1S69 Failure Abington 9th September 2024

[Deepgreen]

Perhaps an obvious question - could the following train not have pushed the stricken one? Can 390s not couple/assist/be assisted in this way?

 

[Freightmaster]

paying for staff, fuel, maintenance, etc, with nothing to do, for heaven knows how long ... just in case something fails.

Isn't that the very definition of 'Thunderbird' loco provision - the cost of paying for "readiness" is rapid
recovery of service in the event of a train failure blocking the line in areas without bi-diectional signalling?


MARK

 

[Peter0124]

Anyone know where the failed pendolino (1S69) was dragged to and what time it was moved?

 

[Spartacus]

Isn't that the very definition of 'Thunderbird' loco provision - the cost of paying for "readiness" is rapid
recovery of service in the event of a train failure blocking the line in areas without bi-directional signalling?


MARK

You at least try and do it somewhere sensible, like Carlisle, as it was in this case. Part of the problem was the trains between it and the failed train, but also a general point that operators seem to be getting very reluctant to declare their train a failure these days. That meant that by the time the thunderbird was officially required the driver was close enough to running out of hours that it was deemed more sensible to wait for the next one that send it out with the risk of it being stuck somewhere in the SLW with a driver who was out of hours and no easy way to get the fresh driver to the loco.

 

[Deepgreen]

Isn't that the very definition of 'Thunderbird' loco provision - the cost of paying for "readiness" is rapid
recovery of service in the event of a train failure blocking the line in areas without bi-diectional signalling?


MARK

Yes, but the tricky balance is; how many TBs, where and at what cost? What maximum distance from any TB to any possible failed train, or what maximum time? How do you take into account the bi-di options plus trains' positions to allow a TB to gain access? It's horribly complicated.

 

[Spartacus]

Perhaps an obvious question - could the following train not have pushed the stricken one? Can 390s not couple/assist/be assisted in this way?

I think the one behind may have been non-multi

 

[DelW]

Some lines are equipped for simplified Bi Directional working, which allows a very basic “wrong direction” service to operate, mostly automatically. The upper end of the WCML isn’t, as our signalling dates from 1972. In fact, the points that allow crossover movements to happen were only really changed from mechanical ground frames to electrical operation in the last 10-15 years, and for the movement of them to happen remotely instead of from a panel at site in the last 5 or so.

So, it does require less staff now, than it did say, 10 years ago, but it remains a manual operation on my patch of the woods. I was only needed because Bodsbury LC (user worked with miniature warning lights) has no ability to reset its operating sequence during wrong direction movements, and would only reset when used by a train in the correct direction. Not a show stopper for the railway, but a major inconvenience for the folks that live on the wrong side of it. It also helps to have a staff member there as, although approached in the wrong direction at extreme caution, it will give no warning of an approaching wrong direction train until said train is only a couple of metres away.

I’m just resetting a bit of circuitry, and mostly sat in a van, in the dark listening to the radio. The real heroes last night would be the on train staff. I wouldn’t have wanted to be in their shoes.

Very interesting insights, thank you for taking the trouble to explain all this. The ramifications for passengers from events like this are obvious, but the implications for staff, and the amount of work needed to recover from them, are harder for most of us to find out about. It also helps me to appreciate the difficulties involved.

As an aside, it's the posts from working controllers, drivers, guards, RPIs, S&T and p/way staff (and any other grades I've missed ) that I find so useful on these forums. I don't know of any other source of such information direct "from the horse's mouth", let alone one where it may be available more or less in real time.

 

[Horizon22]

I remember a breakdown at exactly this point in the 1970s, on the north side of the climb to Beattock.

The pair of Class 20 Beattock bankers came down and hauled it up to the summit loop, where a replacement electric loco was attached. Time loss - about an hour.

That was in the times when the railway had resources (and initiative, and indeed procedures) to do this sort of thing, so the lack of bi-di working did not show up as a major issue What has happened nowadays is that that the resources were let go without thought that, sometimes, they were actually doing something valuable and useful.

It's a classic issue though - how much do you spend to keep loads of standby resources for an event that will happen very rarely compared to the extended time to deal with the incident? It's a political one as much as an economic one as it doesn't only relate to the railway.

I'm not necessarily saying that keeping spare locos around isn't a good move but as with anything - especially in this climate - everything is being scrutinised and indeed has been for many years. BR had good resourcing but in some ways was an economic basket case so it's swings and roundabouts!

Ultimately trains should not fail as dramatically as they did here, but that is probably wishful thinking.

 

[Dfatcontroller]

I think the one behind may have been non-multi

I'm not sure if the Pendo behind was non-multi or because it was only a 9-car.
I believe the compressor was knackered on the failure (11-car) and the one behind a 9-car.
Is one compressor enough for 20-vehicles?

 

[43066]

It's a classic issue though - how much do you spend to keep loads of standby resources for an event that will happen very rarely compared to the extended time to deal with the incident? It's a political one as much as an economic one as it doesn't only relate to the railway.

I'm not necessarily saying that keeping spare locos around isn't a good move but as with anything - especially in this climate - everything is being scrutinised and indeed has been for many years. BR had good resourcing but in some ways was an economic basket case so it's swings and roundabouts!

Ultimately trains should not fail as dramatically as they did here, but that is probably wishful thinking.

Plus, given a passenger rolling stock fleet that is mostly made up of multiple units, it will often be far easier to provide assistance from the following train (albeit evidently not in this particular case).

Attaching a loco to a unit will also generally require a coupling adapter, and these aren’t readily available.

 

[Horizon22]

Plus, given a passenger rolling stock fleet that is mostly made up of multiple units, it will often be far easier to provide assistance from the following train (albeit evidently not in this particular case).

Attaching a loco to a unit will also generally require a coupling adapter, and these aren’t readily available.

It sounds like the specific location (and timing) of this failure really hampered things.

As any controller goes you might get the exact same failure but the outcome could be wildly different depending on the day, time of day, location, weather, infrastructure constraints, any secondary incidents and resource (including station and train crew hours) availability.

 

[Efini92]

I'm not sure if the Pendo behind was non-multi or because it was only a 9-car.
I believe the compressor was knackered on the failure (11-car) and the one behind a 9-car.
Is one compressor enough for 20-vehicles?

The pendos have the ability to switch to a brake pipe.
The problem is the couplers, they are never used and most of the time the hatches don’t open or the coupler fails to extend.

 

[43066]

The pendos have the ability to switch to a brake pipe.
The problem is the couplers, they are never used and most of the time the hatches don’t open or the coupler fails to extend.

Out of interest, are you guys actually trained to couple pendos and able to practice on the depot, or only taught the theory for use in emergencies?

 

[Dr Hoo]

The pendos have the ability to switch to a brake pipe.
The problem is the couplers, they are never used and most of the time the hatches don’t open or the coupler fails to extend.

Why aren’t the hatches and coupler extension function tested (say) weekly?
I get that actually doing a full two-set functional test at both ends is probably a bit too much to ask for.

 

[Efini92]

Out of interest, are you guys actually trained to couple pendos and able to practice on the depot, or only taught the theory for use in emergencies?

No, it’s only theory now. I don’t think 2 pendos have been coupled since they tested them. Once virgin staff lost the thunderbird work, the coupling responsibilities passed to DRS and an on call manager.
If they are coupled the instruction is to only couple mechanically and pneumatically.

Why aren’t the hatches and coupler extension function tested (say) weekly?
I get that actually doing a full two-set functional test at both ends is probably a bit too much to ask for.

I think they should be part of the prep daily, but sadly it’s not. I’m not sure of the reason why. Some have said it’s down to cost, but I’ve never seen anything in writing.

 

[43066]

No, it’s only theory now. I don’t think 2 pendos have been coupled since they tested them. Once virgin staff lost the thunderbird work, the coupling responsibilities passed to DRS and an on call manager.
If they are coupled the instruction is to only couple mechanically and pneumatically.

Thanks mate - I suspected that was the case.

I think they should be part of the prep daily, but sadly it’s not. I’m not sure of the reason why. Some have said it’s down to cost, but I’ve never seen anything in writing.

Are there running restrictions if the hatch opens and fails to close/coupler fails to retract?

That might explain why they aren’t keen on testing them .

 

[Efini92]

Thanks mate - I suspected that was the case.



Are there running restrictions if the hatch opens and fails to close/coupler fails to retract?

That might explain why they aren’t keen on testing them .

In daytime there’s an 80mph restriction because there’s not enough yellow showing on the front.
Night time there’s no restriction.

 

[Bikeman78]

In daytime there’s an 80mph restriction because there’s not enough yellow showing on the front.
Night time there’s no restriction.

How was the figure of 80 mph arrived at? There must be a rather narrow set of circumstances where that would make any difference.

 

[Efini92]

How was the figure of 80 mph arrived at? There must be a rather narrow set of circumstances where that would make any difference.

Pass. I know for years they ran around with them open without restriction. Then one day it was changed.

 

[tpjm]

What night for all involved. Another classic WCML North 'creeping death' incident. Unfortunately, the remoteness of that part of the route does mean all response times are exacerbated.

As I understand it, 1S69 had failed across the points at Abington restricting the ability to divert via the loop. Personnel for SLW were requested within 45 mins of the incident starting and after various resets with 1S69 were unsuccessful, the decision was taken to use 9S70 for train to train evacuation. Unfortunately, as the SLW was between Beattock Summit and Abington North, 9S70 was required to set back, and when this was attempted, that unit also developed a fault. Resolving the fault with 9S70 and getting the staff in place for SLW meant that it was three hours after the incident started before 9S70 was authorised into the SL section.

In terms of clearing the line, I'm going to speculate that this was to do with getting the Thunderbird to site. There was much traffic in the area waiting for a route, and the rostered DRS Driver would have booked off at 23:00, so I suspect by the time 1Z99 had authority to go forward, they'd have been running out of hours. DRS do usually have people available overnight, but perhaps their later book on time was what hampered the recovery.

Sounds like a very rough night. One thing that struck me yet again and something I have complained about to Avanti and indeed others not toc related but political etc. Is this rather frustrating habit they seem to have at Avanti control for? I assume it is them that makes the decision of rerouting Edinburgh trains to Glasgow Central when there's even the Vegas width of the brown stuff in the air. If they don't want to serve Edinburgh anymore then ask the DFT to find someone else to run services to Edinburgh with passengers. Transferring it Carlisle or similar but don't just leave people out in the cold the moment something goes wrong

I can assure you that any decision taken by AWC Control to divert trains for Edinburgh to Glasgow or vv is a last resort option to keep the service moving. Pendolinos are booked to run empty between Edinburgh / Polmadie Depot (just outside Glasgow) so if there is any reason that move couldn't happen, either in the evening or the next day, something else needs to be done. This is usually the result of not having an available Driver, either due to a turn being uncovered, or because someone has run out of hours during disruption. The first question is always to Network Rail to ask for an outstabler at Edinburgh, which they are seldom ever able to facilitate, particularly over the weekend. Sometimes though, if it's a Polmadie (Glasgow) Driver, they might not have the hours left to run it up to Edinburgh and then across. There's also situations where possessions in the Edinburgh area will not / can not be held off for significant late runners. As ever, the alternative option is to cancel the service in full and put the stock onto Wembley Depot, which requires an equal action in the Up direction so something will be cancelled off Glasgow.

The pendos have the ability to switch to a brake pipe.
The problem is the couplers, they are never used and most of the time the hatches don’t open or the coupler fails to extend.

'Never used' is an interesting choice of words. Like all things on a piece of rolling stock, it is subject to maintenance and exam at a frequency that is determined by criticality of operation and usage. Where they fail to deploy correctly, in my experience, it's usually following an impact at speed, and there is the ability to manually deploy.

 

[Tram203]

In daytime there’s an 80mph restriction because there’s not enough yellow showing on the front.
Night time there’s no restriction.

Yet Avanti's 805's and LNWR's 350's can happily tank along at 100mph or more with precisely zero yellow showing on the front.

 

[b0b]

Theres an X thread from someone that was working the incident here: https://x.com/stephen37292ML/status/1833381809482010997

Also an interesting person to follow IMHO

 

[Spartacus]

Yet Avanti's 805's and LNWR's 350's can happily tank along at 100mph or more with precisely zero yellow showing on the front

Because they've the latest compliant lighting arrangement, which the 390s don't. Personally I'm hoping someone retrofits a preserved diesel and we see one mainline with no yellow ends, but that's going very off topic.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The real heroes last night would be the on train staff. I wouldn’t have wanted to be in their shoes.

Absolutely. They are often the unsung heroes.

 

[Deepgreen]

The pendos have the ability to switch to a brake pipe.
The problem is the couplers, they are never used and most of the time the hatches don’t open or the coupler fails to extend.

Brilliant - so a lacking maintenance regime leads to a vital, if rarely-needed, function failing... I wonder if this incident will lead to more attention being given to the ability of the stock to assist in the event of failures.

 

[Efini92]

'Never used' is an interesting choice of words. Like all things on a piece of rolling stock, it is subject to maintenance and exam at a frequency that is determined by criticality of operation and usage. Where they fail to deploy correctly, in my experience, it's usually following an impact at speed, and there is the ability to manually deploy.

Not used in normal operation is probably a better choice of words.
The facility for them to work in multi definitely comes under never used as it’s not allowed.
The problem is, with the exception of the exam (I’m not sure of which one) the couplers are checked, the coupler will remain in the retracted position with the hatch closed. This allows a build up of grime which blocks the runners for the hatch.
The other day, the power went off at Crewe and the driver attempted to extend both couplers, one hatch didn’t open, the other about 2 inches.
You’re quite correct, there is a manual way, but unfortunately due to the working instructions, this task is not completed by the train driver.

 

[Deepgreen]

Because they've the latest compliant lighting arrangement, which the 390s don't. Personally I'm hoping someone retrofits a preserved diesel and we see one mainline with no yellow ends, but that's going very off topic.

I think I'd rather it had at least a semblance of prototypical lighting rather than be festooned with dazzling LEDs for the sake of no yellow.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It does seem (somewhat to my surprise) that the Class 390s, as operated and maintained, are utterly unfit for purpose if anything untoward happens. Reliance on a single compressor that can apparently immediately immobilise the train in the middle of nowhere seems most unfortunate.
With the couplers and hatches effectively unusable in anger by on-train staff (either by design or training) any breakdown on a two-track section with no immediate electrified diversion is bound to trigger utter chaos.

Not surprisingly we don’t see freight locomotives running round with no buffers, coupling hook or brake pipes! Why should passenger trains be any different? I get that modern electrical connections mean that passenger trains have rather different couplers to locomotives but a straightforward basic mechanical and pneumatic connection via an adapter should be available, probably accessible from every cab. Shouldn’t it?

 

[Efini92]

It does seem (somewhat to my surprise) that the Class 390s, as operated and maintained, are utterly unfit for purpose if anything untoward happens. Reliance on a single compressor that can apparently immediately immobilise the train in the middle of nowhere seems most unfortunate.
With the couplers and hatches effectively unusable in anger by on-train staff (either by design or training) any breakdown on a two-track section with no immediate electrified diversion is bound to trigger utter chaos.

Not surprisingly we don’t see freight locomotives running round with no buffers, coupling hook or brake pipes! Why should passenger trains be any different? I get that modern electrical connections mean that passenger trains have rather different couplers to locomotives but a straightforward basic mechanical and pneumatic connection via an adapter should be available, probably accessible from every cab. Shouldn’t it?

The 390 has 3 main air compressors.
There is also an emergency coupler in each end should the rescue come from other than a 57. However again the working instructions mean an on call manager has to attend.

 

[bahnause]

Driver of 1S69 attempting to rectify faults this took about an hour before declared failure, then to implement single line working needs staff to site to hand signal in relevant areas.
When decision to evacuate taken also need staff on site to assist they need to travel to site, I believe BTP were also required to assist.

No time Limit to rectify a fault? We are given 10 minute timeline. After 10 minutes, all resources are used for evacuation and preparation for dragging the failed unit away. The rescue train is also called out after these 10 minutes.

Yes, but the tricky balance is; how many TBs, where and at what cost? What maximum distance from any TB to any possible failed train, or what maximum time? How do you take into account the bi-di options plus trains' positions to allow a TB to gain access? It's horribly complicated.

The only thing that needs to be defined is which resources need to be on site and the time frame. The rest results from these requirements. The same applies to any necessary investments in infrastructure. The big step is the change from „Wouldn‘t it be nice to be there to assist in an hour“ to „It‘s a requirement to be there in an hour. We give you all the tools and money to achieve this, but we will hold you accountable as well.“