Lumo overspeed incident at Peterborough (17/04/2022)

[43096]

This is the statement Lumo gave to Rail Advent.

Note that it implies that refunds can be claimed for used tickets, something which is frequently suggested, but of course incorrectly.

It was also reported on the BBC News at 5 o clock on Radio 4.

Good to see Lumo trotting out the ol' "safety is our first priority" line. It rings a bit hollow when they've come damn close to putting a train on its side through Peterborough.

 

[DanNCL]

Note that it implies that refunds can be claimed for used tickets, something which is frequently suggested, but of course incorrectly.

It's only incorrect in the sense that it's compensation equivalent to a full refund rather than actually refunding the ticket. It's not incorrect in terms of how it impacts the customer as the resultant delays to journeys are almost all above 1 hour threshold. Non-enthusiasts may find "full refund" easier to understand than "100% delay repay compensation" so I think it was a perfectly reasonable choice of wording on Lumo's behalf.

 

[Watershed]

This is the statement Lumo gave to Rail Advent.

Note that it implies that refunds can be claimed for used tickets, something which is frequently suggested, but of course incorrectly.

It was also reported on the BBC News at 5 o clock on Radio 4.

A rather 'interesting' statement which conveniently omits to mention the reason for the emergency stop. It also suggests that the emergency stop was the cause of the injuries, falling luggage etc. which is clearly not very credible, and would be a cause for concern in its own right if it were the case.

 

[800001]

A rather 'interesting' statement which conveniently omits to mention the reason for the emergency stop. It also suggests that the emergency stop was the cause of the injuries, falling luggage etc. which is clearly not very credible, and would be a cause for concern in its own right if it were the case.

Cause of the falling cases would be the lurch of the coaches going over the points at such a high speed.

 

[the sniper]

This is the statement Lumo gave to Rail Advent.

It also suggests that the emergency stop was the cause of the injuries, falling luggage etc. which is clearly not very credible, and would be a cause for concern in its own right if it were the case.

Either Lumo are entirely committed to their ever creative philosophy or their view of the incident is rather different from the one formed by this thread. It goes rather further than being vague due to the circumstances and gives the rather clear impression you highlight.

 

[edwin_m]

A rather 'interesting' statement which conveniently omits to mention the reason for the emergency stop. It also suggests that the emergency stop was the cause of the injuries, falling luggage etc. which is clearly not very credible, and would be a cause for concern in its own right if it were the case.

They need to stick to undisputed facts at this point, until a proper investigation is completed. It's likely not to be in dispute that an emergency stop took place, but the events leading up to it are as yet conjecture. An official statement from the company carries rather more weight than speculation on a forum.

What concerns me are the postings on this thread that there is no TPWS protection in this situation. It ought to be possible to provide an overspeed sensor on the approach to the turnout, activated only if the diverging route is set.

 

[brad465]

There is now a BBC article on this:

Lumo train passengers' panic after emergency stop

British Transport Police say 15 train passengers reported minor injuries after the emergency stop.

www.bbc.co.uk

Rail passengers have complained of being thrown from their seats and hit by falling luggage after a train came to a sudden stop.
The driver of the 08:20 from Newcastle to King's Cross hit the emergency brake near Peterborough, operator Lumo said.
Passenger Neuma Domingos said she had a panic attack and hurt her leg and Lumo apologised for any distress caused.
Police said 15 people had minor injuries and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch had been informed.
Lumo said all travellers had been rerouted and the train was taken out of service for safety checks with later journeys cancelled.
"Regrettably there has been a knock-on effect for passengers on the 12:09 from King's Cross and the return journey at 18:52 from Edinburgh, both of which have been cancelled," Lumo said in a statement to the BBC.

Ms Domingos was returning to London for a hospital appointment after visiting family in Newcastle.
The King's College London student told the BBC: "Everything was fine until very abruptly we started veering to the right. All things fell on the floor. I was leaning on to the woman next to me and she almost fell out of her seat.
"And then very rapidly the train swung from side to side, heavily on to the left side all the luggage fell at this point. I hit my knee, people were gasping, a couple of people cried out - it was like really bad turbulence on a plane."
She added: "I'm still pretty shocked by everything, surprised and my leg still hurts. A suitcase hit a man's head. I can't get that image out of my head. The suitcase slowly moving and then bang. It happened right in front of me."

Billie Rainer, 25, said she was left "shaken" by the incident after she caught the train from Newcastle to visit friends in the capital.
"The train was swinging from side to side as it went around the corner very fast," she told the BBC.
"I felt like a massive jolt and I was lifted out of my seat. I wasn't injured but other people were, by falling items. A woman was limping because she'd been hurt.
"The train tipped to the side a bit, then loads more. My suitcase fell to the floor and a couple of people fell off chairs.
"After the train swung from side to side it came to a massive halt and stopped at Peterborough station for an hour and a bit.
"It did feel like the train had approached the corner way too fast. It was so much worse than plane turbulence."

 

[paul1609]

Reports on the cesspit known as twitter that the first southbound Lumo service was involved in an incident at Peterborough this morning with passengers reporting that the train nearly derailed. Reportedly aproached Peterborough platform 1 at 80mph instead of 30mph. Train on the move 90 late.

Realtime Trains | 1Y80 0820 Newcastle to London Kings Cross | 17/04/2022

Real-time train running information for 1Y80 0820 departure from Newcastle to London Kings Cross on 17/04/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Just been looking at a Hastings Diesels cab ride from 2017 back then the UF to platform 2 was signed at 30 but UF to Platform 1 was signed as 25 mph.

 

[800001]

Let’s just say, Lumos whole handling of the situation this morning is totally unacceptable, and they did not initially treat it with the seriousness that the incident deserves.
There was ‘walking wounded’ who required ambulance attention at Kings Cross, and upwards of 40 people suffered minor injuries from being bumped around or hit by falling luggage.

 

[ainsworth74]

I've been on trains that have done emergency stops. It was certainly harsh but not "throw people from their seats and luggage from the overhead racks and injure a few dozen people harsh".

Not saying that Lumo are playing fast and loose with the sequence of events and omitting key details but...

 

[800001]

I've been on trains that have done emergency stops. It was certainly harsh but not "throw people from their seats and luggage from the overhead racks and injure a few dozen people harsh".

Not saying that Lumo are playing fast and loose with the sequence of events and omitting key details but...

The throwing people and luggage around, comes from the train doing a high speeds over the points from Up fast (plat 3), towards platform 1.

 

[Deepgreen]

I've been on trains that have done emergency stops. It was certainly harsh but not "throw people from their seats and luggage from the overhead racks and injure a few dozen people harsh".

Not saying that Lumo are playing fast and loose with the sequence of events and omitting key details but...

Exactly - it seems that poor reporting and/or press releases have potentially caused people to think that trains can stop on a postage stamp - thus setting back anti-trespass campaigns, for example. The friction between steel rail and steel wheel gives out pretty early on if braking like a car!

 

[Darandio]

I think the account from 'Billie' in the BBC article probably sums the onboard experience up pretty well.

Given previous comment in the thread about services normally being routed via P3 it seems very much like the driver was caught out by this before applying the emergency brake. It was then too late to avoid travelling over the points at excess speed and the sudden stop in the platform described in the article obviously followed from that. All speculation of course but i'd imagine it isn't that far from reality.

 

[brad465]

I've been on trains that have done emergency stops. It was certainly harsh but not "throw people from their seats and luggage from the overhead racks and injure a few dozen people harsh".

Not saying that Lumo are playing fast and loose with the sequence of events and omitting key details but...

Presumably also, after the misinformation mess that came after the Salisbury carsh, they're being more cautious about reporting causes right now.

 

[800001]

I think the account from 'Billie' in the BBC article probably sums the onboard experience up pretty well.

Given previous comment in the thread about services normally being routed via P3 it seems very much like the driver was caught out by this before applying the emergency brake. It was then too late to avoid travelling over the points at excess speed and the sudden stop in the platform described in the article obviously followed from that. All speculation of course but i'd imagine it isn't that far from reality.

The driver should not have been caught out, as there was a train stopped in platform 3!

So driver should have been fully aware, due to the signal sequence, and should have also been able to see the train ahead.

 

[TheBigD]

Driver should not of been caught out as there was a train stopped at platform 3!! So driver should of been fully aware due to signal sequence and should of also been able to see the train ahead.

I didn't realise there was a train in platform 3. Given that it's a straight line and largely unobstructed veiw from P468 signal to platform 3 that raises some questions...

 

[Watershed]

They need to stick to undisputed facts at this point, until a proper investigation is completed. It's likely not to be in dispute that an emergency stop took place, but the events leading up to it are as yet conjecture. An official statement from the company carries rather more weight than speculation on a forum.

What concerns me are the postings on this thread that there is no TPWS protection in this situation. It ought to be possible to provide an overspeed sensor on the approach to the turnout, activated only if the diverging route is set.

There is nothing wrong with sticking to undisputed facts, however the fact that an overspeed occurred will have been undisputed right from the start. Failing to mention that, and talking about the emergency stop as if there were a causal relation with the injuries, is absolutely unacceptable.

Some very poor PR here.

 

[Starmill]

It's only incorrect in the sense that it's compensation equivalent to a full refund rather than actually refunding the ticket. It's not incorrect in terms of how it impacts the customer as the resultant delays to journeys are almost all above 1 hour threshold. Non-enthusiasts may find "full refund" easier to understand than "100% delay repay compensation" so I think it was a perfectly reasonable choice of wording on Lumo's behalf.

I meant in the sense that it would imply everyone was delayed by an hour or more, but surely that's not going to be the case? Some people will depart on an LNER service which gets them to their destination more quickly surely.

A rather 'interesting' statement which conveniently omits to mention the reason for the emergency stop. It also suggests that the emergency stop was the cause of the injuries, falling luggage etc. which is clearly not very credible, and would be a cause for concern in its own right if it were the case.

The radio report quite clearly linked the minor injuries to the emergency stop also. No doubt on the basis of the same or a similar statement sent to them.

I've been on trains that have done emergency stops. It was certainly harsh but not "throw people from their seats and luggage from the overhead racks and injure a few dozen people harsh".

Not saying that Lumo are playing fast and loose with the sequence of events and omitting key details but...

It's very rare that someone's injured, even in a small way, by an emergency stop isn't it.

I have heard of one case of an older person who was injured but OK after being reviewed by paramedics, because they were unfortunate enough not to be sat down at the time and were thrown off their feet.

 

[43096]

There is nothing wrong with sticking to undisputed facts, however the fact that an overspeed occurred will have been undisputed right from the start. Failing to mention that, and talking about the emergency stop as if there were a causal relation with the injuries, is absolutely unacceptable.

Some very poor PR here.

It does rather give the appearance of having something to hide. The fact they've played the PR safety card in the statement only makes it worse.

 

[Megafuss]

There is nothing wrong with sticking to undisputed facts, however the fact that an overspeed occurred will have been undisputed right from the start. Failing to mention that, and talking about the emergency stop as if there were a causal relation with the injuries, is absolutely unacceptable.

Some very poor PR here.

Its actually a very good PR statement. Its just not telling members of the forum what they want to know.

 

[ainsworth74]

The throwing people and luggage around, comes from the train doing a high speeds over the points from Up fast (plat 3), towards platform 1.

Indeed, I think perhaps the sarcasm I was attempting has not translated well into text

 

[43096]

Its actually a very good PR statement.

It isn't. It's misleading, giving the impression they have something to hide.

 

[Watershed]

Its actually a very good PR statement. Its just not telling members of the forum what they want to know.

It's a highly misleading statement and won't reflect well on Lumo when the truth comes out.

 

[AJD]

Personally never rated Lumo. From what I've seen, and what Hitachi are saying, the train may have been doing something like 80 across those 30mph points from the up fast to platform 1/2. That area is loaded with TPWS but it applies mostly to P468 and P440 (owing largely to the conditional double blocking for those familiar with the area) but I don't think the 30mph turnout has it. Train was said to be decelerating down to 30 (maybe due to P468 initially being held at danger) then accelerated to 80. Not impossible given the distances involved. I don't believe for a second that the emergency brakes played even the slightest role in those injuries and I've used it enough and been on enough trains where it's been used. I guess the report will be out soon enough.

 

[james_the_xv]

Its actually a very good PR statement. Its just not telling members of the forum what they want to know.

I agree - though I’m sure the RAIB investigator wannabes in here want all the info up to and including the OTDR and signalling data

 

[JonathanH]

Driver should not of been caught out as there was a train stopped at platform 3!! So driver should of been fully aware due to signal sequence and should of also been able to see the train ahead.

There wasn't a train in platform 3. 1A81 0757 Bradford Interchange to London Kings Cross left before 1000. 1Y16 0754 Newcastle to London Kings Cross was behind the Lumo service.

 

[Darandio]

I agree - though I’m sure the RAIB investigator wannabes in here want all the info up to and including the OTDR and signalling data

The statement suggests an emergency brake application was the cause of the injuries. Witness statements from onboard suggest otherwise. It just wasn't a very good statement.

 

[Efini92]

What concerns me are the postings on this thread that there is no TPWS protection in this situation. It ought to be possible to provide an overspeed sensor on the approach to the turnout, activated only if the diverging route is set.

They do at Winwick junction. So it’s definitely possible.

 

[Megafuss]

It's a highly misleading statement and won't reflect well on Lumo when the truth comes out.

It isn't. It's misleading, giving the impression they have something to hide.

They have a responsibility to protect the driver until a investigation has been completed.

 

[Dunnideer]

Yes you are probably right, however a full shutdown of the area wouldn't be necessary - presumably a MOM would have been sent out to check the points and ensure a quick resumption of services

For a junction overspeed, driver would report it to the signaller.
Signaller would ask for the speed at the time of the incident.
Signaller would arrange for the MOM to go and inspect the points (if another route is available they would use that).

Just to clarify a bit of a myth - as a MOM we don’t have the competence to make any type of engineering inspection of the track, that has to be done by the p-way teams who have the knowledge and competencies to do so. The only exception to this is broken rails where we are allowed to reopen the line only under several very specific conditions.

MOMs are operators not engineers.. the clue is in the name (Mobile Operations Manager).