• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

BBC reporting near collision at Syston South

Status
Not open for further replies.

Metroland

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Messages
3,212
Location
Midlands
Go a bit further in your thoughts and ask why they are not reported.

Madeleine McCann's disappearance for example. Kids go missing every day, most of those aren't reported. Why this one? Even the tiniest of errors at airports get reported too. Take a theme park. Daily ride breakdowns aren't reported by the news, but if one rollercoaster came off the tracks, then it would be all over the place. Why? Because it's [/i]unusual[/i]. Crashes and death happens every day on the motorway, it's not unusual and not really note worthy which is why the BBC et al decide not to bother reporting on it. Trains nearly crashing is unusual.

It's not biased reporting.
You must also remember, reporters aren't experts in anything but reporting. It's not their fault they don't know exactly how trains and the railway works.

I know exactly why things are reported, what I object to is sensationalism, knee jerk reactions and in particular not putting things into context. All facts are meaningless without context. This is why so many people have issues with the media, because it's 'selective'. I'm more than capable of looking at the big picture, unfortunately the media doesn't report the big picture, it publishes 'slants' on stories, usually to generate the most interest. In fairness the BBC is better than most, but there is no such thing as 'unbiased' reporting.

As you alluded to with the awful cases of child abductions and murders, they are no more common than 50 years ago, but certain tabloids have people convinced there are a child murderer at every corner because it makes good copy. We are also being walked into a situation where Governments get too powerful because of scares about terrorists. The phrase 'the oxygen of publicity' absolutely holds true. No terrorist could do his/her job properly without the media. Yet the chances of being killed in terrorist attack, as awful as they are is tiny. I'd worry more about dodgy take-aways, falling off a ladder doing DIY or drinking too much.

So forgive me for making these perhaps rather obvious points, but they do need making to stop silly panics.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,826
I don't know (not seen any detail of any disruption caused by the initial failure) - but (from earlier in this thread)...
the route was all off for 1F45 to cross over from the DF to DS at Syston
...suggests that it could well have been the case. I don't want to speculate either way, just wanted to suggest that the BBC report isn't necessarily wrong in that respect.
 

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,124
I don't know - but (from earlier in this thread)...

...suggests that it could well have been the case. I don't want to speculate either way, just wanted to suggest that the BBC report isn't necessarily wrong in that respect.

What's the speed over the junction there? 45?

My point is that the Beeb have specified a speed, despite not having a hope in hell of seeing the OTMR data and therefore knowing for sure. Now that of course equally applies to me, but I'm saying that my own common sense tells me that cannot possibly be right given the signal failure and there being no chance of avoiding a collision at that speed.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,826
My point is that the Beeb have specified a speed, despite not having a hope in hell of seeing the OTMR data and therefore knowing for sure. Now that of course equally applies to me, but I'm saying that my own common sense tells me that cannot possibly be right given the signal failure and there being no chance of avoiding a collision at that speed.
I agree that it's entirely likely that the BBC have pulled a number out of the hat! The definitive answer will come from the RAIB in due course, but I maintain that it's possible that it could have been approaching at 75mph - the signal failure (whatever it was) wouldn't necessarily have affected the route across Syston South Jn., and the second train could (and must have, if it was indeed travelling at 75mph) have started braking before actually seeing the first train - if signals were restored to Danger, either by occupation of track circuits or by the Signalman.
 

GadgetMan

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2012
Messages
923
How do you clip a set of points with a train standing over them?

Not an expert so may well be completely wrong. But after the 2 conflicting trains had come to a stand and then presumably told not to make any further movements.

Is there any obvious reason why the other end of the points (just north of Syston platform) could not be clipped to allow use of the Single slow line between Syston and Leicester? This would allow either/both XC and EMT services access around the blockage using the Up and Down slow from Syston to Humberstone Road.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Whatever one's opinions about the BBC or broader media agenda with respect to railways, this remains a very serious incident. The driver of one train, after having been given a legitimate proceed signal was apparently suddenly faced with a conflicting movement that couldn't be arrested by any protection system, and the other driver after presumably having been given legitimate verbal instruction to reverse (cautiously) without any signal protection was presented with a conflicting movement at the normal junction speed that may or may not have received any late signalling warning depending on the precise choregraphy of the movements. Thank goodness visibility was good and individuals were able to take evasive action. It is perhaps unsurprising that reporters don't intuitively understand the subtlety of reduced speed through a crossover between fast and slow 'lanes', and equate a green signal (with or without JI) with all clear at the full line speed.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,826
Not an expert so may well be completely wrong. But after the 2 conflicting trains had come to a stand and then presumably told not to make any further movements.

Is there any obvious reason why the other end of the points (just north of Syston platform) could not be clipped to allow use of the Single slow line between Syston and Leicester? This would allow either/both XC and EMT services access around the blockage using the Up and Down slow from Syston to Humberstone Road.
No need to clip points, surely, if detection is (or can be) available. Possibilities preventing the slow line being used include (not an exhaustive list, and not speculating that any of the following were actually the case) the route originally set for the train making the crossing move being held by the locking (quite reasonably, with a train in part of the route) or the job stopped across the whole workstation to ensure that the irregularity wasn't somehow caused by a fault with the equipment?
 

Dieseldriver

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2012
Messages
971
Maybe the workstation was shut down as a result of the signaller being taken off and interviewed/medscreened? Either way the important thing here is that it was nothing more than a brown trouser moment for everyone involved and I'm sure the RAIB report will be out in due course.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
I'm just grateful that the original poster said it was a "near collision" rather than a near miss, a term that actually drives me up the wall.

Isn't a "near miss" actually a "hit", to me if they nearly missed, then they didn't miss so therefore must have collided!
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,848
Location
t'North
Isn't a "near miss" actually a "hit", to me if they nearly missed, then they didn't miss so therefore must have collided!
You are getting your nouns and verbs confused. They have totally opposite uses:

Miss, n. = failure to hit; so near miss = a close failure to hit
Miss, v. = fail to hit; so nearly missed = a close failure not to hit (i.e. a double negative)

So if you mean nearly missed, that's what you say. If you want to say nearly hit, you can also use 'a near miss'.
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
At St Pancras staff were largely telling people to get on a train going north even if it wasn't going where they wanted and telling them to hope there was a connection further down the route, one staff member at St Pancras recommended I go to Kings Cross and get a train to Grantham even though by the time I'd have got to Grantham there'd have been no trains to Nottingham let alone to East Midlands Parkway
I believe Virgin Trains has a specific leaflet helping people when certain sections of the line have been blocked.
It shows the passenger which trains to get, to where, and how to get to and from London (and other stations).
Each VWC station has a different sheet specific for their station. For instance:
Birmingham passengers are told to use Chiltern
Coventry use XC to the South-West
Rugby use LM/XC to Nuneaton/Leicester.

Each route has been mapped specifically not to overwhelm other stations and to spread the load.


In fairness the BBC is better than most, but there is no such thing as 'unbiased' reporting.
I agree :)


...but certain tabloids have people convinced there are a child murderer at every corner because it makes good copy.
Or a good book. I mean, the Woman in Black isn't scary, but it did make me jump! Try 'Dead Silence' <-- probably the highest on my scare-o-metre.

I will await the RAIB report with interest.
 

sprite

Member
Joined
4 Jan 2011
Messages
163
Location
Leeds
However they brought everything on that panel to a stand for a ridiculous amount of time.

I am sure that they brought it back as soon as they could. The whole panel will have gone becuase the signaller will have been imediately removed from his duty and there may have not been a person available to cover the rest of the panel. From what I understand, simmilar to how safety critical staff onboard a train must sign a route to work it, signalers must also "sign" a panel. Additionally NR will have needed to see if it was possible that a wrong side failure had occured on the panel allowing this event to happen. NR will not risk rushing something back into service if it might be faulty and put lives at risk.
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
I agree that it's entirely likely that the BBC have pulled a number out of the hat! ....
Or they could have been talking to a member of railway staff who gave them incorrect information. The end result is the same. But anyone trained in talking to the media should have it stressed to them that it is their duty to make sure the correct facts are communicated.It is too easy to see factual inaccuracies and simply blame "the media".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top