Lumo overspeed incident at Peterborough (17/04/2022)

[TheBigD]

Reports on the cesspit known as twitter that the first southbound Lumo service was involved in an incident at Peterborough this morning with passengers reporting that the train nearly derailed. Reportedly aproached Peterborough platform 1 at 80mph instead of 30mph. Train on the move 90 late.

Realtime Trains | 1Y80 0820 Newcastle to London Kings Cross | 17/04/2022

Real-time train running information for 1Y80 0820 departure from Newcastle to London Kings Cross on 17/04/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Darandio]

Reports on the cesspit known as twitter

Yet you appear to be on there getting information.

Some customers on board reporting minor injuries as well.

 

[TheBigD]

Yet you appear to be on there getting information.

Some customers on board reporting minor injuries as well.

Been sent screenshots. Not on it and no interest in being so.

 

[LowLevel]

That seems a bit concerning!

 

[FuzzyDuck]

1S95 cancelled (due to "operational incident) as a result.

 

[_toommm_]

I note it's booked the fast line at Tallington Junction then straight on through platform three at Peterborough, but today it went through platform one. Presumably the driver didn't slow down in enough time and took the points from the fast line to platform one too fast?

 

[irish_rail]

Surely there would be TPWS on approach to prevent or at least lessen such an overspeed (although i have zero knowledge of the location i will admit).

 

[Naylor81]

The messages are quite dramatic, looks like a serious incident.

 

[Darandio]

BTP now actively replying to many of these Tweets as well, asking for them to get in touch.

 

[bengley]

Surely there would be TPWS on approach to prevent or at least lessen such an overspeed (although i have zero knowledge of the location i will admit).

No, if the junction was controlled with flashing yellows there are no TPWS in place

 

[Ashley Hill]

Appears the driver reported passing over the points at excessive speed. Possibly 80mph.

 

[D6130]

Word of this incident doesn't appear to have reached the mainstream media yet....nothing about it yet on BBC Radio 4's 'The World This Weekend'.

 

[43096]

This is the extract from the Sectional Appendix for the Peterborough station area. Possibly the crossover from Up fast to platform 1 involved via the 30, then 25 restricted crossover? It would be interesting to know what the signalling approach to this is and if there's approach control and what TPWS is installed (is there TPWS+?).

 

[Ashley Hill]

Set ran empty to Kings Cross.

 

[PupCuff]

I'm unfamiliar with the area but 80 vice 30 is a pretty nasty overspeed over points. They're not the first to go into a set of points too hard, and they sure as anything won't be the last; hopefully the folks on board who've had injuries have a speedy recovery and the driver isn't too shaken or injured.

 

[D6130]

Set ran empty to Kings Cross.

Are you sure? There's nothing in the Tweets to indicate that passengers were detrained at Peterborough?

 

[Ashley Hill]

Are you sure? There's nothing in the Tweets to indicate that passengers were detrained at Peterborough?

Arrived there 1237.

 

[the sniper]

Pity the Ambassadors onboard, having to pick up all those Ferrero Rocher...

 

[cambsy]

I would imagine, there is approach control, as most times, when one diverges from fast Line etc, that there are caution signals, to bring one down to safe speed, for diverging route, but i cant remember, exact signals at approach to Peterborough from the north. I think could be signalling irregularity, or something more to it, rather than just driver, doing excessive speed.

 

[Tomnick]

This is the extract from the Sectional Appendix for the Peterborough station area. Possibly the crossover from Up fast to platform 1 involved via the 30, then 25 restricted crossover? It would be interesting to know what the signalling approach to this is and if there's approach control and what TPWS is installed (is there TPWS+?).

View attachment 113166

Flashing yellows into both platforms 1 and 2 from the Up Fast, and thus no TPWS protection if the train's received the flashing yellow sequence.

 

[DanNCL]

At that speed on that particular set of points I’m amazed it even stayed upright…

Surely this is an RAIB matter as passengers have been injured?

 

[Scotrail314209]

Sounds like an extremely serious incident that needs to be investigated ASAP. It must be an RAIB matter surely if people were hurt, no matter how minor.

Scary incident for all involved and it was luck that it didn’t end much nastier.

 

[D6130]

Arrived there 1237.

Correct....but I can't see anything to say that it arrived empty.

 

[GB]

Arrived there 1237.

Set wasn’t detrained at PBO though. Train ran through to KGX with the passengers using an off duty driver.

this would be an RAIB reportable incident regardless if there are injuries or not.

 

[43096]

Flashing yellows into both platforms 1 and 2 from the Up Fast, and thus no TPWS protection if the train's received the flashing yellow sequence.

Thanks. Given the speed reduction required (100+mph to 30mph) it feels like a gap in TPWS capability/coverage, albeit not one it was designed to cover.

 

[brad465]

At that speed on that particular set of points I’m amazed it even stayed upright…

Surely this is an RAIB matter as passengers have been injured?

Even if it's not an RAIB obligation to investigate this, they usually do investigate things they can but are not required to, so I expect they will.

 

[Watershed]

At that speed on that particular set of points I’m amazed it even stayed upright…

Surely this is an RAIB matter as passengers have been injured?

I would expect them to investigate - it will certainly be notifiable - however they are strictly speaking only required to do so if someone dies as a result, or 5+ people are seriously injured, or more than €2m in damage is caused. It's unlikely that any of these criteria are met.

In particular, the injuries reported on Twitter, such as bruises, seem unlikely to rise to the definition of "serious injury", which includes:

(a) a fracture other than to fingers, thumbs or toes;
(b) amputation;
(c) dislocation of the shoulder, hip, knee or spine;
(d) loss of sight, whether temporary or permanent, in one or both eyes;
(e) a chemical or hot metal burn or any penetrating injury to one or both eyes;
(f) an injury leading to hypothermia or heat-induced illness;
(g) an injury requiring resuscitation of the injured person;
(h) an injury requiring admittance to hospital for more than 24 hours;
(i) an injury directly leading to loss of consciousness; or
(j) an injury resulting from the absorption of a substance by inhalation, ingestion or through the skin that causes acute illness requiring medical treatment

Of course there could be more serious injuries that haven't been reported on Twitter.

 

[43096]

Set wasn’t detrained at PB though.

this would be an RAiB reportable incident regardless if there are injuries or not.

Correct, it is presumably covered by item 1(9) of this: https://assets.publishing.service.g...175/RAIBN3_Quick_Guide_to_Notification_v3.pdf

1(9) Accidents or incidents which could have led to deaths or serious injuries or 2m euros worth of damage to trains, infrastructure or environment, had the circumstances been slightly different. If in doubt notify.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Correct....but I can't see anything to say that it arrived empty.

An internal source said passengers were detrained at Peterborough and forwarded on other services with ticket acceptance.

 

[43096]

I would expect them to investigate - it will certainly be notifiable - however they are strictly speaking only required to do so if someone dies as a result, or 5+ people are seriously injured, or more than €2m in damage is caused. It's unlikely that any of these criteria are met.

But, as per my post above, there is a catch-all for near misses.