the opposite effect.

 

[Bromley boy]

It became worse in the last days of the slammers because trains were now approaching the stops at slower speeds than they were previously causing impatient punters to open the doors and step out. There were several falling and tripping accidents that were blamed on this at Waterloo.
A fine example of when so-called safety measures had the opposite effect.

Amazing how the culture has changed. It's only 10 years or so since passengers were trusted to operate non-centrally locking doors that could be opened at any time. That would be totally unthinkable these days.

Am I right in thinking even "heritage"' charter slam door stock running on the main line is now required to be fitted with central locking?

 

[Railsigns]

I've been told that when the TPWS ovespeed grids were first installed at terminal platforms they were set at 5mph so the problem was even worse. Can anyone confirm?

The buffer stop TPWS loops were never set at 5 mph. Originally they were set at 10 mph; however, owing to a timing issue that frequently resulted in unwarranted TPWS interventions at low speed, an instruction was issued (in September 2001), requiring drivers to reduce speed to less than 5 mph over the buffer stop TPWS loops. As a permanent solution to the timing problem, TPWS 'mini-loops' were introduced, following a trial at London Bridge late in 2001. In 2006, the standard set speed of TPWS buffer stop loops was increased from 10 mph to 12.5 mph to provide drivers with a small margin when judging their speed.

 

[Bromley boy]

The buffer stop TPWS loops were never set at 5 mph. Originally they were set at 10 mph; however, owing to a timing issue that frequently resulted in unwarranted TPWS interventions at low speed, an instruction was issued (in September 2001), requiring drivers to reduce speed to less than 5 mph over the buffer stop TPWS loops. As a permanent solution to the timing problem, TPWS 'mini-loops' were introduced, following a trial at London Bridge late in 2001. In 2006, the standard set speed of TPWS buffer stop loops was increased from 10 mph to 12.5 mph to provide drivers with a small margin when judging their speed.

Great thanks for this, very interesting.

 

[GW43125]

There are DMUs serving Brighton. I believe they usually serve platforms further over than the one where the incident happened but strange things do happen when it comes to allocating platforms!

The GW 158s come in off the West Coastway so can only use 1/2/3 but the 171s from the Marshlink can use any of 3-8.

 

[Sunset route]

The GW 158s come in off the West Coastway so can only use 1/2/3 but the 171s from the Marshlink can use any of 3-8.

There were no DMUs around that day on the platform in question and I can't remember the last time a Marshlink service used anything other than platforms 6-8, we'll certainly not on any shift I've worked recently.

 

[pompeyfan]

Ironically the latest commercial sims look a good deal more realistic than the sims used during driver training.

SWT are currently using a version of the MSTS from years ago on the LSWR for a training program refresher for drivers and their new advisory system.

 

[Hophead]

Was the train booked to receive an attachment? Or another train expected to come in behind? These are both common occurrences at Brighton, so the driver may have needed to get closer to the buffers than would have been the case otherwise.

 

[paul1609]

The GW 158s come in off the West Coastway so can only use 1/2/3 but the 171s from the Marshlink can use any of 3-8.

Marshlink Services nearly always use 7 in my experience. Using 4 would require a conflicting move across all the London services.

 

[GW43125]

Marshlink Services nearly always use 7 in my experience. Using 4 would require a conflicting move across all the London services.

Not saying it wouldn't, I just said what was physically possible.

 

[Sunset route]

Was the train booked to receive an attachment? Or another train expected to come in behind? These are both common occurrences at Brighton, so the driver may have needed to get closer to the buffers than would have been the case otherwise.

Not on this occasion. The service is not booked to attach or have anything else attach to it.

 

[swt class 450]

There are DMUs serving Brighton. I believe they usually serve platforms further over than the one where the incident happened but strange things do happen when it comes to allocating platforms!

Over just the past four months i have seen DMUs use all eight of the platforms at Brighton station. Especially with the usual ongoing disruption trains often use other platforms.

 

[redbutton]

The buffer stop TPWS loops were never set at 5 mph. Originally they were set at 10 mph; however, owing to a timing issue that frequently resulted in unwarranted TPWS interventions at low speed, an instruction was issued (in September 2001), requiring drivers to reduce speed to less than 5 mph over the buffer stop TPWS loops. As a permanent solution to the timing problem, TPWS 'mini-loops' were introduced, following a trial at London Bridge late in 2001. In 2006, the standard set speed of TPWS buffer stop loops was increased from 10 mph to 12.5 mph to provide drivers with a small margin when judging their speed.

The Southern (and by extension Gatwick) Professional Driving Policy calls for no more than 15mph at the platform end ramp, dropping to no more than 6mph over the TPWS loops. I've heard that this collision was much slower than that.

Partly, but it's just a basic requirement to stop as close to the buffers as possible - there is no reason to stop anywhere else in normal circumstances (whether another train needs to berth or not).

Nope. Six feet from the stops, always. (Unless a stop board is provided for the formation.)

Was the train booked to receive an attachment? Or another train expected to come in behind? These are both common occurrences at Brighton, so the driver may have needed to get closer to the buffers than would have been the case otherwise.

It doesn't matter. You always stop the train six feet from the stops (or another train if calling on), except in certain locations where stop boards are provided for certain formations, usually to ensure signal or DOO equipment sighting at the other end, or prevent the cab from standing over a TPWS loop.

 

[theironroad]

The Southern (and by extension Gatwick) Professional Driving Policy calls for no more than 15mph at the platform end ramp, dropping to no more than 6mph over the TPWS loops. I've heard that this collision was much slower than that.

6 mph seems very low. Do you know why they chose that speed for the PDP?

 

[Deepgreen]

The Southern (and by extension Gatwick) Professional Driving Policy calls for no more than 15mph at the platform end ramp, dropping to no more than 6mph over the TPWS loops. I've heard that this collision was much slower than that.



Nope. Six feet from the stops, always. (Unless a stop board is provided for the formation.)



It doesn't matter. You always stop the train six feet from the stops (or another train if calling on), except in certain locations where stop boards are provided for certain formations, usually to ensure signal or DOO equipment sighting at the other end, or prevent the cab from standing over a TPWS loop.

Indeed - I meant within the rules or guidelines. In other words, to address Trainmania's point, don't stop randomly part way along the platform and bail out!

 

[redbutton]

6 mph seems very low. Do you know why they chose that speed for the PDP?

Not really, though most people believe the trigger speed is 10mph, and the speedo reads in 5mph increments so I think that having the target be 6 leads drivers to put the needle between 5 and 10.

I've also heard that it may be related to the fact that the SSF relay (speed sensing feature- changes the way the emergency brake works) clunks at 6mph, so it's an easy speed to find. But I think that's apocryphal.

 

[L&Y Robert]

Is there not some kind of mechanical device to slow a too-fast approach? I remember the 'Dowty' retarders installed in the 'hump' marshalling yards to slow the loose coupled wagons aftrer they'd been "humped". They had them at 'Tyne' I believe, amongst others. A set of those on every road should do the trick, and penalty points for the driver if they're activated.

 

[Deepgreen]

Is there not some kind of mechanical device to slow a too-fast approach? I remember the 'Dowty' retarders installed in the 'hump' marshalling yards to slow the loose coupled wagons aftrer they'd been "humped". They had them at 'Tyne' I believe, amongst others. A set of those on every road should do the trick, and penalty points for the driver if they're activated.

Or hydraulic buffers such as at Waterloo.

 

[Latecomer]

If you're traveling over the TPWS loops on approach to buffers at somewhere between 6-8mph there is normally a further reduction to walking pace within a carriage length or two. If walking pace is approximately 4mph then you cover near enough 6 feet a second. Therefore stopping 6 feet from the buffers means you cannot afford to have even a split-second lapse in concentration. Aside from the effects of tiredness or fatigue all sorts of things can happen in that last second or two - an external distraction, a pass comm, a fault alarm. It's one of those situations where anyone who has never driven a train probably wonders how on earth it could happen, whereas most train driver's are surprised it doesn't happen more often.

 

[Phil.]

6 mph seems very low. Do you know why they chose that speed for the PDP?

Probably because they don't trust their drivers to be able to manage themselves.

 

[MarkyT]

The buffer stop TPWS loops were never set at 5 mph. Originally they were set at 10 mph; however, owing to a timing issue that frequently resulted in unwarranted TPWS interventions at low speed, an instruction was issued (in September 2001), requiring drivers to reduce speed to less than 5 mph over the buffer stop TPWS loops. As a permanent solution to the timing problem, TPWS 'mini-loops' were introduced, following a trial at London Bridge late in 2001. In 2006, the standard set speed of TPWS buffer stop loops was increased from 10 mph to 12.5 mph to provide drivers with a small margin when judging their speed.

The full size loops created too large an electromagnetic field to be accurately interpreted by the train equipment at such a small spacing. Full size loops were set initially at the correct 10MPH distance based on the standard formula, but it resulted in lower speed trips in practice. Engineers developed the mini loops to generate a smaller field for such low speed applications.

 

[ComUtoR]

Every buffer stop activation I have ever heard of at my TOC has been 10.x mph.

Would that mean that not all loops are the 'mini' style ones ?

 

[bengley]

The loops 55m from buffers everywhere on the Sussex route are definitely set at 10mph, I have a document which says so.

I am always doing 15mph at the platform end and slow down to about 9mph for the loops.