Five inch gap in track on East Coast mainline

[TDK]

If it is track circuited over this line the signals will revert to danger what worries me is this quote from NR below

"Ms Lowe said: "From the evidence in front of us we are confident that nothing had gone over [the gap]... If a train had gone over it the edges would have been ground down, but as you can see in the picture the edges are sharp.

"Cracks in the rail are serious. They are a part of rail life, rail becomes old and does deteriorate over time."

Ms Lowe added: "Safety issues are never ever going to be compromised in the name of cutting costs."


Firstly confident that nothing had gone over the gap - they don't know for sure whether it did or not - this is discraceful from such a high person in NR

So, a driver on an adjacent line reports the fault, what if he/she hadn't seen it, does this mean a train would have gone over it? Of course NR wouldn't know would they - this report from Ms Lowe should seriously be questioned and actions taken immedialtely whether she or her team are competent to even carry out their roles!

 

[jon91]

If it is a crack on a IBJ as has been suggested then I suspect it wouldn't cause the signals to revert to danger, as the joint itself isn't part of the track circuit therefore allowing this sort of crack to appear and the signaller, unaware of the defect, to allow trains to pass over it. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong though.

 

[O L Leigh]

TDK: You know better...?

O L Leigh

 

[The Informer]

5" gap hahahaha.....

Come on!!!

from the rail end to the first bolthole is a smidge over 2". Look at the photo more closely.

The other photo posted by Nick W with the crack through the bolt hole is more like 5".

And traffic runs from left to right in the photo.....

 

[Ediswan]

So what if a train had passed over this 5 inch gap at 125mph ?

A rough calculation suggests a wheel would drop less that 0.1mm in the 2 milliseconds it would take to cross that unsupported gap. That is going to make a bang, but nothing terrible will happen. It would be reported long before the situation could deteriorate to a dangerous state.

I would also guess that this 'worst case' scenario was part of the analysis that allowed the defect to be scheduled for later repair.

 

[Nick W]

Presumably you are not conversant with NR/L2/TRK/001, Inspection of Maintenance and Permanent Way; if you were you would perhaps be better informed in your judgement.

Broken rails are at an all time low, due to improved management of track maintenance as per the above standard. The last derailment on the national network caused by a broken rail on plain line passenger track was October 2000 at a place called Hatfield.

I'm sorry to say this, but a) I imagine the document was written by a materials engineer not a railwayman, and b) if following the documented procedures result in fracture then it means the procedures are wrong or the railway is not produced to an adequate standard, not that my judgement is wrong.

Though I admit it's been two years since I studied material failure mechanisms, so I am speculating about the exact failure!

So what if a train had passed over this 5 inch gap at 125mph ?

A rough calculation suggests a wheel would drop less that 0.1mm in the 2 milliseconds it would take to cross that unsupported gap. That is going to make a bang, but nothing terrible will happen. It would be reported long before the situation could deteriorate to a dangerous state.

I'm sure this is correct, though perhaps an underestimate given the suspension. I don't doubt that nothing would have happened immediately, and would guess that multiple trains passed over the affected section. The point is that a fracture occurred. In some circumstances a similar fracture could kill!

Now if Network Rail really have a list of acceptable and unacceptable fracture locations, they should come clean with it!

 

[O L Leigh]

You guess, imagine and doubt an awful lot. Clearly you don't know and are extrapolating based on nothing more than what you think.

I believe I already said what would happen if a driver encountered a break. One like this would certainly not fail to be noticed and reported. This would result in a line examination under caution and, with a break like this, almost certainly the line would be closed. If any trains went over this break I can be fairly confident that it would be only the one.

O L Leigh

 

[Railsigns]

If it is a crack on a IBJ as has been suggested then I suspect it wouldn't cause the signals to revert to danger, as the joint itself isn't part of the track circuit therefore allowing this sort of crack to appear and the signaller, unaware of the defect, to allow trains to pass over it. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong though.

Correct, and even if a crack occurred at a non-insulated joint it wouldn't put the signals back to danger, since the continuity bonds around the joint would maintain the track circuit.

 

[DarloRich]

I shall have to be careful as i will be in trouble with more than one source but some of the postings on this thread are wibble.

A crack similar to that one was reported by a driver when I was spending a day at Tamworth many moons ago. The damaged track was right at the end of the Northbound platform (HL).
The line was closed immediately. A maintenance gang arrived within the hour and trains were running again within 3 hours of the driver first noticing it.
How things change...

You might want to read the linked statement. Things do change. Sometimes for the better. That big yellow train does have some purpose you know.

This is gross negligence! The reason why the track is inspected for hairline cracks is because fatigue failure is catastrophic. It's not acceptable to ignore a known defect until it is clearly visible to the naked eye.


Irrelevant - the difference between life and death could have been the difference between the direction of the first train after it finally fracture (though I thought have thought that would have almost certainly happened under a train anyway).


Because they clearly already have been.

Give your head a shake. You are making yourself look, frankly, ridiculous. I assume you are conversant with all of the relevant railway group standards and have access to the track recording analysis and patrol records before making such statements. This coupled with your years of engineering knowledge and expert understanding of metallurgy should leave you well placed to discuss this situation and make statements about competency of individuals. Those statements, it looks to me at least, border on the actionable. Or you could just link to stuff on Wikipedia.

this report from Ms Lowe should seriously be questioned and actions taken immedialtely whether she or her team are competent to even carry out their roles!

I suggest you do some research on the people involved before making such statements.

 

[heart-of-wessex]

Although obviously at a much lower speed, I was surprised at how much of a gap was needed before a train would actually derail in these WWII experiments in railway line sabotage.

Cripes!!

Maybe a test on a 143 would be interesting!!

 

[Nick W]

I believe I already said what would happen if a driver encountered a break. One like this would certainly not fail to be noticed and reported.

Though if such a fracture occurred close to point work, the driver may sadly not be alive to be the one to report it.

At Hatfield, a similar fracture from fatigue failure resulted in deaths.
In particular the ORR report notes that
"In general it is expected that a rail containing a fatigue defect would
be very likely to produce a transverse fracture under normal traffic when it
reaches about half the area of the head". So it's possible that many trains went over the affected section of track when the crack size was half the railhead, even if only one went over when the fracture occurred, unless the fracture occurred due to the rail cooling down (if it was indeed observed around midnight - the 12:00 GMT isn't clear - this is likely).

 

[Ediswan]

You guess, imagine and doubt an awful lot. Clearly you don't know and are extrapolating based on nothing more than what you think.

I believe I already said what would happen if a driver encountered a break. One like this would certainly not fail to be noticed and reported. This would result in a line examination under caution and, with a break like this, almost certainly the line would be closed. If any trains went over this break I can be fairly confident that it would be only the one.

O L Leigh

I agree with you.

It is the 'doom and disaster narrowly avoided' theory I disagree with. I was offering some numbers to indicate why, even if the first driver/train to spot this gap did so by running over it at 125mph, there would be no disaster. I don't doubt for a moment that a driver would report encountering this and that immediate action would be taken.

 

[Nick W]

It is the 'doom and disaster narrowly avoided' theory I disagree with. I was offering some numbers to indicate why, even if the first driver/train to spot this gap did so by running over it at 125mph, there would be no disaster. I don't doubt for a moment that a driver would report encountering this and that immediate action would be taken.

The Hatfield rail crash occurred as the rail fractured, not to the next train after the fracturing.

 

[DarloRich]

The Hatfield rail crash occurred as the rail fractured, not to the next train after the fracturing.

Indeed - However, there was an entirely different maintenance, inspection repair and testing regime in place at the time.

Railtrack had no little or idea as to the condition of the asset at the time of accident nor did it hold much engineering knowledge at the top of the company, have adequate maintenance records or an accessible asset register.

 

[O L Leigh]

Ah right, so we're talking about Hatfield are we...?

Well this crack was found, identified and scheduled for maintenance, not logged and forgotten. Hatfield was the result of systematic failings in the maintenance regime. These failings have been dealt with. That doesn't mean that rails don't fail from time to time.

Was another Hatfield-style accident narrowly avoided...? Perhaps. Personally I doubt it very much, but we shall never know. However, this is not indicative of anything more than the sudden and unexpected failure of a rail-end.

O L Leigh

 

[Nick W]

Ah right, so we're talking about Hatfield are we...?

Well this crack was found, identified and scheduled for maintenance, not logged and forgotten. Hatfield was the result of systematic failings in the maintenance regime. These failings have been dealt with. That doesn't mean that rails don't fail from time to time.

Was another Hatfield-style accident narrowly avoided...? Perhaps. Personally I doubt it very much, but we shall never know. However, this is not indicative of anything more than the sudden and unexpected failure of a rail-end.

O L Leigh

Totally agree - here, two inspections located cracks in the rail, which is an improvement compared to around Hatfield.

The fact that the flaws were not fixed in time, to the point that the cracks went half way through the railhead, is cause for concern. If lack of staff isn't the problem, it's up for Network Rail to give an alternative explanation.

I doubt it would save money in the long term - if cracks are detected soon enough, a cheaper solution such as grinding the railhead can be used.

 

[DarloRich]

hang on you seem to have change your tune from post #23

 

[O L Leigh]

The fact that the flaws were not fixed in time, to the point that the cracks went half way through the railhead, is cause for concern. If lack of staff isn't the problem, it's up for Network Rail to give an alternative explanation.

This for me is the key.

If there was concern that the crack would reach a stage where it was going to result in the rail failing it would have been dealt with sooner in order to prevent this sort of thing happening. But unfortunately sometimes things happen that are unexpected. This rail-end clearly failed unexpectedly and suddenly.

So what sort of alternative explanation would you like? If Nitwit Rail officially say (as they have) something broadly along the lines that I have been saying, would you accept it? Whether you like it or not, Ms Lowe is entirely correct. Broken rails are a fact of life on the railway and happen on a fairly regular basis. Some are more dramatic than others, but they still happen. The important thing is that they are quickly identified and train services stopped or cautioned until they can be repaired or replaced.

O L Leigh

 

[Nick W]

So what sort of alternative explanation would you like? If Nitwit Rail officially say (as they have) something broadly along the lines that I have been saying, would you accept it? Whether you like it or not, Ms Lowe is entirely correct. Broken rails are a fact of life on the railway and happen on a fairly regular basis. Some are more dramatic than others, but they still happen. The important thing is that they are quickly identified and train services stopped or cautioned until they can be repaired or replaced.

If the was an error or miscommunication, while it would still need to be investigated, it would be somewhat worse than not having enough staff for a safe regime.

The failure mechanisms are well known and mechanisms are in place to identify microcracks before they develop into larger cracks and eventually fracture. They just need to be dealt with before fracture occurs.

hang on you seem to have change your tune from post #23

At no point was I saying that one more train over the gap would immediately results in lost lives. I was stating and would still state that fractured rails have the potential to be lethal, and since this was an example of a fractured rail, it could have been lethal.

 

[O L Leigh]

Sorry, but one fractured rail (no matter how dramatic it might look) does not a conspiracy make.

You may indeed be right. But equally, one photo of a broken rail does not prove things one way or another, no matter how much rhetoric or spin a political body may add to it. The evidence is not conclusive. Just as much as it could be indicative of failings within Nitwit Rail, it could just as easily be one of those rogue incidents that catches even the experts out.

Personally I'd be inclined not to see the conspiracy on the basis of a single broken rail, but you can see it however you like. The problem is that neither view is supported.

O L Leigh

 

[boing_uk]

Given that Hatfield related to the failure of a rail over a significant length leads me to believe that this is a little bit of mountaineering upon a molehill. At Hatfield the rail was significantly deteriorated over quite a distance - this was a minor rail-end defect.

I'm sure there would be a bump, but to passengers probably no worse than say travelling over Newark Flat Crossing. To the driver however it would have been noticed.

No I don't profess to having knowledge about track engineering that extends any further than thinking that resilient pads would make brilliant beer mats. But I do have a sense of perspective.

The fault seems to have been identified as a localised minor defect and was clamped accordingly. The defect propagated in to what we have seen. I am surmising that the data from the track recorder did not detect any defects further away than marked, therefore it is unlikely that a train passing over would have led to more rail length breaking away that would have tripped a train over and caused it grazed knees.

So rather than panicking about it, chill your beans eh?

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

 

[Kali]

If this was the outside rail on a corner it might have been a little more noticeable...

 

[DarloRich]

it has even made the Northern Echo now!

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...thal__broken_rail_on_the_East_Coast_Mainline/

 

[Nick W]

Quote from a member of uk.railway

Around 1980, there was a fairly high speed derailment of a train of ECS
at Rugby flyover. There was a rail end break similar to this one, and
the loose bit wedged itself, end-on and at angle of (iirc) around 40
degrees, under a wheel, lifting it far enough off the rail to cause
derailment.

I investigated that derailment while I was working in the Field Trials &
Services section of BR Research (or whatever it was called that week).
Thirty years on, details are hazy, but I expect there's a report about
it somewhere.

So I think it's fair to say that this one could have caused a serious
accident.

 

[O L Leigh]

SHOCK!!! Broken rail discovered. No-one dies.

There was an accident on the motorway the other day involving a car doing 70mph. I'm sticking to 68mph now because clearly it's safer.

**EDIT**

Sorry, but your quote is fairly meaningless. The break was spotted and action taken to ensure the safety of all train services. That a similar break lead to a derailment 30 years ago doesn't really have a lot of bearing on the topic.

O L Leigh

 

[Nick W]

I'm sorry, but if something unexpected happens that could have killed someone, you investigate it and make sure it doesn't happen again. You don't ignore it because it didn't kill this time.

 

[O L Leigh]

There is one fact that seems to be ignored. The defect was not missed. It was spotted and dealt with and safety was ensured.

As for making sure that these sorts of things never happen again, any ideas to prevent rails breaking would, I am sure, be most welcome.

O L Leigh

 

[Nick W]

There is one fact that seems to be ignored. The defect was not missed. It was spotted and dealt with and safety was ensured.

As for making sure that these sorts of things never happen again, any ideas to prevent rails breaking would, I am sure, be most welcome.

O L Leigh

Replacing or grinding them between the defects being discovered by inspection and them fracturing?
Use higher grade alloys which are more resistance to fatigue?

The airline industry is able to maintain their metal parts such that fracture doesn't occur - the railway is already using similar techniques for crack detection, so it'd just be a case of better modelling when the part will fail and replacing it in time.

 

[O L Leigh]

Nitwit Rail, not me.

O L Leigh

 

[Nick W]

Nitwit Rail, not me.

O L Leigh

I believe the RMT has beaten me to it.

(Though it's fair to say that increases in labour costs and development of newer manufacturing techniques and materials might economically favour using higher quality parts or new innovated techniques, which the RMT may not approve of. )