Apparently the BBC had "hundreds" of complaints re lack of coverage. Newswatch aired the issue.
I was thinking more of comments elsewhere than here, with people jumping to conclusions just because they've now been told it's a private company operating it. Of course when conveying information, there's no harm saying but the way I saw it written (it may have been updated, as many BBC stories are) it did sound like the fact it was run privately could in some way have something to do with what happened.
Alternatively, a simpler "double tripcock" sort of TPWS would be cheap to install.
Two tripcocks a certain distance apart - the speed can be detected by the time difference between both trips.
I am not sure a tripcock can be mounted to a tram, however, thanks to ground clearance issues when street running.
People being ejected through the windows of overturned heavy rail vehicles was a significant issue for a long time. It is only in the last few years though that the decision was made to move from breakable windows to aid escape, to toughened windows designed to retain pax inside the vehicle. This explains the general removal of the hammers previously always found throughout passenger saloons.
I agree that RAIB may well focus on that area, though I can't see a requirement to reglaze Britain's tram fleet. The risk of a tram overturning is minimal, far less than a train owing to the much lower impact speeds of a collision . And indeed lower than it would once have been even for a tram, given that most cars were double deckers on the original systems.
There was an article in Railway Magazine on marshalling yards and the use of retarders. In particular the Dowty Retarder has no effect on rolling stock which is travelling at the correct speed but which will slow overspeeding stock.
I also note that the curves leading to Sandilands do not have check rails. I appreciate these are not common in light rail installations but wonder if these could offer some restraint?
Let me state from the start here that I am not aiming this at First or commenting specifically on (Croydon) Tramlink. The few tram systems operating in the UK for fifteen or more years, and LRT systems too, have seen changes of operators on one or even two occasions, and given they do not choose routes, timetables, fares or even the vehicles used the only real criteria are cost and performance, and, as stated, many of the costs are borne by the commissioners. So what we are really talking about are PEOPLE and trying to operate a system with the minimum requisite number at the lowest possible cost. That means what some might consider to be cutting corners (and I do realise that is not a good phrase to use, perhaps) can result, particularly if one of these operators has been told, officially or unofficially, or maybe just is feeling paranoid, that their contract is under threat of non-renewal. Something akin to this situation is certainly a feature of the TfL-contracted bus services where different companies vie with each other week by week and there is plenty of evidence of route controllers under pressure to produce the best service in a cosmetic sense, if maybe not to a great proportion of the users of that route at time i.e. the passengers. Such pressure is then transferred to the individual drivers who, with congestion increasing month by month in most areas of London, can only meet it by driving faster and spending the absolute minimum time at stops when they are able to. Some drivers will (rightly, imo) resist this but many, particularly younger and more inexperienced ones, will heed the call and, perhaps, drive dangerously. I will say this, as someone who has been travelling on London's buses for well over sixty years and made thousands of journeys, that I had only felt on about four or five occasions until about fifteen years ago that I'd travelled on a dangerously driven bus, but now, even though I can unfortunately not get to London very often now, if I spent a day on the buses I would certainly come across two or three badly-driven ones and a very good chance of one I'd place in the dangerous category. Now, if a tram is a 'bus on tracks, basically' as Andrew Braddock of Tram UK said on the 'Today' programme yesterday (he could of course have said trolleybus but he would probably have to explain what that was) I have no doubt that drivers are experiencing the same 'challenges' as those bus drivers. A system operated directly by a transport authority, as still occurs on most trams around the world, may not have quite the same financial pressures: whether that is a good thing is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I would suggest there could be a subtle difference between how a private or public operator runs a system.
Let me state from the start here that I am not aiming this at First or commenting specifically on (Croydon) Tramlink. The few tram systems operating in the UK for fifteen or more years, and LRT systems too, have seen changes of operators on one or even two occasions, and given they do not choose routes, timetables, fares or even the vehicles used the only real criteria are cost and performance, and, as stated, many of the costs are borne by the commissioners. So what we are really talking about are PEOPLE and trying to operate a system with the minimum requisite number at the lowest possible cost. That means what some might consider to be cutting corners (and I do realise that is not a good phrase to use, perhaps) can result, particularly if one of these operators has been told, officially or unofficially, or maybe just is feeling paranoid, that their contract is under threat of non-renewal. Something akin to this situation is certainly a feature of the TfL-contracted bus services where different companies vie with each other week by week and there is plenty of evidence of route controllers under pressure to produce the best service in a cosmetic sense, if maybe not to a great proportion of the users of that route at time i.e. the passengers. Such pressure is then transferred to the individual drivers who, with congestion increasing month by month in most areas of London, can only meet it by driving faster and spending the absolute minimum time at stops when they are able to. Some drivers will (rightly, imo) resist this but many, particularly younger and more inexperienced ones, will heed the call and, perhaps, drive dangerously. I will say this, as someone who has been travelling on London's buses for well over sixty years and made thousands of journeys, that I had only felt on about four or five occasions until about fifteen years ago that I'd travelled on a dangerously driven bus, but now, even though I can unfortunately not get to London very often now, if I spent a day on the buses I would certainly come across two or three badly-driven ones and a very good chance of one I'd place in the dangerous category. Now, if a tram is a 'bus on tracks, basically' as Andrew Braddock of Tram UK said on the 'Today' programme yesterday (he could of course have said trolleybus but he would probably have to explain what that was) I have no doubt that drivers are experiencing the same 'challenges' as those bus drivers. A system operated directly by a transport authority, as still occurs on most trams around the world, may not have quite the same financial pressures: whether that is a good thing is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I would suggest there could be a subtle difference between how a private or public operator runs a system.
Not sure I agree, *if* it turns out that most of the deaths/injuries were the direct result of the windows failing to hold, then I think it would be politically difficult to avoid addressing that issue in one way or another. One could argue that, with hindsight, a high-speed tram derailment was something that was always going to happen somewhere sooner or later.
This is your second attempt at scaremongering on this thread. I've used the Wimbledon section of Tramlink this morning, I even had my four year old granddaughter with me which shows how safe I think the trams are and the healthy loadings suggest most people feel the same. Unless you have some sort of evidence to back your suggestion that drivers are rushing to meet impossible targets then it is quite scurrilous of you to keep suggesting as much.
With the best will in the world, I think that's largely a load of tosh. Not only is driving a bus on a TfL contract (in a competitive environment) an utterly different situation, you seem to be hinting that cost-cutting may well be the ultimate cause. I think that does a disservice to those employed on the Croydon Tramlink.
How close is the curve that it derailed on to the absolute minimum radius curve that a tram can negotiate?
I'm going to defend/support Busaholic's comments.
In a world so full of technology, some of which is entirely about safety, we still have serious accidents happening. Those which are subject to detailed investigation (rail, marine, aviation) increasingly find that a less than rigourous organisational culture has some bearing on accidents happening. Think about Ladbroke Grove and the signal sighting and driver training issues raised. Or AF447 and Air France's complacent flight simulator training.
Busaholic made it clear they were talking in general terms and that their opinion was based on their own anecdotal experiences. However when such experience goes back 60 years, as they claim, then it may have some value. As someone who remembers all too well some of the crazy antics which happened during some of the sillier "bus wars" of the late 1980s I can assure you that commercial organisations encouraging, or turning a blind eye, to risky behaviour by its staff is nothing new. If the RAIB has any reason to suspect that such a factor may be an issue in this tragedy then it must certainly investigate it so that it may be ruled as relevant or irrelevant.
This is an open forum and there is no reason why we should not discuss such issues provided we do so in a civilised and respectful manner. Everyone is free to disagree but in doing so please provide reasonable arguments which consider what has been said. It should not be about who "shouts" the loudest.
How close is the curve that it derailed on to the absolute minimum radius curve that a tram can negotiate?
Reading TFL's press release, I couldn't help noticing that they managed to include in there that the tramway's operator is First Group. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, however my first take was this was deliberate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You wouldn't want a conventional tripcock, as these can be very prone to spurious operation -- even on London Underground where the infrastructure is specially kept clear you still get instances of trains getting tripped on bin liners, etc. If going for a trainstop-type system, a non-mechanical system is the way to go.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not sure I agree, *if* it turns out that most of the deaths/injuries were the direct result of the windows failing to hold, then I think it would be politically difficult to avoid addressing that issue in one way or another. One could argue that, with hindsight, a high-speed tram derailment was something that was always going to happen somewhere sooner or later.
Going by a crude estimate on Bing Maps this is somewhere between 30m and 40m, but probably with a bit of cant allowing a slightly higher speed than if it was in the street. Most UK tramways have a minimum of 25m but Nottingham goes down to 18m.
There was a pic on the BBC (which I can't now find) of part of the tram after it had been righted and before it was taken away. I think this was the side that was underneath after the overturning, as the upper side had all windows unbroken. This side had most windows missing and a big gouge out of the top corner, but the structure appeared largely intact.
This is the third serious accident in just under 18 months within firstgroups London rail operations . The other two were attributed to driver error, and it is likely that this one will be too. What the hell is going on in firsts performance managment.
I'm going to defend/support Busaholic's comments.
In a world so full of technology, some of which is entirely about safety, we still have serious accidents happening. Those which are subject to detailed investigation (rail, marine, aviation) increasingly find that a less than rigourous organisational culture has some bearing on accidents happening. Think about Ladbroke Grove and the signal sighting and driver training issues raised. Or AF447 and Air France's complacent flight simulator training.
Busaholic made it clear they were talking in general terms and that their opinion was based on their own anecdotal experiences. However when such experience goes back 60 years, as they claim, then it may have some value. As someone who remembers all too well some of the crazy antics which happened during some of the sillier "bus wars" of the late 1980s I can assure you that commercial organisations encouraging, or turning a blind eye, to risky behaviour by its staff is nothing new. If the RAIB has any reason to suspect that such a factor may be an issue in this tragedy then it must certainly investigate it so that it may be ruled as relevant or irrelevant.
This is an open forum and there is no reason why we should not discuss such issues provided we do so in a civilised and respectful manner. Everyone is free to disagree but in doing so please provide reasonable arguments which consider what has been said. It should not be about who "shouts" the loudest.
it looks like they'd moved the tram (somehow) up through the Sandilands stop to the A232/Addiscombe Road to load the transporter
My consumer spec. satnav is capable of showing the speed limit change withing a few yards of passing the road-sign; GPS augmented by wheel sensors when in a tunnel etc.
My consumer spec. phone has 'geo-fencing' which can trigger actions based on location.
The technology would seem to be all there to have these trams follow their location to within a few yards and check the current speed is under that allowed for the track segment, automatically braking as needed. No line-side kit needed.
it looks like they'd moved the tram (somehow) up through the Sandilands stop to the A232/Addiscombe Road to load the transporter
picture from the guardian
High Street to Market Street (inbound) in Manchester is the tightest curve an M5000 can negotiate. I would assume a CR4000 is the same.
The curve involved in the incident doesn't look quite as tight as Market Street.
The glass on an M5000 is definitely laminated. I've seen quite a few that have broken over the years. The problem is I've seen a few windows drop out in one piece after being shattered.....
This is your second attempt at scaremongering on this thread. I've used the Wimbledon section of Tramlink this morning, I even had my four year old granddaughter with me which shows how safe I think the trams are and the healthy loadings suggest most people feel the same. Unless you have some sort of evidence to back your suggestion that drivers are rushing to meet impossible targets then it is quite scurrilous of you to keep suggesting as much.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In case anybody is interested, 2530 is running a one tram shuttle between New Addington and Addington Village and 2548 and 2558 are doing a shuttle between Beckenham Junction and Harrington Road, presumably they were the only three trams east of Sandilands at the time of the accident?
The road has now fully reopened and work to repair the track is underway and once completed tram services will resume.
I suggest you level the charge of scurrility to the BBC London reporter who. on 'Spotlight' at 10.30 p.m. on Thursday was quoting ex-drivers (plural) who had contacted them regarding the pressures they had felt under all the time to keep to the timetable: perhaps also to the gentleman on camera on the same programme who had emailed TfL a few weeks earlier with his concerns as a passenger of drivers speeding on this bend (he received no reply). Then on the BBC London website is the Facebook entry dated October 31st by another gentleman of his tram taking the bend at 40 mph that morning and one side lifting off the rails and thinking he was going to die. Oh, and the time of his posting was 05.26. They could of course all have been lying and/or mistaken, or perhaps the chap on Facebook was so prescient he knew there was going to be an accident a few days later and posted this knowing it would be chanced upon, even if it wasn't true.:-x
The glass on an M5000 is definitely laminated. I've seen quite a few that have broken over the years. The problem is I've seen a few windows drop out in one piece after being shattered.....
That can happen with gasket glazing as the broken window goes "floppy". Double glazing makes it less likely, though, because (a) it's much stronger and (b) often both panes won't break.
It is heavier and therefore there would be an increased cost, but because of the compelling arguments both in safety terms and in terms of passenger comfort (eliminating steaming up and therefore a horrible damp atmosphere) I cannot see any valid argument for using single-glazed windows in any public transport vehicle in the UK, whether train, bus or tram. Cars are an exception, but only because as I said above passengers are retained inside by way of seat belts, not windows.
Probably nothing more than coincidence.
There was a picture on the bbc earlier of one tram right in front of the incident tram, looks like they used it to tow it up the hill.
Edit found the picture, looks like it was top and tailed upto the extraction point