SPAD at Loughborough, 20/3/2020

[Islineclear3_1]

deleted

 

[dk1]

On leicestershire Live the headline is 'freight train shoots a red light', cheap headline hunter.

Doesn't it make you cringe?

 

[JN114]

120t maximum theoretical brake force for a train weighing at least 378t (117+144+117) - that’s going to be some seriously degraded braking performance there.

 

[harz99]

120t maximum theoretical brake force for a train weighing at least 478t (117+144+117) - that’s going to be some seriously degraded braking performance there.

My maths makes that 378t...

 

[JN114]

My maths makes that 378t...

Brain fart

 

[rail-god]

What about signal sfighting, e.g. with the sun shining dirtey onto a signal that faces southerly

Of course, the locos would have undergone a full brake test before setting off and any problems raised/dealt with (?)

If coming from Old Dalby then it goes into Melton loop. Driver would change ends.

 

[rail-god]

Could you please explain what you mean by that statement?

Lots of rumours about ROG going about the railway but there rumours only.

Not for public forums.

 

[greyman42]

Unfortunately there are crew out there who will be “eyes down for a full line”...aka Stafford.

Could someone translate this into plain English, or would that be breaking some rules/law?

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

A loco can be braked off an external air supply without having to have the engine running. This may require certain valves to be changed from their normal settings - I don't know the specific case of a 57 but a few years ago it wasn't done correctly on a 66 and after a coupling broke it was rolling around south Manchester unbraked for some time (search RAIB for East Didsbury). No doubt RAIB will be looking into whether the rear loco was unbraked (in fact they should know this already) and if so why.

Yes, it can be tricky, and easily missed if the brake test is a bit 'casual'. 66s should be able to function as a wagon with the engine shut down, but I remember an engineer's train from Addlestone Junction where nothing worked until the rear engine was fired up and left running (strictly against the rules, but needs must). I await the report with interest.
Pat

 

[ExRes]

Lots of rumours about ROG going about the railway but there rumours only.

Not for public forums.

Why put it on here then? do you have info to share on the number of SPADS attributable to ROG?

 

[ComUtoR]

Why put it on here then? do you have info to share on the number of SPADS attributable to ROG?

The number is publicly available.

 

[GB]

120t maximum theoretical brake force for a train weighing at least 378t (117+144+117) - that’s going to be some seriously degraded braking performance there.

Indeed, I'd also call into question the available brake force should one of the locos find its self detached on the move (rare but splits do happen) and whether simply top and tailing an unbraked unit with a single loco either end is sufficient on safety grounds.

 

[matt]

Could someone translate this into plain English, or would that be breaking some rules/law?

It a reference to this incident I believe

Report 16/2013: Signal passed at danger at Stafford

Signal passed at danger at Stafford, 26 April 2012.

www.gov.uk

At about 13:35 hrs on 26 April 2012, a locomotive operated by Devon & Cornwall Railways passed signal SD4-81 at Stafford, which was displaying a red aspect, by about 94 metres.

The investigation found that the locomotive had been travelling at excessive speed as it approached the Stafford area. The driver was probably aware that he had been exceeding the maximum permitted speed for a locomotive running on its own, but he did not make a full brake application as soon as he saw the signal displaying a double yellow aspect, which was his preliminary warning of the red signal ahead. The driver probably did not have sufficient experience or competence for the task he was performing and Devon & Cornwall Railways had not followed its own process for managing the competence of drivers. The company also had insufficient management controls to ensure compliance with its safety management system.

 

[Nottingham59]

A very short formation is classified as a light engine movement

It's worse than a light engine movement. With a light engine, the engine brakes only have to stop the mass of the locomotive. In this case, each locomotive had to brake the mass of two other 701 cars, in addition to its own weight.

 

[Tom Quinne]

Could someone translate this into plain English, or would that be breaking some rules/law?

If you google “Stafford SPAD” and read the official RAIB report all will be revealed.

 

[MarkyT]

It's worse than a light engine movement. With a light engine, the engine brakes only have to stop the mass of the locomotive. In this case, each locomotive had to brake the mass of two other 701 cars, in addition to its own weight.

I should have been clearer there. A very short formation (3 passenger coaches or less I think) WITH WORKING CONTINUOUS AIR BRAKES is classified as a light engine movement. With unbraked trailers in the formation is a special case clearly, which needs additional restrictions.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed, I'd also call into question the available brake force should one of the locos find its self detached on the move (rare but splits do happen) and whether simply top and tailing an unbraked unit with a single loco either end is sufficient on safety grounds.

I've often wondered this but I think the answer must be that as soon as it was divided, the brakes would come on in both portions. As the front portion had more brake force relative to its mass, it would stop more quickly and the two would re-collide. The important question is how soon this happens and therefore what the speed differential is when it does. If it's small enough then no harm should result.

 

[LAX54]

Recall, a good few years ago, we had a track stay occupied behind a regular set of cars going back to Norwich, but we stopped it a couple of signals down the line, 'just to double check all was OK', Driver came on the SPT, asking why he was at a red, and must have looked round, as he said "My Train, My Train ! he had left with a 153 and 2 x170, but calling in from the signal, all he had was a 153 !

 

[Wyrleybart]

A loco can be braked off an external air supply without having to have the engine running. This may require certain valves to be changed from their normal settings - I don't know the specific case of a 57 but a few years ago it wasn't done correctly on a 66 and after a coupling broke it was rolling around south Manchester unbraked for some time (search RAIB for East Didsbury). No doubt RAIB will be looking into whether the rear loco was unbraked (in fact they should know this already) and if so why.

To be fair though Edwin, the East Didsbury case was a lot more complicated than that and involved

EWS maintenance and test process failures
Poor driver training
A pre-existing fracture in a drawhook

Not really any similarity to the alleged SPAD on the MML where a single event seems to have caused it

 

[pompeyfan]

Why put it on here then? do you have info to share on the number of SPADS attributable to ROG?

There are allegations that some specialist TOCs are so far spread that there is no way they could keep up a safe working knowledge of every route they sign.

there are also drivers out there (this is across the board, not just ROG or other small players) who see it as a personal competition to see how many routes and miles they can sign, but these tend to be jack of all routes, master of none. That’s not to say it’s not possible to safely sign huge sections of the country, but the 2 tend to go hand in hand.

 

[edwin_m]

To be fair though Edwin, the East Didsbury case was a lot more complicated than that and involved

EWS maintenance and test process failures
Poor driver training
A pre-existing fracture in a drawhook

Not really any similarity to the alleged SPAD on the MML where a single event seems to have caused it

As they made clear in their comment, and as they always do, RAIB will be looking into the underlying factors here too. I don't want to speculate about what they might have been but while there was no drawhook failure the other two factors will be amongst those that have to be looked at and either confirmed or ruled out. The worst case consequence of this event, had the SPAD gone a bit further, could have been head-on collision with the passenger train leaving the platform at Loughborough - and if the braking was inadequate to stop the train from whatever speed it was travelling then TPWS wouldn't help either.

 

[ExRes]

There are allegations that some specialist TOCs are so far spread that there is no way they could keep up a safe working knowledge of every route they sign.

there are also drivers out there (this is across the board, not just ROG or other small players) who see it as a personal competition to see how many routes and miles they can sign, but these tend to be jack of all routes, master of none. That’s not to say it’s not possible to safely sign huge sections of the country, but the 2 tend to go hand in hand.

This isn't a recent thing though, some of the goings on at EWS in the late 90s were appalling and all of management, employees, unions and Railtrack were complicit in many cases, I find it interesting that in many of the photos I've seen, particularly the smaller companies, there are two people in the cab, could these be route conductors making driver route knowledge unnecessary?

 

[37057]

A loco can be braked off an external air supply without having to have the engine running. This may require certain valves to be changed from their normal settings - I don't know the specific case of a 57 but a few years ago it wasn't done correctly on a 66 and after a coupling broke it was rolling around south Manchester unbraked for some time (search RAIB for East Didsbury). No doubt RAIB will be looking into whether the rear loco was unbraked (in fact they should know this already) and if so why.

It's not exactly my area of expertise but I think the valve you're referring to may be known as AFT (Assist Failed Train), which is just an isolation cock. It's purpose is to allow the automatic air brake pipe on single piped trains to charge the dead locos main reservoir (or at least the brake supply reservoirs). If the cock is not set correctly you have a loco that eventually becomes a "swinger" once it's used up it's remaining air.

 

[Taunton]

Where's David L Smith when you need some expert commentary on handling unbraked trains?

 

[theblackwatch]

If you google “Stafford SPAD” and read the official RAIB report all will be revealed.

Which was absolutely nothing to do with ROG....

 

[Mag_seven]

Where's David L Smith when you need some expert commentary on handling unbraked trains?

Who is David L Smith?

 

[Taunton]

Who is David L Smith?

Author of some all-time classic railway books, including accounts of handling unbraked freight trains in past times, in Scotland. Many mentions in various threads on here.

 

[O L Leigh]

The worst case consequence of this event, had the SPAD gone a bit further, could have been head-on collision with the passenger train leaving the platform at Loughborough - and if the braking was inadequate to stop the train from whatever speed it was travelling then TPWS wouldn't help either.

In terms of stopping the train more quickly, no. But a TPWS activation would at least ensure that the train did stop by taking the operation of the brake out of the driver's hands.

 

[edwin_m]

In terms of stopping the train more quickly, no. But a TPWS activation would at least ensure that the train did stop by taking the operation of the brake out of the driver's hands.

According to RAIB the driver applied the brakes before the signal, so it would appear TPWS isn't particularly relevant to this accident. I mentioned it because it's normally effective in mitigating a high proportion of SPADs, but isn't much use if the train doesn't have enough brake force to stop within the required distance from the speed it was travelling.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

It's not exactly my area of expertise but I think the valve you're referring to may be known as AFT (Assist Failed Train), which is just an isolation cock. It's purpose is to allow the automatic air brake pipe on single piped trains to charge the dead locos main reservoir (or at least the brake supply reservoirs). If the cock is not set correctly you have a loco that eventually becomes a "swinger" once it's used up it's remaining air.

Is it still called the AFT? I seem to recall that the name (and misunderstanding its purpose) was the cause of the Lawrence Hill pile up (about 20 years ago?). The loco wasn't a failure, so ... ... ...
Pat