• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

ScotRail HST derailment at Dalwhinnie (10/04/2021)

Status
Not open for further replies.

47271

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2015
Messages
2,983
The set, which had been stuck in Dalwhinnie siding for the past week, headed south to Haymarket depot earlier today. I happened to be driving up the A9 at Ballinluig as it crawled by. Near on five and a half hours to get from Dalwhinnie to Edinburgh!

 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,686
Location
Redcar
A short update from the RAIB today outlining their lines of enquiry and a few more basic details of what happened:

At around 03:03 hrs on 10 April 2021, an empty high speed train (HST), being used to check platform-train stepping distances, was wrongly diverted from the up line to the down line at a crossover located around 190 metres south of Dalwhinnie station. Before the train was able to be stopped, its rear three bogies became derailed due to the points at the north end of the crossover moving under the rear of the train.

The crossover comprised a set of points at each end of a short section of track linking the up and down lines. The maximum permitted speed is 70 mph (113 km/h) on the up line and 15 mph (24 km/h) when traversing the crossover. The train was travelling at around 33 mph (53 km/h) when it was wrongly diverted onto the crossover and came to a stop around 290 metres beyond it. There were five people on the train including the driver; no one was injured. The derailed portion of the train, track and signalling equipment were damaged.

The signal on the approach to the crossover was displaying a proceed indication for the route along the up line and there is no signalled route from there, over the crossover, to the down line. Both sets of points forming the crossover were detected as being in the correct position for the up-line route by the signalling system and were indicated as such to the signaller, even though the points at the north end of the crossover (the end nearest Dalwhinnie station) were set in a position to divert the train onto the crossover.

Our investigation will seek to identify the sequence of events which led to the accident. It will also consider:

  • Why the signalling system did not detect that the points were in an incorrect position thereby allowing the signal to be cleared for the movement along the up line
  • How the points were able to move as the train passed over
  • Factors associated with the installation, testing and maintenance of the point machines that operated the crossover
  • Any relevant underlying factors, including the rail industry response to RAIB’s recommendations made its Greenhill Upper Junction (Report 04/2010) and Waterloo (Report 19/2018) investigations.

 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,638
So does the distance from the crossover to where the front of the train stopped, represent a stopping distance at 33mph? It seems surprisingly far.
 

2HAP

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
467
Location
Hadlow
The big question seems to be "were the points reversed, but detected as normal, or did they move under the train?"
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
The big question seems to be "were the points reversed, but detected as normal, or did they move under the train?"
To answer your question, the initial report states that the points were set correctly eg towards the Up Line as detected by the signalling system and displayed as such to the signaller but also it states that there isn't a signalled move from the Up to the Down there.

However it does also state that the points at the north end of the crossover was set towards the Down.

So question is with crossovers, is it possible for one half to be set in reverse and the other on normal? And if so why didn't the signalling system pick up on it?
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,605
Crikey. Very lucky it was an empty train and not travelling very quickly at that.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,880
To answer your question, the initial report states that the points were set correctly eg towards the Up Line as detected by the signalling system and displayed as such to the signaller but also it states that there isn't a signalled move from the Up to the Down there.

However it does also state that the points at the north end of the crossover was set towards the Down.

So question is with crossovers, is it possible for one half to be set in reverse and the other on normal? And if so why didn't the signalling system pick up on it?
The train was travelling south, so the points at the north end of the crossover were the first ones it encountered. AIUI they diverted it (incorrectly) over the crossover, then moved back under the train, derailing the rear bogies. There doesn't seem to be any mention of a problem when the train passed over the southern points as it joined the down line, so presumably the points at both ends were set for the crossover route.
 

Sunset route

Established Member
Joined
27 Oct 2015
Messages
1,189
As the report mentions point machines, I assume motor operated points?



As you can see from the first picture the crossover points concerned are No 13 points and the diagram indicate a Facing Point Lock (FPL) that is not separate to the points themselves so that indicates point machines.

The second picture confirms this as the lever No 13 is cut down which indicates powered function and is black (lower) for points and blue upper for FPL.
 

matchmaker

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2009
Messages
1,512
Location
Central Scotland


As you can see from the first picture the crossover points concerned are No 13 points and the diagram indicate a Facing Point Lock (FPL) that is not separate to the points themselves so that indicates point machines.

The second picture confirms this as the lever No 13 is cut down which indicates powered function and is black (lower) for points and blue upper for FPL.
Thanks.
 

MadMac

Member
Joined
13 Jun 2008
Messages
967
Location
Moorpark, CA
The RAIB summary is in line with what I’ve heard from inside the industry. That crossover was, I believe, motorised back when Blair Atholl-Dalwhinnie was redoubled in the mid 70s and had recently (past few months) had its machines renewed “like for like”. As is often the case in these sorts of incidents, there are probably multiple issues coming together in a “perfect storm” here.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,638
Both of the previous reports the RAIB update mentions involve points where wiring has not been reinstated correctly following work on the track.

Which is what also happened in the Italian crash last year.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,929
Location
Nottingham
Both of the previous reports the RAIB update mentions involve points where wiring has not been reinstated correctly following work on the track.

Which is what also happened in the Italian crash last year.
Greenhill could have been a disaster if things had been slightly different, but didn't create much or a stir in the industry. Waterloo had less potential consequences due to the lower speeds involved, but caused various people to sit up and notice, possibly because of the prominent site. At Waterloo the mistake was made within the interlocking rather than in trackside wiring. Not to pre-judge the investigation, but the fact they are citing these two strongly suggests RAIB are looking at a wiring error causing a wrong side failure.
 

181

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2013
Messages
801
Waterloo had less potential consequences due to the lower speeds involved, but caused various people to sit up and notice, possibly because of the prominent site.
I wonder whether the fact that it's only a few miles along the line from Clapham Junction contributed to its getting more attention.
 

PG

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,857
Location
at the end of the high and low roads
Waterloo had less potential consequences due to the lower speeds involved, but caused various people to sit up and notice,
Not enough notice IMO since apart from Waterloo it now looks like this incident may be due to a signalling equipment problem and we also had Cardiff East Junction at Xmas 2016.
Not to pre-judge the investigation, but the fact they are citing these two strongly suggests RAIB are looking at a wiring error causing a wrong side failure.
It certainly appears that way doesn't it.
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,492
Out of interest, what did the HST do before it departed south from Dalwhinnie? Did it arrive from the south through the crossover for example.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,221
If you read post #1 in this thread you will find a link to the path on RTT which shows that it was heading from Tomatin to Perth.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,929
Location
Nottingham
If you read post #1 in this thread you will find a link to the path on RTT which shows that it was heading from Tomatin to Perth.
Noted thanks. So the interesting question becomes whether the previous working passing over the crossover was actually crossed from one line to the other. If there was, for example, a false detection on the normal setting then it might have been hidden until the crossover was reversed.
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,492
Thanks for clarifying - I had a theory that if the crossovers were wrongly wired (as has been implied), if the previous northbound train had used them then the north-end crossover would have been run through and damaged, which could explain why the HST was then misrouted when departing south (and the points subsequently moving.) Would require the detection to be inoperative to enable the route to be called without the points being proven set.
 

47271

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2015
Messages
2,983
I think someone mentioned earlier that it’s generally only used if a disabled person needs to get on/off at Dalwhinnie.
This, and for looping northbound. At least once I've overtaken a freight at Dalwhinnie in this way.
 

eman_resu

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Messages
53
Location
Hermit Kingdom of Australia
Would require the detection to be inoperative to enable the route to be called without the points being proven set

From recollection points will sit out of correspondence until the detection is obtained. While the route can be called, I don't think the points will motor unless detected in Normal or Reverse.

And to add - I was also under the impression that at least the track circuit over the points would need to be clear before they could be motored.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,929
Location
Nottingham
From recollection points will sit out of correspondence until the detection is obtained. While the route can be called, I don't think the points will motor unless detected in Normal or Reverse.

And to add - I was also under the impression that at least the track circuit over the points would need to be clear before they could be motored.
All that would depend on the integrity of the wiring, which I think is in question here.
 

a340egkk

Member
Joined
22 Feb 2017
Messages
43
It has been briefed that the point machine was not wired up correctly, with detection one way looped out (I can’t remember normal or reverse). The machine was factory refurbished (originally sited elsewhere), and testing during installation should’ve picked up on it.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,686
Location
Redcar
The RAIB have now published their report. The full report can be found here and the summary is below:

Summary​

At around 03:01 hrs on 10 April 2021, an empty coaching stock train derailed at around 33 mph (53 km/h) after being wrongly diverted from the main line onto a crossover south of Dalwhinnie station, Badenoch and Strathspey. No one was injured. However, the consequences could have been much worse; the train could have been travelling much faster and carrying passengers or encountered a train travelling on the line to which the crossover led.

The train was wrongly diverted because, even though the signaller had recently called the double-ended set of points to be in a position for the route along the main line, the points at the facing end of the crossover had remained set towards the crossover, while the points at the trailing end had moved to the correct position. The signaller was able to clear the protecting signal, which allowed the train to approach the crossover in this condition, because of a wiring error in the signalling system that was introduced when the point machine at the trailing end was replaced some nine months earlier. The front of the train was directed over the crossover and then trailed through and forced apart the points at the trailing end. The signalling system only then detected that the points were not correctly set and automatically re-sent a command for both point ends to move to the position that the signaller had earlier commanded. This caused the points at the facing end to move under the train, which derailed the rear of train as it passed over them.

The wiring error was the result of two unwanted conductors, a wire strap and a metal link, within the replacement trailing end point machine. These conductors were only required when this type of point machine was installed at single-ended point locations. The local signalling maintenance team was responsible for installing and testing the replacement point machine. The team did not appreciate that the crossover at Dalwhinnie was unique to the area and that, because of the design of the point position detection circuit that the two point machines shared, these conductors needed to be removed from the point machine when it was installed.

The need to alter the internal wiring was not identified when the renewal work was planned. The point machine was tested and commissioned following processes that Network Rail prescribes for signalling maintenance work when installing a like- for- like replacement. The checks and wire counting that were required before and after the point machine was installed did not identify the wiring discrepancy. The last opportunity to identify the wiring error before the points were handed back into service was an out-of-correspondence test. However, the specified testing work was interrupted by the need to wait for the signaller to arrive at the signal box. As a result, this and other outstanding testing work was overlooked, the tester in charge believing that it had already been completed.

RAIB found a lack of clarity in Network Rail’s signalling maintenance standards concerning the working arrangements of the appointed tester and of those carrying out this type of like-for-like installation work. It has identified this as a probable underlying factor.

Recommendations​

RAIB has made five recommendations directed to Network Rail covering:

  • the definition of the tasks and responsibilities of its signalling maintenance teams when carrying out pre-planned like-for-like equipment replacement work, and how the independence of testing and installation roles is best assured
  • the provision of information and warnings for replaceable items of signalling equipment, and the effectiveness of pre-installation checks
  • the arrangements for recording the progress and findings of signal maintenance testing.

Andrew Hall, Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents said:​

“Some of the causes of the accident at Dalwhinnie bear an alarming similarity to those found in the multi-fatal accident at Clapham Junction in 1988, and the more recent collision at Waterloo in 2017 which caused huge disruption on routes into London. These accidents share a common theme, that an undetected wiring error resulted in the failure of the signalling system. At Dalwhinnie, this meant that the signalling system did not detect that some points were in an unsafe position, resulting in the derailment of a train. Thankfully no one was injured. However, the train could have been carrying passengers and travelling at a much higher speed, and the outcome very different.

“Wiring within a signalling system is safety critical and needs to be carefully checked and tested when engineering work is carried out. It is essential that long-established processes and assurance principles, introduced and developed as a result of earlier accidents, are followed. When essential technical information is not readily available, and testing is not completed or carried out in a truly independent manner, the consequences can be very serious.

“Those who don’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it, has been said in many ways by many people. When it comes to fully understanding the importance of hard-learned lessons around the wiring of railway signalling, the accident at Dalwhinnie needs to act as another salutary reminder to the industry.”
 
Joined
29 Oct 2021
Messages
180
Location
Newton Abbot
The incident is clearly down to the maintenance of the signalling system being as gash as you like.

The actions of the driver seem short of the mark from the psychometric slant: situational awareness and fast reactions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top