Braking issue on Caledonian Sleeper causes train to "run away" at Edinburgh

[Highlandspring]

I read that a few times as well, the only thing I can infer from it is that red zone working is now banned in Scotland without signal protection of the lines being worked on?

Unassisted lookout working has been banned in Scotland since 2013.

 

[DarloRich]

Unassisted lookout working has been banned in Scotland since 2013.

Fair enough. Only ever been on depots or yards in Scotland

 

[EE Andy b1]

No, that’s incorrect.

The traction (locomotives and their associated drivers, maintenance etc) is provided by GBRf to SERCO. The GBRf staff work for GBRf (not under contract to anyone).

The shunters are not GBRf staff - they are either directly employed by Serco or are provided under separate contract to them. The ones at Euston are Victa Rail. Not sure about Scotland end, but believe the Edinburgh / Carstairs one’s are direct Serco employees.

Yep probably worded wrongly then, but the drivers are GBRf working a service for Caledonian operated by SERCO, so a contract somewhere! Thought the shunting staff were the same.
Might just explain why this sleeper service is such a mess at the moment. Too many different operators involved with one service and no proper training on new rollingstock.

Does anybody know if or not these Mk5 vehicles have an automatic parking brake on each vehicle?

I presume not as if the air from brakes was vented or leaked off then the spring loaded parking brake would apply, as air is required to release the parking brake.

 

[Taunton]

I'm trying to understand the sequence of events at Carstairs - the 8 coaches are detached, presumably with the brakes still on then the loco attaches. If they are then inadvertently left isolated from the loco, then would the brakes not still be on, at the point at which the train tries to move away? Would it not require an action from the driver at this point to release the brakes - and if the driver were unable to release them it would quickly become apparent that something was wrong.

That does indeed seem a question. The train just stopped to change locomotives, when uncoupled the air brakes would fully apply if not before. There would not be nearly enough time for the brake cylinders to leak off to enable a normal start. Brake continuity tests can show an error when the stock has been standing for a long time, but that is surely not the case here.

It's surprising also that the train ran away from Haymarket to Abbeyhill unable to be stopped on a 6-axle loco brake. An unbraked freight of that size in former times would have pulled up well within that distance. That must be two miles.

 

[HSTEd]

Why was this stock even built with conventional couplers?

This sort of thing can't really happen with modern fully automatic couplers where the air lines are connected and disconnected automatically. (Something like C-AKv would still have allowed use of a buffer and chain locomotive in an emergency)

 

[syorksdeano]

I've just seen on twitter (so not sure if it is true) but apparently this is the 2nd issue with brakes this week

https://twitter.com/sharpie1995/status/1156924648413630464?s=09

what they havent said is this is the 2nd brake incident in as many days one of the test paths for the new stock had brake issues on Tuesday evening[\quote]

 

[konstant]

After the brake test was carried out??

Whilst my previous post was based on fact, I’m happy to contribute to a touch of reasoned (experienced) speculation that a less experienced driver might note she built up wind quick, but that’s all. I suspect there may be learning issues with pre-departure brake test training.

Equally as it’s uphill, probably didn’t notice early on she was shy of brakes but there you are.

I can think of one derailment where when a driver of mine was asked what he did when he noticed the train was “dragging a touch”. His answer was “I knocked it up a notch”. It took a good mile before he realised how many axles he had running on the ballast.

It’s not always obvious when you’re sat in the hot seat. Seems obvious sat on the computer.

 

[43096]

Why was this stock even built with conventional couplers?

This sort of thing can't really happen with modern fully automatic couplers where the air lines are connected and disconnected automatically. (Something like C-AKv would still have allowed use of a buffer and chain locomotive in an emergency)

Why not have a look at the past threads on it on here before jumping in with both feet?

Stock has Dellner couplers, and the locos involved have been converted to have them.

 

[Class 170101]

Did the gradient alsdo assit in bringing it to a stand? (Thinking of the Northern Line incident here with runaway engineers trolley as I recall)

 

[EE Andy b1]

Why was this stock even built with conventional couplers?

This sort of thing can't really happen with modern fully automatic couplers where the air lines are connected and disconnected automatically. (Something like C-AKv would still have allowed use of a buffer and chain locomotive in an emergency)

Mk5 sleepers and Class 92 locomotives have Dellner semi-automatic couplers with no electrical connections but do have the Main Reservoir & brake pipe.

 

[HSTEd]

Mk5 sleepers and Class 92 locomotives have Dellner semi-automatic couplers with no electrical connections but do have the Main Reservoir & brake pipe.

Shouldn't the couplers have automatically connected the brake pipes when the connection was made then?
How do you end up with an isolated brake system?

 

[hexagon789]

Shouldn't the couplers have automatically connected the brake pipes when the connection was made then?
How do you end up with an isolated brake system?

Isolating lever cutting off loco from coaches not opened after shunting?

 

[MrEd]

I've mentioned this before but ages ago a Deltic on an ECML express was coupled without the isolating cocks on the brake pipes being opened. The situation was saved by an alert dining car attendent noticing they had rattled through a planned stop at staggering speed and pulling the communication cord. There is nothing new under the sun, but I'd assumed a RBT was de rigeur. It is now, as they say in footy.

I believe this was the incident involving 55008 at Darlington in February 1977, when working the 08:00 Kings Cross to Edinburgh? The report (on the Railways Archive) seems to suggest that the isolating cock on the brake pipe accidentally became closed after the loco ran over debris in the four foot at 100mph between York and Darlington, which dislodged one of the loco’s traction motor covers. The loose traction motor cover is thought to have become lodged in the trailing buffer beam and to have hit the brake pipe isolating cock as it flapped about at speed (or perhaps the debris had already flown up and closed the cock). This was an extremely strange and unfortunate set of circumstances. The cock must have been open between departure from London and somewhere between York and Darlington, as the brakes were working normally up to that point. As line speed was 100mph back then all the way from York Yard North to the final approaches to Darlington, and that stretch of the ECML has no steep gradients, the driver would have had no reason to use the brakes until he started to brake for his Darlington stop. Someone may well correct me, but I thought that running brake tests (if that is what you mean by RBT?) were generally only a requirement in adverse weather conditions?

I seem to remember that this express was booked to stop at Darlington, and that passengers and on-board crew knew something was seriously wrong when the train took the junction leading to the platform lines at twice the normal speed (they were very lucky that this did not derail the train).

 

[MrEd]

This is the link to the incident with 55008 if any of you are interested.

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=554

 

[HSTEd]

Isolating lever cutting off loco from coaches not opened after shunting?

I must be being an idiot, but shouldn't an isolating lever system on a locomotive fitted with an autocoupler automatically open the isolating valve, if closed, when coupling occurs?

Otherwise one of the primary advantages of a fully automatic coupler is lost - that shunting mistakes like this become rare or impossible.
Unless someone accidentally closed the isolating valve after coupling occurred - but why would you do that? (Errors of commission are at least an order of magnitude rarer than errors of omission, at least according to studies in the nuclear industry)

This RAIB report will certainly make for interesting reading.

 

[a_c_skinner]

That runaway: yes, now you say as much it wasn't overlooked it was accidental closure of the isolating cock.

running brake tests (if that is what you mean by RBT?) were generally only a requirement in adverse weather conditions?

Yes, sorry running brake test. It is used fairly commonly in those timing logs you see in trainspotter's mags and it is seen fairly often in these logs. A Google search turns up RSSB Rulebook TW1 which to cut a long story short seems to say you must carry out a RBT as soon as practical and in any case before you might need to stop the train at least for locomotive hauled and HSTs.

 

[marks87]

I must be being an idiot, but shouldn't an isolating lever system on a locomotive fitted with an autocoupler automatically open the isolating valve, if closed, when coupling occurs?

Someone more “in the know” will certainly correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding from the threads on here is that the Dellners only physically couple the stock, with all electrical and brake connections still needing to be done manually.

The reason then for using Dellners is that they don’t need as big a “bump” to couple as a buckeye thus, ostensibly, leading to a better passenger guest experience during the shunting operations.

 

[EE Andy b1]

RUNNING BRAKE TEST

You must test that the automatic brake is working properly by carrying out a running brake test.

When you carry out a running brake test, you must do so from a speed that is high enough for you to be sure that:
• the brake is operating effectively • the speed of the train is being reduced.

Locomotive-hauled trains and HSTs.
You must carry out the running brake test at the first opportunity after beginning the journey. You must, if possible, also carry out a running brake test in good time before approaching: • the first stopping place • a crossing place on a single line • a steep falling gradient • a terminus or dead-end platform line.

 

[class 9]

I’m not familiar with the Mark 5, but I read somewhere that that brakes are EP( electro pneumatic) and not like a traditional 2 pipe air braked vehicle.

 

[EE Andy b1]

Someone more “in the know” will certainly correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding from the threads on here is that the Dellners only physically couple the stock, with all electrical and brake connections still needing to be done manually.

The reason then for using Dellners is that they don’t need as big a “bump” to couple as a buckeye thus, ostensibly, leading to a better passenger guest experience during the shunting operations.

Your correct but the brake and main reservoir pipes connect via the dellner.
If you look at that picture of the dellner on the Class 92, #70, you can see the 2 pipes on the coupler which are attached to dummy couplings. So when the dellner is used these two pipes Red (brake) and yellow (main Res) are attached to the brake and main res pipes on the buffer beam of the locomotive and you still have there isolating cocks to open.
They couple automatically when two couplers come together but are released manually by a release lever on the dellner.

 

[hexagon789]

I must be being an idiot, but shouldn't an isolating lever system on a locomotive fitted with an autocoupler automatically open the isolating valve, if closed, when coupling occurs?

Otherwise one of the primary advantages of a fully automatic coupler is lost - that shunting mistakes like this become rare or impossible.
Unless someone accidentally closed the isolating valve after coupling occurred - but why would you do that? (Errors of commission are at least an order of magnitude rarer than errors of omission, at least according to studies in the nuclear industry)

This RAIB report will certainly make for interesting reading.

I would guess that while the air lines are automatically connected it still requires a valve to be opened to connect the loco and the coaches together. I'm not sure you'd want the valve to automatically open.

I’m not familiar with the Mark 5, but I read somewhere that that brakes are EP( electro pneumatic) and not like a traditional 2 pipe air braked vehicle.

Still UIC two-pipe air afaik.

 

[theageofthetra]

An appalling incident, thoughts with all involved and let's hope this ends with one of the most rigorous RAIB investigations of recent times.

Not signing any sort of loco hauled passenger stock could those that do please clarify a couple of things.

1) If the driver had slammed his controller into emergency with the coach brakes isolated would a full emergency brake application only have occurred on the locomotive?

2) Would hitting the red Emergency Stop buttons have the same effect as the above?

3) If the guard hit any of the emergency buttons or devices available to them what brakes (if any) would be applied?

Thanks for any information.

 

[Bassman]

As a traveller, I am totally alarmed that a train cannot stop in a station. This seems as dangerous as West Coast Railways SPAD incident at Wootten Bassett, leading to bans, and serious investigation into protocols for safety.

 

[Cowley]

As a traveller, I am totally alarmed that a train cannot stop in a station. This seems as dangerous as West Coast Railways SPAD incident at Wootten Bassett, leading to bans, and serious investigation into protocols for safety.

It’s an unfortunate incident that will be learned from and hopefully won’t ever happen again due to the way safety is treated on the railways in this country.
Nobody was hurt and no damage was done.
A lesson learned, but thankfully not the hard way...

 

[158756]

If RTT is correct and the train first 'arrived' at Edinburgh at 0728 into platforms 7/11, that was the only through platform available at the time (and the platform it usually arrives at - if it was due to terminate in a bay there might not have been any).

It was very fortunate this train didn't hit anything.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It’s an unfortunate incident that will be learned from and hopefully won’t ever happen again due to the way safety is treated on the railways in this country.
Nobody was hurt and no damage was done.
A lesson learned, but thankfully not the hard way...

That is a pretty ridiculous statement to make. The fact nobody died doesn’t make it an “unfortunate incident”. It was extremely serious. Whatever action or inaction that caused it is one thing but more serious is the fact that their action/inaction could cause such an incident and there are wasn’t a safety system to prevent it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That I don't know as I was purely talking about passenger operated buttons not staff only buttons! But yes that would seem logical.

Doesn't CAF stock have the German style "green button to talk to driver, red button to stop now" arrangement? The 195s do at least.

 

[hexagon789]

Doesn't CAF stock have the German style "green button to talk to driver, red button to stop now" arrangement? The 195s do at least.

Not going to make much difference if you've no functioning train brakes and just the loco brakes to use.

 

[trebor79]

I think this would definitely be a new pants situation for most drivers, must be quite a shock when braking is asked for and none/very little is provided.

Yep, although nothing like as serious as this, it happened to me on a heritage line many years ago. Doing a shunt with an 03 and many vehicles, requiring revseral onto the "main" line which had a 1 in 40-odd gradient I was only doing about 5 miles an hour, but it soon became apparent I had no train brakes at all and had only the loco air brake. Making a full brake application only for the speed to increase was a little disconcerting. Some reverse curves eventually helped bring it under control and to a gentle stop. Starting it back up the hill was interesting too!

I'm not sure if have remained so calm if it I'd been in the driving seat of the 92. Kudos to the driver an signaller for helping avoid a more serious incident from unfolding.

 

[Cowley]

That is a pretty ridiculous statement to make. The fact nobody died doesn’t make it an “unfortunate incident”. It was extremely serious. Whatever action or inaction that caused it is one thing but more serious is the fact that their action/inaction could cause such an incident and there are wasn’t a safety system to prevent it.

Yes I probably should’ve engaged brain before moving off on that post.
It was as you say Very serious, and I was trying to say (badly) that it will be learned from and that thankfully no-one was harmed during this potentially disastrous incident.