Collision with tractor near Leominster (22/05/25)

[321362]

Scarily similar to the crash at Moreton-on-Lugg just down the line (2010 iirc). Seems to be a different cause (pure speculation of course) and if the farmer's at fault, I doubt RAIB will get involved? Not an expert.

 

[Lewisham2221]

A drone view shows the rear of the train still on the crossing, the railway appears quite straight there so maybe the train driver had seen the tractor and was already braking

So, perhaps just over a hundred metres, or maybe a little bit more, looking at the aerial photo in post #56, as posted by @SuperS16v.

Based on the video in this Sky News article I don't think the crossing in that picture is the one where the collision occured - around the 14 second mark is footage showing a clearly different crossing with what appears to be debris from the trailer and a large amount of silage.

 

[jfowkes]

Scarily similar to the crash at Moreton-on-Lugg just down the line (2010 iirc). Seems to be a different cause (pure speculation of course) and if the farmer's at fault, I doubt RAIB will get involved? Not an expert.

The RAIB will at least want to determine if there are any causal factors from the design, maintenance or use of the crossing.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Based on the video in this Sky News article I don't think the crossing in that picture is the one where the collision occured - around the 14 second mark is footage showing a clearly different crossing with what appears to be debris from the trailer and a large amount of silage.

You very likely could be right. So, where's the tractor ended up?!

 

[Iddybiddy05]

Scarily similar to the crash at Moreton-on-Lugg just down the line (2010 iirc). Seems to be a different cause (pure speculation of course) and if the farmer's at fault, I doubt RAIB will get involved? Not an expert.

M-O-L was a manually controlled road crossing without interlocking protection, combined with a signaller (no sadly passed) who was under tremendous pressure.

This is a private farm crossing which requires the user to call for permission to cross, and call again to confirm clear. The signaller is also required to provide signal protection regardless of time required or type of vehicle. All that is recorded, so the investigation will know within minutes of checking the various logs who isn’t to blame.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

This is not far from Leominster; about 2 miles according to OS. The train would already have been slowing as it was due to call at Leominster. If it had been a non-caller, the results don't bear thinking about.

With the linespeeds on this route I don’t think being 2 miles from a booked stop would have had any bearing on the speed profile at this location. From 80-90mph I doubt you need as much as a mile to comfortably brake to a stand.

 

[6Gman]

User work crossings have certain rules to keep the railway flowing safely.

Anything that takes longer than 3 minutes to cross or is long, low, slow such as a vehicle with a trailer requires signal protection. The signaller then MUST have a call back once the person has crossed the line before they clear the signals.

The issue with this time of year is the crossings are constantly used by farmers who are under alot of time pressure to get things down. Unfortunately, there are those who do not call and cross themselves without calling the signaller.

The reason for the collision is probably;

1. Signaller has not provided signal protection and given farmer permission to cross or cleared the protection early without the call back.
2. Driver has passed the protecting signal at danger
3. Farmer has crossed without permission.

Based on the news article it is most likely scenario 3.

Without wishing to speculate or comment on this particular case I would also point out that silaging is often carried out by contractors rather than the farmers themselves.

They are paid per acre (or hectare) or ton (not by hour) and are therefore incentivised to get jobs done as quickly as possible. And their drivers are often casual employees.

When I was involved with a local parish council I used to get regular complaints that they were a traffic hazard - excessive speed, using mobile phones etc.

Again, I stress this is a general observation, not a speculation re this particular incident.

 

[WirralLine]

The internal source is incorrect…

Now expected to be there around midnight however work not expected to start until early morning.

 

[Meole]

Unusual line as still controlled by Victorian signal boxes and a lot of ancient semaphores.

 

[357]

With the linespeeds on this route I don’t think being 2 miles from a booked stop would have had any bearing on the speed profile at this location. From 80-90mph I doubt you need as much as a mile to comfortably brake to a stand.

I've just measured one of my own stops from 125mph and it is 2.35 miles from where I put the brake in to where I stop my train (at a signal). I drive units with what I suspect will be better brakes than mk4 sets.

 

[InkyScrolls]

With the linespeeds on this route I don’t think being 2 miles from a booked stop would have had any bearing on the speed profile at this location. From 80-90mph I doubt you need as much as a mile to comfortably brake to a stand.

I've just measured one of my own stops from 125mph and it is 2.35 miles from where I put the brake in to where I stop my train (at a signal). I drive units with what I suspect will be better brakes than mk4 sets.

2 miles would be absurdly early for 90 mph. 1 mile is sufficient for a comfortable stop.

 

[Iddybiddy05]

Now expected to be there around midnight however work not expected to start until early morning.

Emergency possession to recovery the trailer with standard RRV equipment, all being well the line should be open tomorrow.

Unusual line as still controlled by Victorian signal boxes and a lot of ancient semaphores.

Much like a significant proportion of the rail network in this country.

Ancient semaphore signals which still perform the same task safety 150 years later.

Intermingled with the Victorian era convinced technology is 21st century technology such as TPWS, data loggers and the like - not sure why your making a point of the age of the equipment ?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I've just measured one of my own stops from 125mph and it is 2.35 miles from where I put the brake in to where I stop my train (at a signal). I drive units with what I suspect will be better brakes than mk4 sets.

The linespeed profile is nowhere near 125mph on the Marches line. On my own line the 70mph linespeed means that the brakes go in for station stops about 1/2 mile from the platform. I suspect for (say) 90mph on the level you’d need between 3/4 and 1-mile of braking distance.

 

[Bald Rick]

Scarily similar to the crash at Moreton-on-Lugg just down the line (2010 iirc). Seems to be a different cause (pure speculation of course) and if the farmer's at fault, I doubt RAIB will get involved? Not an expert.

RAIB will very definitely be involved. As will ORR. BTP will need to conclude their initial investigations first, though, before the latter get involved.

I've just measured one of my own stops from 125mph and it is 2.35 miles from where I put the brake in to where I stop my train (at a signal). I drive units with what I suspect will be better brakes than mk4 sets.

That‘s an average braking rate of 4%g (0.4 m/s/s), which if on level track is frankly anaemic. In emergency braking a Mark IV set is required to do a minimum of 9%g in all conditions, on dry rail it would have been about 1.2%g. From 125 that means stopping in 0.8mile*, from 80mph it would be a third of a mile, and that assumes no retardation from striking and dragging the trailer.

*I have been on a Pendolino, and separately a Class 91+Mark IV set that have each stopped in emergency from 125mph in not much more than the length of a signal section on a 4 aspect railway (usually around 3/4 mile)

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I‘m not a physicist or mathematician but I remember from high school science that you need double the energy to increase speed by 25%. (Ie explains the logic for an HST running on 1 power car being unable to top 100mph all things being equal.)

Does the same apply for braking? I.e. you require twice the retardation force to stop in the same distance from a speed 25% greater? (And possibly by that logic if you increase speed by 25% you double the braking distance?)

 

[Bald Rick]

I‘m not a physicist or mathematician but I remember from high school science that you need double the energy to increase speed by 25%. (Ie explains the logic for an HST running on 1 power car being unable to top 100mph all things being equal.)

Does the same apply for braking? I.e. you require twice the retardation force to stop in the same distance from a speed 25% greater?

Not quite the answer you are looking for, but with a constant deceleration rate, if you double the speed you start braking, you need 4 times the distance.

So it takes 4 x as long to stop from 100mph as from 50mph, and 16 times as long to stop from 100mph as 25mph.

This excludes the time (and therefore distance) used for the driver to think about applying the brakes, applying them, and for the braking system to engage the braking force selected.

 

[4COR]

Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed, so between 90 and 125, you have an increase in KE of 92.9%.

The work done in stopping an object is equal to force x distance, and this equals the kinetic energy of the object. So, to stop in the same distance from 125 compared to 90, the braking force would need to be 92.9% higher.

Edit: what @Bald Rick said as well!

 

[Jan Mayen]

Is there an online track diagram for the area? I usually use Opentrain Times, but it doesn't cover this route.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Not quite the answer you are looking for, but with a constant deceleration rate, if you double the speed you start braking, you need 4 times the distance.

So it takes 4 x as long to stop from 100mph as from 50mph, and 16 times as long to stop from 100mph as 25mph.

This excludes the time (and therefore distance) used for the driver to think about applying the brakes, applying them, and for the braking system to engage the braking force selected.

Thank you for explaining that, this forum needs a ‘like’ button.

 

[357]

The linespeed profile is nowhere near 125mph on the Marches line. On my own line the 70mph linespeed means that the brakes go in for station stops about 1/2 mile from the platform. I suspect for (say) 90mph on the level you’d need between 3/4 and 1-mile of braking distance.

Congratulations for telling the difference between 90mph and 125mph. It's a 35mph difference.

I literally said that from 125mph the braking distance is 2 miles. I was agreeing with you...

I've measured a couple on one of my old routes and from 75mph I was putting the brake in 0.3-0.4 miles from the stopping position.

That‘s an average braking rate of 4%g (0.4 m/s/s), which if on level track is frankly anaemic. In emergency braking a Mark IV set is required to do a minimum of 9%g in all conditions, on dry rail it would have been about 1.2%g. From 125 that means stopping in 0.8mile*, from 80mph it would be a third of a mile, and that assumes no retardation from striking and dragging the trailer.

*I have been on a Pendolino, and separately a Class 91+Mark IV set that have each stopped in emergency from 125mph in not much more than the length of a signal section on a 4 aspect railway (usually around 3/4 mile)

Yes, I was commenting about the braking distance for the station and the debate regarding if the train was already slowing down or not.

In both types of unit I drive, I have stopped within a signal section from 125mph using the emergency brake.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Congratulations for telling the difference between 90mph and 125mph. It's a 35mph difference.

I literally said that from 125mph the braking distance is 2 miles. I was agreeing with you...

I've measured a couple on one of my old routes and from 75mph I was putting the brake in 0.3-0.4 miles from the stopping position.

There’s no need to be touchy. The point I was making is that because (as others have kindly confirmed) the relationship between speed and stopping distance is not linear. So that 35mph difference in speed translates into a substantially greater difference in distance.

May I ask if you’re a professional (real world) driver or are we talking about a simulation of some kind here. In my experience the simulators usually get braking characteristics hopelessly wrong.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, I was commenting about the braking distance for the station and the debate regarding if the train was already slowing down or not.

I know, and the answer is that if it was travelling at 90mph, and with a standard average rate of retardation of 0.6%g (which is almost certainly what the timetable running times for this rolling stock will assume), it would stop in 3/4 of mile. Even assuming more conservative braking, it would not have needed much more than a mile. So it is likely that it was not braking for the stop, but may well have not been taking power either.

The RAIB investigation will tell us, in about 12 months’ time.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

May I ask if you’re a professional (real world) driver or are we talking about a simulation of some kind here.

A look at their various previous posts would seem to indicate that established forum member @357 is indeed an actual train driver.

 

[Egg Centric]

A look at their various previous posts would seem to indicate that established forum member @357 is indeed an actual train driver.

As a neutral observer, I think @357, @Bald Rick , and @Wilts Wanderer are managing to argue with each other despite all agreeing with each other - just one of those things about forums where it's easy to misinterpret the text form over being together in real life.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It wouldn’t be the first time there has been ‘vigorous agreement’ on this forum!

Getting back on topic, I think the apparent lack of severe damage / derailment in this incident is a testament to the design and robustness of the Mark 4 DVT. I imagine the fibreglass front end of an HST power car may not have done so well.

 

[High Dyke]

Unusual line as still controlled by Victorian signal boxes and a lot of ancient semaphores.

Ah, a signalling system that does what it's supposed to do. However, speaking from experience, human interfaces with members of the public aren't always as safe. That's if the crossing user has spoken with the controlling signaller.

 

[357]

May I ask if you’re a professional (real world) driver or are we talking about a simulation of some kind here.

I can indeed confirm that I go to work and make the trains go choo-choo. They even pay me for it at the end of the month!

In my experience the simulators usually get braking characteristics hopelessly wrong.

I had this conversation with my manager yesterday when I had a simulator based assessment - the company who made it insist that the braking force is exactly correct as they have a manual from when the trains were built - but every driver who goes on there says the acceleration is too slow and the brakes are too weak!

(this is now very off topic and if we don't stop I'm probably going to get another warning )

 

[Reetzaboi]

Wales and Borders route mandates ALL crossing have a call back and signal protection.

really I used to work there and that wasn’t in place when did the rule come in?

 

[Iddybiddy05]

really I used to work there and that wasn’t in place when did the rule come in?

A good few years ago route wide.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Unusual line as still controlled by Victorian signal boxes and a lot of ancient semaphores.

Not unusual at all and not unsafe if everyone engages with it correctly, as with any form of signalling.