Collision between Hull Trains and GTR at Kings Cross

Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by HLE 13, 16 May 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HLE 13

    HLE 13 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,921
    Joined:
    1 Mar 2012
    I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet <D but on the 14th May, the RAIB was advised of a low speed collision between a GTR service and a Hull Trains service in Platform 2 at Kings Cross.

    The trains involved consisted of a single Class 180 and a pair of Class 365s running as 1H06 Kings Cross to Beverley & 1P18 18:40 Kings Cross to Peterborough both were cancelled as a result.
     
  2. scott118

    scott118 Member

    Messages:
    866
    Joined:
    24 Feb 2015
    Location:
    East Anglia
  3. HLE 13

    HLE 13 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,921
    Joined:
    1 Mar 2012
    But NOT here, yet Train/Tractor accident near Knaresborough, North Yorks, How did this man not get electrocuted?, Altercation on Hucknall train even this got discussed Door controls left open all of these threads all got discussed yet am surprised there wasn't a single comment posted about the collision which for obvious reasons has had to involve the RAIB.

    For a normally vocal debating forum, I'm surprised at the absolute silence here....
     
  4. High Dyke

    High Dyke Established Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Joined:
    1 Jan 2013
    Location:
    Yellabelly Country
    I understand there were no injuries reported or damage to either train, and the report of it actually occuring came in a round about way. No actual conversation between signaller and respective driver.
     
  5. A-driver

    A-driver Established Member

    Messages:
    4,483
    Joined:
    9 May 2011
    Was a very, very minor collision and a bit of a non incident. The trains were cancelled as a precaution. I wouldn't get too excited about this one as it certainly wasn't a big collision!
     
  6. AM9

    AM9 Established Member

    Messages:
    4,546
    Joined:
    13 May 2014
    Location:
    St Albans
    What's more important is how did it occur and should something be done to procedures/training/scheduling to reduce its likelyhood of recurring?
     
  7. A-driver

    A-driver Established Member

    Messages:
    4,483
    Joined:
    9 May 2011

    Well considering it's not a daily event I'm guessing very little can or will be done to prevent it happening again. From what I know so far it was just one of those things, thousands of trains run up to other trains in stations every day without incident.

    As I say, I wouldn't get excited about this incident as nothing really happened.
     
  8. Stompehh

    Stompehh Member

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    5 Apr 2013
    Is anyone able to explain what actually did happen, purely for interest?
     
  9. AM9

    AM9 Established Member

    Messages:
    4,546
    Joined:
    13 May 2014
    Location:
    St Albans
    I did say should something be done which would at least require finding out why it happened. To ignore a potentially hazardous event to pass just because neither equipment no person was injured is folly. The next similar event could be like the one at Norwich last year.
     
  10. ralphchadkirk

    ralphchadkirk Established Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2008
    Location:
    Hatfield or Surrey
    The very minor one where there were only 8 injured people (4 of which were walking wounded) out of 60 passengers involved?
     
  11. A-driver

    A-driver Established Member

    Messages:
    4,483
    Joined:
    9 May 2011

    I'm not willing to say exactly what went on at this point as its still under investigation but I can tell you what is already public and that basically is that the 8 car came in on top of a 5 and to ensure he was in the driver eased up as close as possible to the hull unit. At incredibly low speed due to them sticking out quite a long way the couplers of the 2 trains touched.
     
  12. HLE 13

    HLE 13 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,921
    Joined:
    1 Mar 2012
    As a passenger on the GTR service, the train arrived and discarded it's London bound passengers as it's outward passengers got on then for some reason the doors were closed, there was a jolt as is case when GTR trains are coupled together then the doors reopened.

    Just puzzled why arrive, release doors on the right side then close them then open them again seconds later??? It seems strange that's all.
     
  13. A-driver

    A-driver Established Member

    Messages:
    4,483
    Joined:
    9 May 2011

    I'm not saying it will or should be ignored but there is no way of 'training' this kind of thing-the driver was very, very experienced and all drivers know you don't crash into other trains...

    It will be investigated internally, not sure if the RAIB will investigate it in much depth, but it dosnt seem it was a result of a series of failings or anything major like that.
     
  14. swills

    swills Member

    Messages:
    480
    Joined:
    15 Jan 2008
    Although there was nothing wrong with signals etc at Norwich, the Signallers now have a special instruction, that they have to call the Station Supervisor before they let any train in on '2 whites' when (all) the track circuits are occupied in the platforms, so you could have 2 x 170 or 2 x 158's in a 10 car platform with a 153 coming in, but they must get the OK from the Station to let it in,
     
  15. TheNewNo2

    TheNewNo2 Member

    Messages:
    904
    Joined:
    31 Mar 2015
    Location:
    Canary Wharf
    If this is the case it seems like no real issue. Possibly the 365s shouldn't have been signalled to that platform (I don't know how long the KGX intercity platforms are, and for some reason the NR LNE baseline declaration doesn't list them, unlike the Western, though this does say last updated 2007, so pre platform 0), but if it's long enough for 5+8 that's no failure.
     
  16. Stompehh

    Stompehh Member

    Messages:
    127
    Joined:
    5 Apr 2013
    Thanks, that's all I wanted to know :)
     
  17. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    10,998
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    I was sat on the balcony at KX waiting for the 1850's platform to be displayed, as this is the first off-peak train to Nottingham (change at Grantham). About 10min beforehand there was an announcement to listen to announcements. At about 1847 it changed from "On Time" to "Delayed", just as I was on the way over to St Pancras for the 1915, as I didn't want to miss an 8min connection at Grantham and have to wait there the best part of an hour.
     
  18. bramling

    bramling Established Member

    Messages:
    2,925
    Joined:
    5 Mar 2012
    Location:
    South-East / Barnard Castle
    It is normal for the 2x365 to be signalled in on top of a 180? Can't recall if I've ever seen this done before.
     
  19. CyrusWuff

    CyrusWuff Established Member

    Messages:
    1,844
    Joined:
    20 May 2013
    For reference, it's a booked platform share between the relevant trains, and can use Platforms 1-4 at Kings Cross.

    Sectional Appendix platform lengths are 295m for P1, 293m for P2 (where the incident occurred) and 291m for both P3 and P4.

    The nominal length of the 365s is 163.8m, and that of the 180 is 116.52m. Assuming the 365s stopped 2m from the buffer stop, and the 180 was due to stop 2m from the 365s, that adds up to 284.32m, leaving plenty of room to spare.
     
  20. TheNewNo2

    TheNewNo2 Member

    Messages:
    904
    Joined:
    31 Mar 2015
    Location:
    Canary Wharf
    Ah, another person who finds the Midland Main Line tiresome.
     
  21. A-driver

    A-driver Established Member

    Messages:
    4,483
    Joined:
    9 May 2011
    It is normal for an 8 car to go ontop of a 5. But from the front it can be hard to know how much space you have behind. And it depends how close to the stops the 5 car is. Often the 5 cars stop at the lollipop with no need so they are closer to 6 cars. It fits but can seem right.
     
  22. bramling

    bramling Established Member

    Messages:
    2,925
    Joined:
    5 Mar 2012
    Location:
    South-East / Barnard Castle
    Thanks both for the info.

    Regarding the lollipop you mention - am I right that this is provided for East Coast trains? I remember in the past WAGN (as they were then) tended to stop at these, then at some point there seemed to be a change and their trains tended to be brought right up to the stops.
     
  23. A-driver

    A-driver Established Member

    Messages:
    4,483
    Joined:
    9 May 2011

    The lollipop assures East Coast trains are in reach of tanking pipes. Some FCC drivers stop at them to, others go up to the stops. Either is fine.
     
  24. asylumxl

    asylumxl Established Member

    Messages:
    4,252
    Joined:
    12 Feb 2009
    Location:
    Hiding in your shadow

    Where can I find these FCC trains? I'd prefer them to GTR ;).
     
  25. High Dyke

    High Dyke Established Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Joined:
    1 Jan 2013
    Location:
    Yellabelly Country
    There may those users that would possibly disagree...;)

    On the subject of ECML vs MML. I don't mind either. MML for me is free, but longer as i need to travel to Nottingham first. Therefore the ECML is better. No changes and quicker. HT are usually the first choice when i use the ECML.
     
  26. Hairy Bear

    Hairy Bear Member

    Messages:
    128
    Joined:
    13 Feb 2011
    Location:
    Derbyshire
    MML - 1hr 36 direct

    East Coast - 1hr 41 add risk of connection

    Slightly strange !
     
  27. bramling

    bramling Established Member

    Messages:
    2,925
    Joined:
    5 Mar 2012
    Location:
    South-East / Barnard Castle
    OK thanks. Seems to be more of an issue for Platforms 1-4, as the lollipops on Platforms 5-8 are almost at the stops anyway, presumably this came about when the platform lengths were reduced to create extra concourse space.
     
  28. Taunton

    Taunton Established Member

    Messages:
    2,470
    Joined:
    1 Aug 2013
    It does seem to be the increasing style to treat station platforms as the New Stabling Sidings, presumably to save a bit on costs of actually taking trains to the sidings, and to then squash the actual train movements into what is left. The Norwich incident demonstrated this only too well, there were already two stabled trains in a short platform and then a third one was called on into this with the intention that it would "just" fit the first door. I was surprised that the RAIB report didn't actually say it was inappropriate operating and to take trains out to sidings if they get in the way of operating the station.

    It impacts two ways, firstly having trains at the country end, beyond the stabled train, and secondly having trains occupying platforms means actual movements have to be pushed together in what is left. I'd like to see the Risk Assessment of introducing this way of working. We get paranoid nowadays about a SPAD of a few feet beyond a signal which has the normal 1/4 mile overlap, and then separately expect trains to roll in at night and pull up not at a signal but a few feet from vehicles parked in front.
     
    Last edited: 18 May 2015
  29. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    10,998
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    ECML - on that particular occasion, spend 25min less hanging around for first off-peak service and get home 30+min earlier once allowance is made for catching or missing buses from Nottingham. Or at least that would have happened if it had run!
     
  30. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    15,364
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    It's difficult to see this as a newly introduced way of working, from my SR perspective. Places like Portsmouth Harbour are doing this all day long.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page