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

[43066]

So there we go, it's in black and white that the injuries weren't caused by the 'emergency stop' as Lumo misleadingly claimed, but by the lurching resulting from the overspeed. Not that that's any surprise.

Indeed.

Although I think some of the comments upthread are perhaps a little quick to assume nefariousness intent on the part of Lumo. The press statement discussed was inaccurate but that was most likely due to the author attempting to explain what happened in simple terms without “blinding by science”. I didn’t read it as any serious attempt to deflect blame - what would have been the point when the RAIB were always going to publish more detail (for those few who care enough to read it)?

 

[SteveM70]

I didn’t read it as any serious attempt to deflect blame - what would have been the point when the RAIB were always going to publish more detail (for those few who care enough to read it)?

Because the initial press release was carried in all the news media on the day, but the RAIB report is highly unlikely to be widely read by the general public (and Lumo’s customers). It was an attempt to protect their reputation

 

[43066]

Because the initial press release was carried in all the news media on the day, but the RAIB report is highly unlikely to be widely read by the general public (and Lumo’s customers). It was an attempt to protect their reputation

I suppose you could look at it that way.

I do completely agree it’s inaccurate, it just strikes me that “overspeed over points” isn’t necessarily going to imply more fault any more than “emergency brake application” to most members of the public? Indeed the person writing it might well not even have understood the technical cause themselves.

What’s that expression: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.

 

[bramling]

I suppose you could look at it that way.

I do completely agree it’s inaccurate, it just strikes me that “overspeed over points” isn’t necessarily going to imply more fault any more than “emergency brake application” to most members of the public? Indeed the person writing it might well not even have understood the technical cause themselves.

What’s that expression: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.

I think they could just as easily have said "one of our services was involved in an incident at Peterborough this morning", which would have been fairly non-committal but not misleading. Certainly take the point that it may not have been deliberate on their part.

 

[Davester50]

Although I think some of the comments upthread are perhaps a little quick to assume nefariousness intent on the part of Lumo. The press statement discussed was inaccurate but that was most likely due to the author attempting to explain what happened in simple terms without “blinding by science”. I didn’t read it as any serious attempt to deflect blame - what would have been the point when the RAIB were always going to publish more detail (for those few who care enough to read it)?

That's how I see it. I doubt the Twitter team would know any technical nature of the incident, and have released that without any prejudice. Unlike some posts here.

 

[Watershed]

I suppose you could look at it that way.

I do completely agree it’s inaccurate, it just strikes me that “overspeed over points” isn’t necessarily going to imply more fault any more than “emergency brake application” to most members of the public? Indeed the person writing it might well not even have understood the technical cause themselves.

What’s that expression: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.

I think the issue is that claiming the injuries were the result of an emergency brake application - as this implies to the "man on the Clapham omnibus" that emergency brake applications are inherently dangerous, despite being a fairly common occurrence. Obviously this is not the case. Overspeeds are much less common, and ones of this magnitude are extremely rare.

Whether through malice or stupidity, Lumo really didn't cover themselves with glory in the way they handled the PR on this incident.

 

[158801]

The Twitter account for Lumo and Hull Trains is managed by TPE

 

[ungreat]

Really lucky it didn't derail...I sign that bit

 

[GC class B1]

I suppose you could look at it that way.

I do completely agree it’s inaccurate, it just strikes me that “overspeed over points” isn’t necessarily going to imply more fault any more than “emergency brake application” to most members of the public? Indeed the person writing it might well not even have understood the technical cause themselves.

What’s that expression: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.

I think most laypeople would think that an overspeed implied a driver error as the train speed would be within the drivers control, similarly to a car driver exceeding the speed limit. An emergency brake application suggests the driver encountered something out of the ordinary and had to take action so outside the control of the driver.

 

[martin2345uk]

Is it unusual for 25mph crossovers to be undamaged at 75mph, or are they built with very high tolerances?

 

[ainsworth74]

The Twitter account for Lumo and Hull Trains is managed by TPE

Is Lumo's run by TPE? It's only Monday to Friday 9 to 5 so I always thought it was office bods at Lumo doing it?

 

[357]

Is it unusual for 25mph crossovers to be undamaged at 75mph, or are they built with very high tolerances?

Lots of kit can take much higher speeds once in a while but not every day.

 

[railwaytrack]

Is Lumo's run by TPE? It's only Monday to Friday 9 to 5 so I always thought it was office bods at Lumo doing it?

Yes the names used to sign the tweets on the FTPE and FHT and Lumo accounts are always the same so it is clearly the same people in the same office. They just operate limited hours compared to their other account. I am sure the XC and GC accounts are the same people too but the XC account is 24/7 while the GC account is more limited hours.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Lots of kit can take much higher speeds once in a while but not every day.

Indeed, 3x overspeed is a 3x increase in momentum.

 

[AndrewE]

Indeed, 3x overspeed is a 3x increase in momentum.

A tribute to how massively robust and resilient (and safe) most railway equipment is. It's partly why train tickets are dearer than bus tickets.

 

[N0G83]

I think they could just as easily have said "one of our services was involved in an incident at Peterborough this morning", which would have been fairly non-committal but not misleading. Certainly take the point that it may not have been deliberate on their part.

I agree, their Twitter account would require a Press Release in respect of seriousness of situation, but not to contain it.

 

[bramling]

I agree, their Twitter account would require a Press Release in respect of seriousness of situation, but not to contain it.

That’s it, in my view all they needed to do was acknowledge that *something* happened, which clearly it did since people were reporting minor injuries.

 

[Bluejays]

Must have been a hell of an experience for the passenger's. Would be interesting if it was just the lurching around from hitting the points too fast that caused it, or a combination of speed over points and emergency brake application.

Looking at that twitter page, feel a bit sorry for the ambassadors. Passengers slamming them for not being visible, twitter team directing everyone to them. They were most likely on their feet at the time of the incident and taken a bigger hammering than anyone else on the train.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes the names used to sign the tweets on the FTPE and FHT and Lumo accounts are always the same so it is clearly the same people in the same office. They just operate limited hours compared to their other account. I am sure the XC and GC accounts are the same people too but the XC account is 24/7 while the GC account is more limited hours.

Interesting. Wonder why First Group decided to not bother covering their new OAO outfit least during its hours of operation?

 

[Clarence Yard]

The press team as well the management were under immediate and severe press pressure to explain why the passengers had been injured so a bland statement saying that something had happened and was under investigation wasn’t going to cut it.

At that time it wasn’t known how many of the injuries were caused by an emergency brake application (which is really fierce on these units - if not secure, you and your luggage will “fly” down the carriage. I have done it on test - not pleasant) and how much was due to the lurch through the points and the continuing rapid deceleration. The speed of the train through the points was not known at that time, nor was when he put the lot in.

So the release concentrated on what was known - that a rapid deceleration would cause displacement of passengers and luggage. It had nothing to do with “protecting reputation” as an incident like this is a reputation breaker on it’s own - in transport the number one priority is “a safe arrival”, not bouncing your punters around inside your own vehicles and causing them harm.

 

[ejstubbs]

I think they could just as easily have said "one of our services was involved in an incident at Peterborough this morning", which would have been fairly non-committal but not misleading. Certainly take the point that it may not have been deliberate on their part.

But you could bet your house that, had Lumo said that, someone would be posting on here within minutes complaining that they were trying to obfuscate the nature of the incident/deflect blame/deny passengers the detailed operational information which (supposedly) they are entitled to by the purchase of a ticket etc etc. There are even whole threads on here about nothing but that.

 

[thomalex]

Sounds like a lucky escape, that's a fair bit over the limit

 

[Re 4/4]

There was an accident in Austria on Monday where overspeed over switches might have been involved, and the units did derail and at least one person died. A lucky escape indeed.

 

[2HAP]

There was an accident in Austria on Monday where overspeed over switches might have been involved, and the units did derail and at least one person died. A lucky escape indeed.

If you mean the Münchendorf derailment, that appears to have happened on plain line, from photographs in the press.

 

[Re 4/4]

I do, Swiss Railforums noted that there appears to be a crossover on the line around the place it happened.

 

[43066]

I think they could just as easily have said "one of our services was involved in an incident at Peterborough this morning", which would have been fairly non-committal but not misleading.

Whether through malice or stupidity, Lumo really didn't cover themselves with glory in the way they handled the PR on this incident.

Agreed 100% with both!

 

[Nottingham59]

Indeed, 3x overspeed is a 3x increase in momentum.

Yes, and it's 9x the kinetic energy, which varies as the square of the speed.

And 9x the sideways acceleration to negotiate the curve: to stay on the track you have to achieve 3x the sideways velocity in 1/3 of the time. No wonder the luggage came out of the racks.

 

[Bikeman78]

There was an accident in Austria on Monday where overspeed over switches might have been involved, and the units did derail and at least one person died. A lucky escape indeed.

There was an accident near Leuven a few years ago where a train ran through a double slip way too fast. If I recall correctly it was doing around 90 km/h and the limit was 40 km/h. But the Europeans tend to allow faster speeds through points. I've been through Leuven and trains lurch through those points at the permitted 40 limit.

 

[bramling]

But you could bet your house that, had Lumo said that, someone would be posting on here within minutes complaining that they were trying to obfuscate the nature of the incident/deflect blame/deny passengers the detailed operational information which (supposedly) they are entitled to by the purchase of a ticket etc etc. There are even whole threads on here about nothing but that.

Yes they would no doubt have got criticised for that. But still preferable to something which - intentionally or not - was evasive. The tone of the initial statement was “nothing to see here”, when clearly there was. Sloppy and unprofessional, especially for an outfit establishing their reputation.

 

[Swimbar]

I think most laypeople would think that an overspeed implied a driver error as the train speed would be within the drivers control, similarly to a car driver exceeding the speed limit. An emergency brake application suggests the driver encountered something out of the ordinary and had to take action so outside the control of the driver.

Or realised that he had made a total mess of it and needed to brake quick to try and rescue the situation.
I struggle to see how crossing points at 3 times the speed limit can be 'outside the control of the driver'