Gas leak at Salisbury (18/04)

[TheManOnThe172]

BBC reported last night that a gas leak near Salisbury station was affecting services, and it seems that this has spilled over onto today.

It appears that Exeter-Waterloo services are currently (1140 Thursday) being terminated at Salisbury - IL32 is shown on RTT as still "at platform" in Salisbury 63 mins after it should have left and SW Trains Passenger Assistance has just told me that 1L40 due at Salisbury 1216 will terminate there.

 

[Chingy]

Gas leak is at Laverstock, just to the east of Salisbury on the Andover line. Services to/from Romsey are unaffected.

 

[Kite159]

From what I understand from the SWR website, they are running an hourly shuttle between Andover & Basingstoke with the London - Exeter trains split at Salisbury with the London - Salisbury leg going via Southampton.

With replacement buses allegedly running between Salisbury & Basingstoke.

 

[embers25]

The lack of platforms at Salisbury is not helping this situation. It does seem mad that Platform 2 cannot be accessed westbound. This means trains arriving diverted from Southampton have to use 3, 4 or the dead end platform 6.

This often causes delays with Exeter trains having to wait for Cardiff trains to leave. Or as happened today, a train from London turned in Platform 4 and went back to London blocking Platform 4, Exeter was in 3 and so the Cardiff train couldn't get in for 25 mins.

The other way, the Exeter train had to terminate in Platform 2 as 3 and 4 were blocked and that couldn't happen as a Pompey train was coming, so the arrival from Exeter was held outside Wilton to let the Pompey through and so it was very late and missed the Pompey connection.

Last night the last connection at Salisbury to Yeovil was late from London and arrived at 0041. This would have still just made to extra 0043, except that was let go early at 0038, which is a VERY typical situation at Salisbury!

 

[Kite159]

Seems the Andover - Basingstoke shuttle has ended. I dread to think how much the taxi bill is going to be for those commuters caught up in the chaos, unless the replacement buses are running.

I suspect the Stagecoach services between Andover & Basingstoke would have taken up some of the displaced passengers, likewise between Salisbury & Andover.

 

[winks]

I’ve lost count how many disasters SWR have had on their watch in the last few years. It really has been bad luck.

 

[Kite159]

Seems the line has reopened now, all be the rest of the day will likely be disrupted

 

[RedPostJunc]

I cannot understand why there is no junction that allows trains running westbound on the line for platform 3 to access platform 2. It needs to be east of the junction that allows trains running on the line for platform 2 to access platform 1. (see https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.0712709,-1.8022106,19z?hl=en&entry=ttu ).
As for the west end of the station, there is only a single line that allows movement to/from the depot. Why is there no eastbound access further to the west? What would happen if there was a derailment on that piece of track or points failure there?

 

[CarrotPie]

I’ve lost count how many disasters SWR have had on their watch in the last few years. It really has been bad luck.

It's not really "their watch"; it's Network Rail's.

 

[winks]

I agree with you. Almost all of it infrastructure / weather related.

 

[Falcon1200]

Almost all of it infrastructure / weather related.

Although the gas leak was entirely beyond Network Rail's control, but theirs for the disruption compensation and statistics!

Perhaps someone with expertise can answer, but what really is the danger to train running from a gas leak outside; Does the gas not simply dissipate in the open air, meaning the risk of an explosion is minimal, if it exists at all?

 

[D Williams]

Risk Aversion. Nobody in management who has any sense will take any decision that involves any possible risk. The HSE / ORR / Ambulance chasing lawyers Stasi have created a culture of fear. How much testing would be required in this case to prove beyond all doubt that the risk is "minimal"? Take the safe route, close the railway. I would have done the same.

 

[edwin_m]

Risk Aversion. Nobody in management who has any sense will take any decision that involves any possible risk. The HSE / ORR / Ambulance chasing lawyers Stasi have created a culture of fear. How much testing would be required in this case to prove beyond all doubt that the risk is "minimal"? Take the safe route, close the railway. I would have done the same.

I guess it depends how far away it is. Generally several times a year we get houses blowing up due to gas leaks, and scattering debris all over the street. The same in the "wrong" place could affect the railway.

Another possible hazard is if the gas is in cylinders. Fires can and have resulted in these propelling themselves a considerable distance like rockets.

 

[Snow1964]

Risk Aversion. Nobody in management who has any sense will take any decision that involves any possible risk. The HSE / ORR / Ambulance chasing lawyers Stasi have created a culture of fear. How much testing would be required in this case to prove beyond all doubt that the risk is "minimal"? Take the safe route, close the railway. I would have done the same.

Actually the correct risk assessment is two part, the minor one being close the railway, the significant one is risk caused to passengers by forcing them to take unassessed alternatives eg buses and taxis

The safe option is to assess and continue, not close and wing it that alternatives are safer.

 

[edwin_m]

The safe option is to assess and continue, not close and wing it that alternatives are safer.

To assess and decide whether to continue. It's not a risk assessment if you've already decided what the outcome is.

 

[30907]

Actually the correct risk assessment is two part, the minor one being close the railway, the significant one is risk caused to passengers by forcing them to take unaccessed alternatives eg buses and taxis

The safe option is to assess and continue, not close and wing it that alternatives are safer.

(Not sure what unaccessed means here - unassessed?)

I don't think anyone would claim that road travel is safer than rail - but the risk from a gas explosion, should one happen, is on the high side as edwin_m points out, compared to the slightly increase in risk (remainlng low but more likely) of road travel.

 

[pompeyfan]

From what I saw, Network Rail did challenge the need for trains to stop running, and were told by the Fire Brigade that the trains could still possibly cause sparks that would ignite the gas, even though the trains are diesel powered.

 

[John Webb]

Although the gas leak was entirely beyond Network Rail's control, but theirs for the disruption compensation and statistics!

Perhaps someone with expertise can answer, but what really is the danger to train running from a gas leak outside; Does the gas not simply dissipate in the open air, meaning the risk of an explosion is minimal, if it exists at all?

From what I saw, Network Rail did challenge the need for trains to stop running, and were told by the Fire Brigade that the trains could still possibly cause sparks that would ignite the gas, even though the trains are diesel powered.

I'm not clear exactly what sort of gas leak it was. One problem is that if even diluted gas is drawn into an internal combustion (ic) engine it adds fuel to the engine and can cause the engine to over-rev and to emit lit gas through the exhaust - and if there's already gas in the atmosphere then the risk of an explosion being caused is clear. There have been industrial accidents over the years where, for example, ic powered fork-lift trucks have accidently ignited gas leaks from other equipment or where they were LPG-fuelled and a leak has occurred in their own fuel system.

 

[MCR247]

Actually the correct risk assessment is two part, the minor one being close the railway, the significant one is risk caused to passengers by forcing them to take unassessed alternatives eg buses and taxis

The safe option is to assess and continue, not close and wing it that alternatives are safer.

I’m not sure I understand, surely the operators of buses and taxis would have to have their own safety cases and risk assessments done themselves? And what is this “significant” risk?

 

[Falcon1200]

I'm not clear exactly what sort of gas leak it was.

According to the BBC News website it was a mains gas pipe;

Salisbury railway line reopens after gas main leak

Train services were disrupted and care home residents evacuated after the gas pipe was damaged.

www.bbc.co.uk

A railway line has reopened after a gas main leak.
A safety cordon was put in place around London Road in Salisbury on Wednesday after someone digging ruptured a gas main pipe, Dorset and Wiltshire Fire Service (DWFRS) said.

Network Rail did challenge the need for trains to stop running

I've done that myself, with the same lack of success as at Salisbury! The risk from gas cylinders in a fire is well known and accepted, however this was gas venting to the atmosphere, and I am still unconvinced as to what actual risk there really is.