A Pacer has flattened part of a set of level crossing gates at Dereham.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Pacer flattens gates at Dereham
- Thread starter 2HAP
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
One vehicle from a Pacer it seems...one without a cab...runaway I guess.
py_megapixel
Established Member
My head is immediately filled with dozens of potential jokes about Pacers' crashworthiness, each far worse than the last...
But yes, I too am glad that the only damage is to the carriage and the gates and that there is no human injury.
But yes, I too am glad that the only damage is to the carriage and the gates and that there is no human injury.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,885
The vehicle was delivered today, so possibly something to do with that. Whatever the reasons, it is presumably notifiable to the RAIB, and given the focus on heritage railways currently, it might provoke a visit from the ORR to review processes and documentation.
warwickshire
On Moderation
Surely shouldn't the vehicle concerned have been scotched properly, leaving wooden scotches under the wheelsets would have prevented the runaway in the first place? Ie put under wheelsets to prevent any form off movement. To secure it. Before being left unattended.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
That will no doubt be a subject for whatever enquiry takes place (I agree RAIB will probably do one).
RAIB are to investigate.
www.edp24.co.uk
Delays for commuters after carriage blocks railway crossing
Motorists are facing delays on a busy town road after a heritage train carriage blocked a railway crossing and damaged a set of gates.
www.edp24.co.uk
Yes rather than speculate we should await the outcome of an investigation.
However what is undeniable is that this is another incident on a heritage railway. Given the increasingly litigious world we live in heritage railways must meet the safety standards demanded.
I have concerns that some heritage railways will be unable to do so and thus will be compelled to close. I also have concerns that meeting those safety standards means far greater training and accountability for volunteers on heritage railways. Will volunteers embrace this or will some decide that they no longer "wish to play trains" thus the lifeblood of heritage railways will be in shorter supply thus fewer running days or possibly closures?
However what is undeniable is that this is another incident on a heritage railway. Given the increasingly litigious world we live in heritage railways must meet the safety standards demanded.
I have concerns that some heritage railways will be unable to do so and thus will be compelled to close. I also have concerns that meeting those safety standards means far greater training and accountability for volunteers on heritage railways. Will volunteers embrace this or will some decide that they no longer "wish to play trains" thus the lifeblood of heritage railways will be in shorter supply thus fewer running days or possibly closures?
hexagon789
Veteran Member
Don't Pacers have spring actuated parking brakes which are held off by electric current as with most DMUs from the 1980s onwards?
Though I suppose they might have been isolated for the purpose of shunting the vehicle.
TheSel
Member
Definitely something to do with that. Had it not been delivered, the incident would not have occurred. Not at that location, anyway!
Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 3,128
I wonder if lack of familiarity with the centre car of a 144 might have had anything to do with it, this being the one from 144018?
Looking at photos of previously unloaded stock they've been unloading stock onto the line that comes of between the station and the level crossing, leaving very little leeway if something travels further than it should: I'd hope the crossing would be closed to road traffic while that was taking place.
Looking at photos of previously unloaded stock they've been unloading stock onto the line that comes of between the station and the level crossing, leaving very little leeway if something travels further than it should: I'd hope the crossing would be closed to road traffic while that was taking place.
Last edited:
Anyone wishing to "play trains" has no place in a safety critical role on the railway, preserved or otherwise. I'd rather have closed railways than unsafe ones (I'm not making any suggestions about the MNR, or this incident. This is a general thought). But I think this conversation was had on the forum a little while back
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Frankly that's nonsense. Most preserved railway operators are "playing trains" as a leisure activity, and there's no reason why that should be unsafe provided the appropriate rules are in place and followed. Which, for whatever reason in this case they clearly weren't.
They are most certainly not playing. The vast majority of volunteers are enthusiasts, who care deeply about all aspects of what they are doing, including safety. And I'm sure they enjoy doing it and get great satisfaction, but playing doesn't come in to it.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think we have a different definition of "playing trains" here, mine positive and yours negative. By "playing trains" I would mean "running a railway purely for the enjoyment of doing so", which is what basically every preserved operator is doing, because if they weren't enjoying it why are they bothering? It doesn't, for me, carry any suggestion of being negligent about safety while doing so, and any operator who thinks it's funny to be negligent about safety (albeit admittedly by older standards than the mainline) certainly should be closed down.
Dunfanaghy Rd
Member
Past experience suggests to me that faith in wooden wheel scotches is often misplaced. What we need in GB-land are the steel shoes used on the Continent. (And not the tin and wood rubbish that DBC UK uses.)
Pat
Pat
That's all very well, but I seem to recall a whole range of unbraked/unattended vehicles running away on the national system (and the Underground) in recent times, particularly but not wholly involving subcontracted on-track plant suppliers, a number with notably serious outcomes unlike here, and yet the national network has not been compelled to close ...
pdeaves
Established Member
I suspect the 'compelled to close' bit, if it were to happen at all, is highly dependent on whether or not the railway in question refuses to change working practices.
Safe Operation is and must be the single highest priority of any operator.
The purpose of any RAIB investigation is to learn so that safety can be improved (going forward). It is not to apportion blame or prosecute.
The learning process often throws a spotlight on where procedures or the execution of those procedures was defective thus highlighting where improvements must be made. The outcome then quite naturally is improving procedures or the execution of those procedures.
My concern is whether Heritage Railways have (or execute) either sufficiently robust procedures or the ability to improve those procedures and their execution. As pdeaves states
A refusal to engage with the regulatory authorities will almost certainly result in draconian enforcement action taken by those authorities. Given the past history of some heritage railways in respect of safety standards one has to wonder how soon one will indeed face draconian action "pour encourager les autres".
The purpose of any RAIB investigation is to learn so that safety can be improved (going forward). It is not to apportion blame or prosecute.
The learning process often throws a spotlight on where procedures or the execution of those procedures was defective thus highlighting where improvements must be made. The outcome then quite naturally is improving procedures or the execution of those procedures.
My concern is whether Heritage Railways have (or execute) either sufficiently robust procedures or the ability to improve those procedures and their execution. As pdeaves states
A refusal to engage with the regulatory authorities will almost certainly result in draconian enforcement action taken by those authorities. Given the past history of some heritage railways in respect of safety standards one has to wonder how soon one will indeed face draconian action "pour encourager les autres".
Last edited:
father_jack
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 1,237
Yes, they have even been known to be put on the wrong side of the wheel from time to time !!!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm surprised the rule isn't to put them on both sides, then that error couldn't occur.
Sorry, but that's for RAIB to say, not the railway, and while further information may have been requested, no decision on investigation has yet been made.RAIB are to investigate.
Delays for commuters after carriage blocks railway crossing
Motorists are facing delays on a busy town road after a heritage train carriage blocked a railway crossing and damaged a set of gates.
Dunfanaghy Rd
Member
It won't stop them sliding and falling off the rail. The Continental shoe bears the weight of the wheel, thus braking the wheelset. Only British obstinacy prevents using them here.
I had 1 each with the tamper and the liner on the Watercress line (going back some years!). Roll the vehicle onto the shoe and it would stay put until Doomsday.
Pat
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,802
Would a layman also know these as german chocks?
DMUs of that vintage don't have have parking brakes held off by electrical systems. If they did, and knowing the nature of 14x units, they would be a lot more unreliable and the failure of electrical supply to a parking brake when in service would lead to fires.
This incident happened with a class 144 MS vehicle. Similar to DMS vehicles they have two spring-actuated parking brakes on the non-driven axle that apply a total of four brake blocks to that axle.
Air pressure normally releases the parking brake - the air supply is from the main reservoir pipe that runs the length of the train. It releases the parking brake by acting on a diaphragm that opposes the force of the spring. Once the main res sir pressure rises to about 1.5 bar the parking brake begins to release. It's probably totally released just over 3 bar, I can't remember the pressure off the top of my head. Traction units are designed so that they can't be driven without sufficient main res air supply so this sort of parking brake is both as simple and reliable in operation as it can be and is also fail-safe.
The parking brakes can be manually released when required when no main res air supply is available by way of a 'ring pull' being operated to 'wind off' the spring on each parking brake. This is the only way such a vehicle could be moved on its own on or off a low loader for example.
Every vehicle of every 14x unit has the same system. I've never heard of one failing before.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,885
This was a single MS vehicle being unloaded from a road vehicle, so references to air supplies and main reservoir pipes in this instance are irrelevant. There's not going to be much air in it!
Yes absolutely, but in order to understand how the parking brakes were most likely to have ended up in the situation where they were not applied to the wheelset, and in response to the erroneous post above, I thought an explanation was warranted. There can only be two failure modes - applied when not required, or not applied when required.
- Status