AndrewRL
Member
-
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 near Grange Over Sands
- Thread starter Thomas6187
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
D6130
Established Member
Rather heavy oil contamination on the sleepers to the left of the picture....which would suggest spillage from a damaged engine sump or transmission.
thenorthern
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 May 2013
- Messages
- 4,119
Slight correction from my previous post I was driving through Grange earlier today and I noticed both trains were still there at the derailment point with blocks under the wheels although the lights were on in the trains still.
Not sure what is happening currently.
Not sure what is happening currently.
195115 did a full Lancaster to Carlisle run on 8th Feb, a picture of it at Lancaster was posted by @Guard_Amos on X. It was a sub for a failed 156, I tracked it on RTT and it made it all the way.
1D53
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2006
- Messages
- 2,698
It was swapped at Barrow. There is no route clearance or PTI assessment beyond Millom (currently).
Annetts key
Established Member
I'm not convinced what you are seeing is oil. To me it looks like the crud that accumulates on the top of many concrete sleepers. Compare to the tops of the sleepers on the adjacent line.
The likely reason that the sleeper ends are not affected, is because they were likely covered with a layer of ballast.
Oil would not just flow evenly across the top, but would splash and flow all over the place including all the way down the sides of the sleepers and likely some would splash on the sides of the rails. But I don't see any sign of that in the photo.
The crud is a mixture of algae and other such small plants mixed in with stone dust (from the ballast) and whatever else the wind or the airflow from trains causes to accumulate on the top of the sleeper.
In some areas you can get quite of lot of old sleepers covered in it. But elsewhere the tops of the sleepers remain fairly clear.
Surely they can rustle up suitable route conductors and take them the long way round the Cumbrian coast?
randyrippley
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 5,139
not if they're not cleared for the route.......you stand a risk of them not fitting in the tunnels. Do you want to smash another one?
Killingworth
Established Member
Shows how undermined both tracks have become. The Royal Engineers could probably set up a Bailey bridge if there were a war on.
InkyScrolls
Member
As has already been stated, they are not cleared for the route.
I imagine there's more than a few stretches of lines built along similar estuaries and coastlines where culverts realistically need permanently widening out into proper bridges to allow sufficient flow. I doubt that'll happen because of money though...
Annetts key
Established Member
The more I look at that photo, the more that I am convinced that there was some kind of structure there. If the top of the embankment was just ballast with dirt/soil/spoil under it, I would not expect to see straight lines. But there is a horizontal line under the adjacent line. And under the right hand sleeper that still has ballast under it.
When dirt/soil/spoil or ballast 'flows" due to a collapse you don't get any straight lines. So are/were there wooden timbers or some other structures there?
In answer to putting in a bridge, that's unlikely. The quickest temporary repair is to fill the void with large stones, then ballast. But for a permanent fix, unless the railway already knows what was there, first you need to investigate what was/is there. If there was a structure, why was it there. Why did it fail. What will replace it. Etc...
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,442
A proper bridge that would allow the sea to flood the low lying land behind the railway? Surely it needs some sort of a flap valve, and that’s presumably where it would silt up and get blocked. Or a proper permanent pumping system, which the discharge hoses running under the ballast suggest has been attempted already for some reason.
strawberryline
Member
Youtube video showing just how deep the void is at its deepest and how far it extends (up to 20m?) or rather where there is missing ballast. Watch until 5:26 as she pans away and then returns a couple of times. There seems to be the main void (at 4:48), furthest from the derailed train, but another dip at the broken sleepers closer to the train, seen at 3:58
Last edited:
Essentially, yes. I won't lose any sleep over a golf course, although I will be far more sympathetic to farmers who lose land and therefore valuable income. Equally it must be recognised that fighting nature will always be a losing battle and the value of doing so in an increasingly environmentally sensitive world is going to need to be considered very carefully. Picking battles involves sacrificing some areas, and there are ways to adapt to a salt marsh environment rather than just building the type of land we prefer.
No-one commissions a report from what used to be Hydraulics Research Wallingford without good reason (Post#99)
The pipes discharging water from one side of the embankment to another are coincidently located close by the 'sinkhole' (just before it in the direction of travel)
Whilst, with <zwk500>, not lamenting the loss of a golf course, it is (was) of course a business and much affected by what appear to be changes to the flood environment 'caused' by others, not doubt seeking the 'national good'. In my book, as with those affected injuriously by eg HS2, or a new road project, they should be reasonably compensated. (And similarly, IMHO, those who benefit from changes should pay what was called IIRC in the 1947 Town & Country Planning Act 'betterment'). Some coastal areas are already being sacrificed to 'managed retreat', why not here? Perhaps 'the railway' should be 'compensated' rather than sacrificed. Is there anything to be learned from 'fighting nature' at Dawlish?
Snow1964
Established Member
Doesn't need to be a proper bridge, just culverts under the track. Luckily these things are already available (Linking a catalogue), there are other makers but the pictures show what they look like.
As they are craned in, can rebuild the line on top quickly (and it would be possible to have multiple culverts at intervals if high flow). All the fancy stuff like tapered entrances, or flaps as suggested, can be added at the ends outside of the operational railway afterwards.
PyrahnaRanger
Member
It depends where you drag it in Barrow. If it’s the docks, getting it out of town wouldn’t be too bad, but the carriage sidings are in a reasonably narrow residential area, and could be a bit more tricky.
Things going to BaE tend to be a bit smaller than a 195, and anything bigger tends to go out under the sea.
It is currently, but it depends whether you’ve got time to wait on getting those units off for repair - drag them out of the way while the hole is fixed, and then you could drag them back to wherever you wanted. I’ve had a look at the turn on street view, and I’m fairly sure most modern trombone trailers would be able to be got round with the steering capability they have - and i certainly know a few lads who would be up for the challenge!
I’ve definitely seen a photo of one at Workington, but I can’t find it currently. There is a photo of 195010 and 195018 at Parton, running 5C12 Maryport - Barrow, on June 16th 2020 on the Cumbrian Coast Railway Facebook group.
The restriction is beyond Maryport; it does make me worry about whats going to happen when the 156s are no longer serviceable.
Pinus contorta
Member
I walked up to the football ground at Barrow the other week, past that entrance to the Carriage Sidings. The other day i was trying to visualise how it would get out of the residential area and I agree its tricky.
I watched a you tube video of the unit they retrieved from the Pwllheli line a few years ago. It's amazing where they can squeeze through isn't it.
Is it down to cost of dragging the units back down the (by then mended) line and along the WCML vs the planning and execution of them coming out by road or is there something else to think of?
Do they need to use the WCML?
WCRC have had locos and stock in/out from Carnforth via Crag Bank Road before, not sure if you can get access to the loops without going through their yard?
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,586
Off topic, well tangential at best, the units cleared for Carlisle south on the coast are coming towards the end of their lives. What will happen to replace them? Are the gauging problems huge (The Maryport to Carlisle was built to a smaller loading gauge I think) or some modest alterations?
I was told anecdotally that the restriction was for 150s because “they a few inches wider than 153s/156s” it does seem this is the case.
The restriction at Bullgill bridge is because the lines have been squeezed under the bridge causing a narrower “six foot”.
AIUI The restriction for 150s is not actually that they can’t run on the line but that they aren’t allowed to have one on each line between Maryport and Wigton in case they pass under the bridge. Indeed the Class 950 used to regularly travel the route.
I assume a regular service couldn’t be easily planned around the single lines and having to keep trains from fouling the long signalling section between Maryport and Wigton.
As for 158s, again anecdotally I was told they couldn’t go past Millom due to the plug doors which come out beyond the body.
Quite what the clearance issue with the 195 is I don’t know. Width wise they are apparently slightly less than a 156. It may be the doors again or step boards.
An old driver once told me when 155s were new they had the same restriction of only one in section north of Maryport but he found it amusing that after conversion to 153s they ran as pairs from the start.
When the current stock ends its life I’d imagine the case for IB signals between Maryport and Wigton will improve. The issue seems to be a combined vehicle/signalling issue which can be worked around by either using certain vehicles (as now) or by splitting up the long section.
Alternatively I suppose building another access at Bullgill and knocking down the bridge would work. I suspect again that cost has been the main factor so far.
The restriction at Bullgill bridge is because the lines have been squeezed under the bridge causing a narrower “six foot”.
AIUI The restriction for 150s is not actually that they can’t run on the line but that they aren’t allowed to have one on each line between Maryport and Wigton in case they pass under the bridge. Indeed the Class 950 used to regularly travel the route.
I assume a regular service couldn’t be easily planned around the single lines and having to keep trains from fouling the long signalling section between Maryport and Wigton.
As for 158s, again anecdotally I was told they couldn’t go past Millom due to the plug doors which come out beyond the body.
Quite what the clearance issue with the 195 is I don’t know. Width wise they are apparently slightly less than a 156. It may be the doors again or step boards.
An old driver once told me when 155s were new they had the same restriction of only one in section north of Maryport but he found it amusing that after conversion to 153s they ran as pairs from the start.
When the current stock ends its life I’d imagine the case for IB signals between Maryport and Wigton will improve. The issue seems to be a combined vehicle/signalling issue which can be worked around by either using certain vehicles (as now) or by splitting up the long section.
Alternatively I suppose building another access at Bullgill and knocking down the bridge would work. I suspect again that cost has been the main factor so far.
QueensCurve
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,914
I believe part of the road there occupies the former railway from Plumpton Junction to Haverthwaite on its way to Lakeside.
Last edited:
AndrewRL
Member
Probably due to some other cause. As each part of the train passed this point it would be undamaged. Damage would be caused after the train was derailed, and hit the track bed, which at 56mph would be some way further along.
fflint
Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 121
Well done to the young lady and others for the video above. I've learnt more from the vid than all the others put out.
Very well done and good luck for your future in media.
Very well done and good luck for your future in media.
QueensCurve
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,914
I’m not going to say 100% that this didn’t happen (a 195 doing a full run to Carlisle) but I highly doubt it did.
Aside from the fact the 195 isn’t cleared there is the crew question. I’d be willing to bet at that time of night the service is Workington crewed north of Barrow and they won’t sign the traction.
Crews only usually change at Whitehaven and Workington on the coast so unless they got a Barrow crew to take it and taxi back from Whitehaven/Workington/Carlisle or pulled a swap at somewhere like Millom or Sellafield with a passing train then I suspect that, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread the 195 only partially completed the journey.
When I worked on the coast many years ago I remember working a 150 to Barrow on a Lancaster to Carlisle.
The train was subject to the same issues a 195 would be today. Clearance and crewing. Workington crews didn’t sign the 150.
As Barrow is permissive when we arrived everyone simply got off the 150, Walked up the platform to a 156 that was already waiting 6ft away (and already loaded with passengers from Barrow itself) and got on. The delay must’ve been minimal.
If that occurred on the day mentioned in this thread then real-time trains could give the impression of a 195 working the whole route in one trip.
As an aside I’ve worked a 150 in service as far as Whitehaven and we had one booked to Sellafield for a time but in those days we didn’t have camera phones so unfortunately I have no record.
Aside from the fact the 195 isn’t cleared there is the crew question. I’d be willing to bet at that time of night the service is Workington crewed north of Barrow and they won’t sign the traction.
Crews only usually change at Whitehaven and Workington on the coast so unless they got a Barrow crew to take it and taxi back from Whitehaven/Workington/Carlisle or pulled a swap at somewhere like Millom or Sellafield with a passing train then I suspect that, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread the 195 only partially completed the journey.
When I worked on the coast many years ago I remember working a 150 to Barrow on a Lancaster to Carlisle.
The train was subject to the same issues a 195 would be today. Clearance and crewing. Workington crews didn’t sign the 150.
As Barrow is permissive when we arrived everyone simply got off the 150, Walked up the platform to a 156 that was already waiting 6ft away (and already loaded with passengers from Barrow itself) and got on. The delay must’ve been minimal.
If that occurred on the day mentioned in this thread then real-time trains could give the impression of a 195 working the whole route in one trip.
As an aside I’ve worked a 150 in service as far as Whitehaven and we had one booked to Sellafield for a time but in those days we didn’t have camera phones so unfortunately I have no record.
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,582
As an interesting aside, the "six foot" at Bullgill is actually 4' 8". As a junior perway engineer in the mid 1960s I had cause to measure it.
I assume we are looking into a void where the side has been dug away, creating a sort of cave mouth. It looks just as in the contemporary description of the construction (post #68) - a pile of estuary sand/silt, capped by a layer of clay, with quarry waste ("rids") and then ballast on top.
There are three pipes or hoses coming out on the seaward side, at different levels. Two come through the parapet wall, and one through the sea wall revetment. Presumably that one is the lower one visible in the photo, which goes through below the clay roof layer.
You would expect the clay to provide the cohesion of the roof of the void - you'd not want to build a flat roof out of that estuary stuff! If the roof was inherently weak, and could not have lasted more than a few months, the void was created recently. In that case all the material that was lost (a cubic metre, at least?) must have come out through the embankment structure, somewhere. I don't see anywhere that could have happened unobserved.
If it took many years to form the void, the roof must have been robust enough the hold up the railway above for all that time. The same material was lost, but more slowly, and perhaps many years ago, so no evidence might survive. But the mechanism, capable of exfiltrating sand through a compacted sand wall, still needs to be found.
Finally, the void might have been there from the start - built in. After all, the builders had a continual struggle against the sea's interference and were working with materials that would not be their first choice. That raises another awkward question: did the collapse only happen because of the pump pipes/hoses at this point? If so, there being a void only at this point would be a huge coincidence; it is more likely there are many other voids along the embankment!
- Status