Double SPAD near Crofton West Junction

[PG]

A news story has been published today by the RAIB.

Signals passed at danger near Crofton West Junction
Signals passed at danger near Crofton West Junction, West Yorkshire, 7 May 2020.
Published 20 May 2020
From:Rail Accident Investigation Branch

The train following the incident (image courtesy of Network Rail)
At around 09:54 hrs on 7 May 2020, a freight train passed a red signal protecting Crofton West Junction and came to a stop 250 meters beyond the junction; damaging a set of points as a result.
The train had passed another red signal at Hare Park Junction around 2 minutes earlier.
We have undertaken a preliminary examination into the circumstances surrounding this incident. Having assessed the evidence which has been gathered to date, we have decided to publish a safety digest.
The safety digest will be made available on our website in the next few weeks.

Given that they have decided to go with publishing a safety digest would it be possible that a procedural error of some kind occurred possibly affecting the ability to control the braking of the train involved?

 

[JN114]

A news story has been published today by the RAIB.

Given that they have decided to go with publishing a safety digest would it be possible that a procedural error of some kind occurred possibly affecting the ability to control the braking of the train involved?

Not necessarily - it just means that there’s some old safety learning that RAIB feel it is pertinent to highlight to the industry; but there’s nothing “new” to learn that warrants a more thorough report.

 

[pdeaves]

Not necessarily - it just means that there’s some old safety learning that RAIB feel it is pertinent to highlight to the industry; but there’s nothing “new” to learn that warrants a more thorough report.

Indeed, 'procedural error' could well be the thing worth investigating.

 

[Bayum]

How has it passed two red signals? Was the train just too heavy to be brought to a stop immediately after the first SPAD?

 

[JN114]

How has it passed two red signals? Was the train just too heavy to be brought to a stop immediately after the first SPAD?

You suppose that the signal(s) both had TPWS to stop the train, and the driver was aware they had passed the first signal. Just because a train has passed a signal at danger, doesn’t mean it is going to stop.

 

[Trainfan344]

Bet that was a proper brown trousers moment for the signaller!

 

[Tractor37]

Bet that was a proper brown trousers moment for the signaller!

It certainly would have been if it was 10 minutes later when the 09.40 Knottingley - Wakefield - Leeds was heading in the same direction over Crofton West Jn.

 

[Trackman]

Bet that was a proper brown trousers moment for the signaller!

And the driver, I wonder if they were getting ready to abandon ship, or at least go to the rear cab.

 

[Bayum]

You suppose that the signal(s) both had TPWS to stop the train, and the driver was aware they had passed the first signal. Just because a train has passed a signal at danger, doesn’t mean it is going to stop.

Do not all signals have it!? I didn’t know this!

 

[ComUtoR]

Do not all signals have it!? I didn’t know this!

Many signals do not have TPWS. TPWS is there to mitigate the consequences of a SPAD and to stop the train before the conflict point / within the standard overlap. Plain line signals where there are no points to be protected often don't have TPWS. Overspeeds for a Red are just as rare.

 

[LAX54]

Do not all signals have it!? I didn’t know this!

There is no requirement (or need) to have TPWS on plain line signals, some do have it, many don't, Junctions will have TPWS / TPWS+ However if there is a 'fault' with the train, TPWS will be useless, as will AWS, the internal investigation will get to bottom of it, and fairly swiftly.

 

[MotCO]

The question remains why did a train pass two red signals? Also, if the second signal was at red to protect the junction, why was the first signal at red as well, unless there was a train slightly in front.

 

[Trackman]

The question remains why did a train pass two red signals? Also, if the second signal was at red to protect the junction, why was the first signal at red as well, unless there was a train slightly in front.

The way I read it, the first signal was protecting a junction too (Hare Park Junction).

 

[MotCO]

The way I read it, the first signal was protecting a junction too (Hare Park Junction).

Thanks - I missed that.

 

[JN114]

First signal is not TPWS fitted
Second signal was TPWS fitted

The 2 signals involved are not consecutive signals along the route the train took.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Also worth mentioning (although seemingly not relevant in this case) that at certain junctions, depending on the overlap beyond the junction protecting signal and risk of a SPAD reaching the conflict point, the signal prior to the junction signal will also be held at danger (commonly known as double blocking)

 

[Tom Quinne]

Do not all signals have it!? I didn’t know this!

Not all no, you’d be surprised how many don’t. Many open plain line stretches dont have TPWS grids at all signals.

 

[LAX54]

The question remains why did a train pass two red signals? Also, if the second signal was at red to protect the junction, why was the first signal at red as well, unless there was a train slightly in front.

think it is known why, but investigations are still ongoing with the industry.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Do not all signals have it!? I didn’t know this!

The majority of signals aren't fitted with TPWS. I can actually think off the top of my hand of one very busy junction where one of the protecting signals is not fitted with TPWS due to the layout providing flank protection for that particular signal.

 

[Bayum]

think it is known why, but investigations are still ongoing with the industry.

Do we know what the locomotive was?

 

[66701GBRF]

I was wondering how long it would be before it ended up on here. With regards to TPWS, its only good if the brakes on the train are actually operative (that should give you a clue where the problem was).

 

[66701GBRF]

deleted

 

[JN114]

Do we know what the locomotive was?

66755

 

[Adam0984]

If it was Hare Park it SPAD'd I'm surprised it actually went towards Crofton and not mainline unless it only just SPAD'd and the points had been set. Then theres a signal in the middle of the branch and the signal protecting Crofton. It knackered the northern services up for the rest of the day due to the damage all trains had to be diverted between Wakefield and Pontefact Monkhill

 

[PG]

The 2 signals involved are not consecutive signals along the route the train took.

Thank you for that clarification, I had incorrectly inferred that they were consecutive signals.

 

[Nippy]

If it was Hare Park it SPAD'd I'm surprised it actually went towards Crofton and not mainline unless it only just SPAD'd and the points had been set. Then theres a signal in the middle of the branch and the signal protecting Crofton. It knackered the northern services up for the rest of the day due to the damage all trains had to be diverted between Wakefield and Pontefact Monkhill

The route was set, the train beat the T/C timer for the signal clearing.

 

[MotCO]

The route was set, the train beat the T/C timer for the signal clearing.

T/C? Track counter?

 

[pompeyfan]

T/C? Track counter?

track circuit. I’d imagine a track circuit would have to be occupied for a sufficient time before the signal aspect steps up from red.

 

[ComUtoR]

track circuit. I’d imagine a track circuit would have to be occupied for a sufficient time before the signal aspect steps up from red.

'Approach Control'

 

[pompeyfan]

'Approach Control'

but approach control doesn’t exist, just ask any driving manager or ops trainer