Liverpool Disruption 28 Feb 2017 - RAIB report released 30/11/17

[Bletchleyite]

On the just before 8am bulletin they mentioned the use of emergency brakes and that around 150 passengers were on board.

So, a safety system (the Mk1 eyeball and emergency braking system on the unit) was operated as designed and worked successfully to avoid a collision.

One thing that's more worthy of discussion (for the future at least) than the RMT's DOO argument is how that kind of incident could be safely mitigated if the train had been self-driving with only a guard on board. A trip wire on the OHLE gantries may well have worked, to use one possibility (and one that is already deployed on the Manchester Airport spur).

 

[Camden]

But scaremongering is uncalled-for and the RMT should be ashamed of themselves for it.

200 tonnes of rubble falling 80 feet onto a railway line, that could have gone on top of a train or had a train run into it?

The details of what was said might be disagreed with, but the end message that many people could have died is indisputable.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

In fairness, stripping out how fast trains were or were not going, yes of course there could have been deaths. With a train passing every few seconds to minutes, the 200 tonnes could easily have landed on top of one.

That's not just "one of those things", or an accident that is a statistical inevitability. It's 200 tonnes of stuff falling 80 feet onto a railway. That much of the incident is all you need to know to make a reasonable statement as to possible consequences.

A few years ago there was an incident where cement mixer fell on top of a SWTs 455, is that the last incident in the UK where debris/objects fell onto a train (having not been a result of been thrown)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

200 tonnes of rubble falling 80 feet onto a railway line, that could have gone on top of a train or had a train run into it?

The details of what was said might be disagreed with, but the end message that many people could have died is indisputable.

I'm not arguing about that. I'm arguing about the RMT shouting about it for political ends, which is completely unacceptable in my view (and may well damage the railway's reputation and make people consider it unsafe, which it patently is not). And that is even given that I do not support the proposals for DOO on Northern (though that specifically is for, and is being discussed on, another thread).

The incident needs to be investigated by the RAIB in due course and alterations made to procedure to prevent it happening again. Then a non-emotional and factual publication of that outcome needs to be made.

 

[northwichcat]

200 tonnes of rubble falling 80 feet onto a railway line, that could have gone on top of a train or had a train run into it?

The details of what was said might be disagreed with, but the end message that many people could have died is indisputable.

If the train was involved in an accident the driver could be injured and be unable to do anything. However, it could be the driver escapes unhurt but the guard is injured and unable to do anything.

It could also be the case that for certain classes of train the driver is more likely to escape injury than other classes but I don't hear anyone calling for the potentially less safe classes of train to be replaced by something more crashworthy. OK we have had people using the crash standards of Pacers to argue for their withdrawal but I'm sure they are not the only type of train which are potentially more likely to suffer damage in the event of a crash.

 

[Camden]

Maybe you read different words to what was written. I don't understand your point in relation to mine.

 

[lfc84]

imagine that lot falling in to the top of a pacer dmu

 

[YorkshireBear]

The Watford incident is not a fair comparison as that could most definitely have led to fatalities and saying it could so is not scaremongering.

50 mph is an exaggeration. But looking at the size and weight of the rubble and the distance it fell, I am not convinced a 319 would have protected its occupants.

 

[GB]

200 tonnes of rubble falling 80 feet onto a railway line, that could have gone on top of a train or had a train run into it?

The details of what was said might be disagreed with, but the end message that many people could have died is indisputable.

Was it actually 200 tonnes that fell?

In any case, the part of your post I have highlighted is the crux of the matter in my opinion.

Yes there "could" have been fatalities, not the "would have been fatalities" as declared by the RMT.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Watford incident is not a fair comparison as that could most definitely have led to fatalities and saying it could so is not scaremongering.

Shouting about what could have happened rather than what did happen in publicity deliberately designed to gain attention is scaremongering. What's worse is that it is being done to further the RMT's anti-DOO campaign. What it actually does is damage said campaign in my view.

This is a time for cold hard facts about what did happen, not emotion about what theoretically could. The article smacks of "something must be done" type talk.

 

[northwichcat]

Shouting about what could have happened rather than what did happen in publicity deliberately designed to gain attention is scaremongering. What's worse is that it is being done to further the RMT's anti-DOO campaign. What it actually does is damage said campaign in my view.

If the RMT want to use it in their campaign I think they need to say exactly what the guard did on said service without any exaggerations or claiming the guard could have done something which they didn't choose to do or need to do.

 

[Camden]

Shouting about what could have happened rather than what did happen in publicity deliberately designed to gain attention is scaremongering.

You might not like the political opportunism Neil, but "scaremongering" means wild talk which needlessly makes people fearful.

Using a narrative around a serious and potentially deadly event to support an argument might be called some things, but it isn't by definition "scaremongering".

Your continuing use of the word "scaremongering" - solely because you don't like the RMT's press release - suggests there was no danger. There was a clear and obvious danger of huge proportions, and you are just playing the other side of their coin by downplaying the incident in using that word.

 

[hwl]

50 mph is an exaggeration. But looking at the size and weight of the rubble and the distance it fell, I am not convinced a 319 would have protected its occupants.

As mentioned above:
1.A SWT 455 of the same bodyshell design protected its occupants from a fully loaded cement mixer which would have had a far higher point loading than most of the rubble (much of it soil).
2. The speed limits are 30mph (3tracks) and 40mph (1track)

 

[Camden]

Yes there "could" have been fatalities, not the "would have been fatalities" as declared by the RMT.

If you were in a train and 200 tonnes fell on top of the carriage you were in, yes you "could" survive. I wouldn't fancy your chances, personally, and wouldn't choose to swap places with you, but yes you're right you "could".

Just the same, the 200 tonnes only "could have" fallen on top of one of the trains passing underneath every minute or so.

So that's alright then, right?

 

[ExRes]

You might not like the political opportunism Neil, but "scaremongering" means wild talk which needlessly makes people fearful.

Using a narrative around a serious and potentially deadly event to support an argument might be called some things, but it isn't by definition "scaremongering".

Your continuing use of the word "scaremongering" - solely because you don't like the RMT's press release - suggests there was no danger. There was a clear and obvious danger of huge proportions, and you are just playing the other side of their coin by downplaying the incident in using that word.

The comments made by the RMT are scaremongering, if they choose to blatantly lie about the train speed then their claim to truth and honesty are completely nullified

 

[Camden]

If the underlying facts remain, then no they're not scaremongering about the potential impact of the 200 tonnes.

 

[GB]

I will ask again, was it actually 200 tonnes that fell?

 

[GB]

If you were in a train and 200 tonnes fell on top of the carriage you were in, yes you "could" survive. I wouldn't fancy your chances, personally, and wouldn't choose to swap places with you, but yes you're right you "could".

Just the same, the 200 tonnes only "could have" fallen on top of one of the trains passing underneath every minute or so.

So that's alright then, right?

Not really sure what point you are trying to make.

I have agreed there could have been fatalities, I don't think anyone is arguing against that. The point is the RMT said there would have been fatalities, that is an opinion and not a fact. Just like saying the track could be out for a month. The planned reopening is 9th March.

 

[Camden]

I will ask again, was it actually 200 tonnes that fell?

I'm not in charge of weighing it, but that is what has been reported several times in the press.

 

[MichaelAMW]

As mentioned above:
1.A SWT 455 of the same bodyshell design protected its occupants from a fully loaded cement mixer which would have had a far higher point loading than most of the rubble (much of it soil).
2. The speed limits are 30mph (3tracks) and 40mph (1track)

This is exactly my view. All of that lot would have taken at least a few seconds to fall so the maximum load at any one time would have been far less than than a single 200-ton lump suddenly appearing out of the sky. (And there's a 30mph TSR on that 4th track!)

 

[GB]

I'm not in charge of weighing it, but that is what has been reported several times in the press.

No need to be facetious. I asked a simple question.

 

[Camden]

No need to be facetious. I asked a simple question.

No need to smack my bum with words. You got a simple, qualified answer.

 

[MichaelAMW]

You might not like the political opportunism Neil, but "scaremongering" means wild talk which needlessly makes people fearful.

Using a narrative around a serious and potentially deadly event to support an argument might be called some things, but it isn't by definition "scaremongering".

Your continuing use of the word "scaremongering" - solely because you don't like the RMT's press release - suggests there was no danger. There was a clear and obvious danger of huge proportions, and you are just playing the other side of their coin by downplaying the incident in using that word.

You're arguing against yourself! Yes, serious and potentially deadly; yes, clear and obvious danger. These are sensible words to describe what might have posed a risk to the railway, but the RMT have stated that the train would have derailed and lives would have been lost, which they can't know to be true. I'm just a bit mystified as to why the RMT want to discourage rail travel...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm not in charge of weighing it, but that is what has been reported several times in the press.

The latest quote from NR is that between 100 and 150 tonnes fell.
Either way it is a lot.

Much is being made of what the crew did, but don't forget the OHLE would have tripped instantly over a wide area and the signals/TPWS reset.
So crew actions may not have been relevant.

 

[GB]

deleted

 

[Camden]

You're arguing against yourself!

Sounds about right.

I do agree that the article contained some bold statements. I also agree that the connection between the argument and the event is debatable, rather than certain.

 

[GB]

The latest quote from NR is that between 100 and 150 tonnes fell.
Either way it is a lot.

Thank You

 

[Camden]

debatable.

Qualified as in I made clear that it is what has been reported severally, not something I can say with absolute first hand knowledge certainty.

 

[PeterStoba]

200 tonnes of rubble falling 80 feet onto a railway line, that could have gone on top of a train or had a train run into it?

Where has 80ft come from?

 

[GB]

Qualified as in I made clear that it is what has been reported severally, not something I can say with absolute first hand knowledge certainty.

Fair enough.