R A I B Report on Waterloo collision

Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by MotorcycleAlan, 19 Nov 2018.

  1. krus_aragon

    krus_aragon Established Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Joined:
    10 Jun 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    Is it the case that even if A and B were clipped for the duration of the work, the extra wire left behind could have led to an equivalent derailment or collision after the whole station was handed back? That'd seem reasonable for the RAIB not to labour the point-clipping issue in their report.
     
  2. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    17,020
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    In principle the wire count should pick up any extra wires that shouldn't be there. But seein as other bits of the procedure were ignored, and the temporary wiring would have compromised the integrity of the wire count, perhaps not in practice.

    In any case the point clipping should have been a backstop (albeit a sensible and important one). If the procedures on signal design and installation are not followed then there's likely to be a serious accident sooner or later, possibly in circumstances where point clipping would make no difference.
     
  3. ComUtoR

    ComUtoR Established Member

    Messages:
    6,225
    Joined:
    13 Dec 2013
    Location:
    UK
    Cheers for the reply.
     
  4. whhistle

    whhistle On Moderation

    Messages:
    2,623
    Joined:
    30 Dec 2010
    I appreciate the RAIB's note about the driver checking the position of the points.
    It's not something I would have thought a driver do, especially in complicated areas such as Waterloo, so good on that driver!


    This is probably true.
    But then nothing can work forever without going wrong. I'm not saying it's acceptable or that we should be expecting some sort of fatal incident/accident. I wonder how long the longest time between fatal incidents/accidents is - even including other countries.
     
    Last edited: 21 Nov 2018
  5. XDM

    XDM Member

    Messages:
    483
    Joined:
    9 Apr 2016
    As a complete layman re signal technology I think the report is brilliant in explaining the accident very clearly to the man in the street.

    I have read it through twice, & none of the serious claims made by Signal Head are in the report.

    The report specifically dismisses fatigue or pressure as a cause.

    Nor is there a word about the issue introduced by Signal Head with the phrase. "I understand....".
    His " I understand" allegation is so serious that it would have featured heavily in the report if true.

    The joy of the forum is that informed & knowledgeable people bring their experience to the rest of us. There are many very well informed posters on this thread & elsewhere on the Forum.

    Signal Head's post is very different. It mislead me, until I checked it against the facts in the report & realised that RAIB do not confirm what he tells us.
    To be any use posts should be based on fact, not beliefs or wishes.
     
  6. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    17,020
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    I believe Signal Head is closer to the actual work described than anyone else contributing to this thread, so would suggest not to dismiss his/her view so lightly. In a sense it is even more worrying if people aren't following the procedures and don't even have the excuse of being under pressure.
     
  7. hwl

    hwl Established Member

    Messages:
    4,883
    Joined:
    5 Feb 2012
    Agreed - my understanding also aligns with Signal Heads.

    XDM might like to carefully review the complete Waterloo Works thread including the comments (before the blockade) about delaying or extending the blockade and the extension of the works area to include Platform 10.
     

Share This Page