• 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!

Derailment at Wimbledon 6/11/17

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Now that the incident train has been moved, is there nay news on the level of damage to the infrastructure (if any)?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

S

Sebastian O

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2015
Messages
164
HarleyDavidson said:
What they really need there is the bridge over the Windsor lines to be reinstated and the power supply to be upgraded, you could then have an extension of the London Overground service to Wimbledon interspersed with LUL services, best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought. Potentially a good move to strip back some of the demand CLJ - WIM?
 
H

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
Yeah, it also gives those who commute to/from those stations greater journey opportunities, the only issue is that the Wimbledon bound trains would have to cross the Windsor lines on the level, unless they could do either a flyover or dive under.
 
Dstock7080

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
2,768
Location
West London
HarleyDavidson said:
What they really need there is the bridge over the Windsor lines to be reinstated and the power supply to be upgraded, you could then have an extension of the London Overground service to Wimbledon interspersed with LUL services, best of both worlds.
Click to expand...
What sort of frequency and which platform to serve at Wimbledon?

bramling said:
A reversing facility at East Putney wouldn’t go amiss. They need to have interlocking there for the connection to the Windsor lines, so an extra crossover wouldn’t be too much of an extra expense. But it would be another asset to maintain and fail, such is today’s defeatist thinking.
Click to expand...
Or just reinstate the former crossover which was to the east side of East Putney.
 
H

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
Well as LUL have 4 platforms they could share them, reopen the platforms at East Putney as well and reinstate the turnback facility, so that you still get the high frequency LUL service to East Putney, but you get a London Overground to fill in any gap on the LUL service.

Doing it that way also means that anyone travelling from SW London suburbs who normally travel to Clapham for London Overground , could join at Wimbledon, meaning that they'd get a seat rather than joining the hoards at Clapham and as a considerable number of LUL services carry large amounts of fresh air leaving Wimbledon you could trim two or three of those services back to East Putney to allow London Overground to run.
 
C

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,787
Location
Herts
HarleyDavidson said:
Well as LUL have 4 platforms they could share them, reopen the platforms at East Putney as well and reinstate the turnback facility, so that you still get the high frequency LUL service to East Putney, but you get a London Overground to fill in any gap on the LUL service.

Doing it that way also means that anyone travelling from SW London suburbs who normally travel to Clapham for London Overground, could join at Wimbledon, meaning that they'd get a seat rather than joining the hoards at Clapham and as a considerable number of LUL services carry large amounts of fresh air leaving Wimbledon you could trim two or three of those services back to East Putney to allow London Overgroundto run.
Click to expand...


The original "Riverside" electrification of 1916 had a Waterloo - Wandsworth - Wimbledon service routed this way - and did not last long as the 3d rail extended further away , - I like the idea in principle but it would add considerable operational risk to both the main Windsor lines , and prejudice the LUL policy -or end to end running as far as possible , and terminating at a terminus (!) gives scope for some catch-up , regulating -or given a driver who has come from furthest Upminster a stretch of legs.

In any case - TfL have no money for further schemes , - so it is a "crayonista" concept for now.
 
H

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
It would also be ideal for us to have the bridge reinstated as it would provide a bit more flexibility for SWR too, perhaps SWR/NR/London Overground/LUL could split the cost of replacing the bridge & track 4 ways as in the longer term it would be to everyone's benefit.
 
S

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,410
LU's published plans to run significantly more District Line services to/from Wimbledon after SSR re-signalling probably prevent any LO extensions.
 
S

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,410
NSEFAN said:
Have you tried using them in the peaks? They could certainly do with more trains during these times.
Click to expand...
This months Modern Railways refers to TfL wanting to divert the Piccadilly to Ealing Broadway so that they can run more trains on the remaining District routes, including Wimbledon to the City which they state is one of their busiest SSR routes of all.

But what would TfL know...
 
U

urbophile

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
2,081
Location
Liverpool
Taunton said:
However, when BR ran it the booking offices were quite non-integrated with LU, despite them providing the only service, they did not do LU tickets, and I was surprised at Southfields to get a BR hand-written paper ticket for a straightforward LU journey. The offices were also the first target for any staff shortages, as little of the fare money was going back to BR. There seemed no mechanisation.

LU had of course run 99.9% of the trains along the stretch for decades.
Click to expand...

When was this? I used to live nearby and frequently used Southfields station both before and after the LU takeover. There used to be a Network Southeast ticket machine issuing tickets for all zones LU plus many BR (as was) stations. I was very pleased that the booking office could issue through tickets to Liverpool (and presumably all other destinations) which is no longer the case. They were BR orange tickets but not hand written!
 
J

Jimini

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2006
Messages
1,395
Location
London
HarleyDavidson said:
Which shouldn't be allowed to happen as large number of them carry nothing but air.
Click to expand...

Crivens. You should try the Wimbledon branch of the District Line in the peak (and indeed to some extent off-peak too) and see how much 'air' you find!
 
bramling

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,765
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Jimini said:
Crivens. You should try the Wimbledon branch of the District Line in the peak (and indeed to some extent off-peak too) and see how much 'air' you find!
Click to expand...

Fresh air or otherwise, a few short workings in the morning peak would probably go down rather well at the likes of Putney Bridge or Fulham Broadway!

Nonetheless, I tend to agree with the general view that whilst extending the LO to Wimbledon is a very good idea, there would be obstacles to overcome. One such obstacle will be the SSR resignalling - Whilst provision is being made for proper trains to continue running on this section under lineside signals protected by TPWS, I’m not sure to what extent this solution would support a regular service of proper trains, as opppsed to the occasional off-peak diversion or ECS.
 
I

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,652
HarleyDavidson said:
It would also be ideal for us to have the bridge reinstated as it would provide a bit more flexibility for SWR too, perhaps SWR/NR/London Overground/LUL could split the cost of replacing the bridge & track 4 ways as in the longer term it would be to everyone's benefit.
Click to expand...
It won't happen any time soon, if ever. Just look at Crossrail 2. I know that's far more expensive but I imagine that would be more useful than this and it's years away.
 
S

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,410
bramling said:
Fresh air or otherwise, a few short workings in the morning peak would probably go down rather well at the likes of Putney Bridge or Fulham Broadway!

Nonetheless, I tend to agree with the general view that whilst extending the LO to Wimbledon is a very good idea, there would be obstacles to overcome. One such obstacle will be the SSR resignalling - Whilst provision is being made for proper trains to continue running on this section under lineside signals protected by TPWS, I’m not sure to what extent this solution would support a regular service of proper trains, as opppsed to the occasional off-peak diversion or ECS.
Click to expand...

The Clapham Junction end of such a route would be the main obstacle. Down trains off the WLL would have to cross three tracks of the Windsor/Reading lines on the level to reach the incline towards East Putney, and that would probably have to happen somewhere in the station area or before Wandsworth Town. Or you could build independent tracks for the LO trains, and a down flyover as well as reinstating the up flyover. Starts to get towards crayonista territory doesn't it...
 
Dstock7080

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
2,768
Location
West London
RAIB investigates:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/derailment-at-wimbledon

At around 05:51 hrs on 6 November 2017, the rear coach of a passenger train derailed while it was travelling at around 19 mph (31 km/h). This occurred shortly after the train had left Wimbledon station with approximately 146 passengers on board. The accident caused several minor injuries to passengers and considerable infrastructure damage.

We have undertaken a preliminary examination into the circumstances surrounding this accident. Having assessed the evidence which has been gathered to date, we have decided to publish a safety digest.

The safety digest will shortly be made available on our website.
Click to expand...
 
E

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,905
Location
Nottingham
Dstock7080 said:
RAIB investigates:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/derailment-at-wimbledon
Click to expand...
Surprises me they aren't going for a full report. Derailment of a passenger train on a running line is a few coincidences away from being a severe accident, and even fairly minor freight derailments (on running lines) have always had the full RAIB treatment as far as I recall. I can only conclude that the cause is pretty straightforward to establish and easy to prevent a repeat.
 
R

rmt4ever

Member
Joined
13 May 2013
Messages
692
Location
RMT
edwin_m said:
Surprises me they aren't going for a full report. Derailment of a passenger train on a running line is a few coincidences away from being a severe accident, and even fairly minor freight derailments (on running lines) have always had the full RAIB treatment as far as I recall. I can only conclude that the cause is pretty straightforward to establish and easy to prevent a repeat.
Click to expand...
More like government cost cutting.. so do it on the cheap
 
C

Chris M

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
1,057
Location
London E14
I think the criteria is "no new safety learnings" so they will just point out which existing procedures that should have been followed and/or previous recommendations they've made implemented (sooner) would have prevented it happening.

My prediction is that long-term understaffing of the Wessex route maintenance unit will be highlighted again.
 
C

Chris M

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
1,057
Location
London E14
It's owned by LU but it is signalled, maintained and operated to NR standards, and I believe NR do the maintenance. I know I've seen a map that showed the boundaries of the three infracos drawn up in preparation for PPP but I can't immediately find it.
 
AlterEgo

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,206
Location
No longer here
hungry said:
More like government cost cutting.. so do it on the cheap
Click to expand...

Claptrap. Have a read about what RAIB will and will not investigate and what warrants a full report as opposed to a digest or briefing.

RAIB are not funded by the government, btw...

Chris M said:
I think the criteria is "no new safety learnings" so they will just point out which existing procedures that should have been followed and/or previous recommendations they've made implemented (sooner) would have prevented it happening.

My prediction is that long-term understaffing of the Wessex route maintenance unit will be highlighted again.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
A

AndyNLondon

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2014
Messages
189
RAIB have published their report into this one this morning: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...r-wimbledon-south-west-london-6-november-2017
The cause seems to have been that track inspectors on both Network Rail and London Underground had incorrect instructions about where the boundary between their areas of responsibility was, leaving a 120m stretch of track that neither were inspecting - basically, a gap that each company thought the other was responsible for, with the actual boundary point that they'd agreed being roughly in the middle:
RAIB said:
London Underground has stated that the track maintenance boundary was set in 1994 as part of a demarcation agreement between LU and Railtrack, the mainline infrastructure owner before Network Rail. However, the track patrol diagrams provided to the LU and the Network Rail patrollers were found to stop short on both sides of this agreed boundary, leaving a gap between them.

The LU diagrams state that patrollers are required to inspect the crossover and diamond associated with 736 points (figure 2). Those responsible for the LU patrol inspections also referred to an internal document titled ‘Inter Infraco Track Boundaries’ dated 5 May 2009. This document defined the boundary as ‘up to and including fishplates on NR [Network Rail] side of crossover leading from 736 points’. These limits approximately align with an LU maintenance boundary sign installed alongside an adjacent track which the LU patrollers stated they had been using as the patrol limit. This was around 50 metres short of the boundary agreed in 1994. The derailment occurred on LU infrastructure around halfway between this sign and the 1994 agreed boundary.

The diagrams provided to the Network Rail patrollers state the limit of inspections are at 8 miles 38.5 chains from London Waterloo via East Putney. This is approximately 40 metres along the link line and about 70 metres before the agreed boundary. The manager responsible for the Network Rail patrollers stated that a post near this location was used as the boundary marker. Historic photographs indicate that no sign indicating this, or any other information, had been attached to the post for many years.

Patrollers from LU and Network Rail are expected to look over at the track immediately beyond the boundary of the infrastructure for which they are responsible, and report faults found to the adjacent infrastructure owner. Patrollers cannot cross over the boundary at Wimbledon due to the differing personal track safety certifications required by each organisation. Whilst patrollers may have been checking the area immediately beyond their boundary, the gap of 120 metres between patrolled areas meant that there was a significant stretch of track that was missed from inspections.

Neither LU nor Network Rail have been able to provide reasons why the boundary was different in the patrol diagrams and why these did not match the location agreed between the two organisations in 1994. The consequence of this oversight was that the track was not being inspected or maintained for many years and so degraded into an unsafe condition.
Click to expand...
 
NSEFAN

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,504
Location
Southampton
AndyNLondon said:
RAIB have published their report into this one this morning: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...r-wimbledon-south-west-london-6-november-2017
The cause seems to have been that track inspectors on both Network Rail and London Underground had incorrect instructions about where the boundary between their areas of responsibility was, leaving a 120m stretch of track that neither were inspecting - basically, a gap that each company thought the other was responsible for, with the actual boundary point that they'd agreed being roughly in the middle:
Click to expand...
This week on "whose line is it anyway?" ...

More seriously, I would hope that this problem is taken seriously, should the government decide to proceed with its proposals to merge train operations and track maintenance. Network Rail has its operational regions and boundaries, but at least they are all part of the same company and everyone should be on the same page.
 
Mojo

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,396
Location
0035
matt_world2004 said:
What a cock up if it is an argument over juristiction of track maintenance.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is any evidence of any sort of argument. Someone seemingly placed incorrect signage on the ground (the internal diagrams show the position of the boundary) and local track patrollers took those signs/post to be the boundary owing to incorrect track patrol diagrams, and thus did not patrol the area in the middle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top