Train Failure at Bayford

Status
Not open for further replies.

GordonT

Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
59
A train failure at Bayford around 1630 today seems to have resulted in widespread delays to all services which should have been passing through the station. Presumably it failed at an optimum location for blocking all traffic?
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,994
A train failure at or near Finsbury Park around 1630 today seems to have resulted in widespread delays to all services which should have been passing through the station. Presumably it failed at an optimum location for blocking all traffic?
NRES in detail says it’s actually at Bayford, and mainline trains were diverted that way already due to engineering work. Can’t really see why it’s being reported as a a problem at Finsbury Park?
 

buz33

Member
Joined
21 Nov 2009
Messages
8
1P42 was just held up in the queue. The actual failed train was 2B40 1508 Moorgate to Hertford North. According to RTT it had brake problems and I think it may have been rescued.
 

Joe96

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2017
Messages
33
Location
York ROC
Driver split coffee all over the control in the cab. They did plan to do single line working as the unit could be driven from the south end cab but the MOM couldn’t work the ground frame at Cuffley so eventually a driver from Hitchin came to pick up a spare unit in the sidings at Hertford north to move back into Hertford.
 

choochoochoo

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2013
Messages
927
Driver split coffee all over the control in the cab. They did plan to do single line working as the unit could be driven from the south end cab but the MOM couldn’t work the ground frame at Cuffley so eventually a driver from Hitchin came to pick up a spare unit in the sidings at Hertford north to move back into Hertford.
Says a lot about Siemens cab design if you ask me.

There should only a few places liquid can ingress into the controls of a 717. Gaps between Power Brake Controller and the desk or a few other buttons (Sander/ ETCS/Bell buzzer/Drive direction switch) flush with the desk.

Would it not have been too much to ask to put some impermeable seal between control interface and desk at these obvious 'weak points' ?

And as per a previous post of mine, if Siemens had put a sensible size cup holder in a sensible position in I doubt the driver would have spilt their coffee.
 

westcoaster

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2006
Messages
3,991
Location
DTOS A or B
Says a lot about Siemens cab design if you ask me.

There should only a few places liquid can ingress into the controls of a 717. Gaps between Power Brake Controller and the desk or a few other buttons (Sander/ ETCS/Bell buzzer/Drive direction switch) flush with the desk.

Would it not have been too much to ask to put some impermeable seal between control interface and desk at these obvious 'weak points' ?

And as per a previous post of mine, if Siemens had put a sensible size cup holder in a sensible position in I doubt the driver would have spilt their coffee.
Are 717's CPBC like 700's fly by wire.
 

37057

Member
Joined
3 Jul 2009
Messages
422
The ergonomics would have been scrutinised by all parties at design stage, so not solely a Siemens thing I would have thought.

Just be grateful for having cup holders, ours don't!
 

choochoochoo

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2013
Messages
927
The ergonomics would have been scrutinised by all parties at design stage, so not solely a Siemens thing I would have thought.

Just be grateful for having cup holders, ours don't!

There is no sane driver who'd have said the location and size of the cup holder was a good idea. I doubt any productive driver was consulted on what would work and what doesn't.

There's so much wrong with the many aspects of 717 design it really feels like a rush job.

The best use for a 717 cup holder is to put your rubbish in. Might as well not have one.
 

37057

Member
Joined
3 Jul 2009
Messages
422
I'm not familiar with these units but my point about scrutiny would involve those between owner / operator/ manufacturer / maintainer. If those who work them day in-day out had no input at that stage then I agree that would have been silly.

If I was working a fault that had amassed a considerable amount of delay minutes and I found the remains of a spilt drink in the desk then I'm sure that would be something that would be fired back at the TOC. After all its hardly a maintenance-caused failure.

TOC then might consider modifying the cup holder if that was raised as the root cause!
 

choochoochoo

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2013
Messages
927
I'm not familiar with these units but my point about scrutiny would involve those between owner / operator/ manufacturer / maintainer. If those who work them day in-day out had no input at that stage then I agree that would have been silly.

If I was working a fault that had amassed a considerable amount of delay minutes and I found the remains of a spilt drink in the desk then I'm sure that would be something that would be fired back at the TOC.

TOC then might consider modifying the cup holder if that was raised as the root cause!
I really hope they do identify it as the root cause. Or at least issue sippy-cups as part of the drivers equipment.

The units have been in service over 2 years now, and not once have Siemens actively asked for driver feedback on the trains. It's all reactive.

Whilst not ideal in current climate, I've never heard of a siemens design engineer riding out with a driver to see how they operate the train and noting how things might be improved.
 

37057

Member
Joined
3 Jul 2009
Messages
422
From what I can tell, there is no incentive for the maintainer to physically ride out and ask traincrew on their opinion, that would be up to the TOC internally. Typically TOCs fleet/technical department raises issues with maintainer.

I specifically say maintainer as the designers will be long down the road at this point!
 

choochoochoo

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2013
Messages
927
From what I can tell, there is no incentive for the maintainer to physically ride out and ask traincrew on their opinion, that would be up to the TOC internally. Typically TOCs fleet/technical department raises issues with maintainer.

I specifically say maintainer as the designers will be long down the road at this point!
Exactly, it's all reactive. Now hundreds of delay minutes have been caused something MAY be done about it.

If the design engineer (as it was their bright idea to have the cab engineered that way) was to now observe, then hopefully they'd go realise they might need to redesign some of it. It's not a maintainer/fitters problem, it's the 'clever clogs' who thought their design was right at the start.

But I know realistically this will never happen. It's all ideal world thinking.

Having watched lots of aircrash investigation, and seeing how boeing/airbus design cockpits, there's a lot the railway could learn from that.
 

hotelmode

Member
Joined
23 Jun 2009
Messages
37
Exactly, it's all reactive. Now hundreds of delay minutes have been caused something MAY be done about it.

If the design engineer (as it was their bright idea to have the cab engineered that way) was to now observe, then hopefully they'd go realise they might need to redesign some of it. It's not a maintainer/fitters problem, it's the 'clever clogs' who thought their design was right at the start.

But I know realistically this will never happen. It's all ideal world thinking.

Having watched lots of aircrash investigation, and seeing how boeing/airbus design cockpits, there's a lot the railway could learn from that.

On the 747 Boeing installed a cup holder right by where you put your foot getting in and out of the seat, so not perfect. Airbus is pretty good.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
4,849
Location
In the cab with the paper
The ergonomics would have been scrutinised by all parties at design stage, so not solely a Siemens thing I would have thought.

That's the best laugh I've had in ages. Thank you.

Our local union H&S rep went to Derby to look at the Cl379 cab layout prior to the first ones being delivered and was not best pleased. He reported to me that no H&S rep had ever passed the Electrostar cab, but as they'd been building them for so long by this point there was nothing anyone could do about them by this point. These had a flip-down cupholder which was not fit for purpose, being too flimsy and not in a naturally comfortable place. The only alternative was in the port-hole window, but the base of that sloped very gently, so you would be showered in the beverage of your choice without warning.

Voyager cabs were meant to have been designed with driver's input, but they are an ergonomic mess. The wiper controls are out of reach, the AWS reset not in the driver's line of sight (although the similar yellow mushroom for the emergency brake override is) and the door release buttons are at a cack-handed angle. The cupholders in these are at least reasonably sensibly located, but only good enough to hold the paper cups out of the galley. Any tall beaker-style cups are just not secure and will topple over and fall out.

Even assuming we're asked there's no guarantee that we'll be listened to. It seems that operational necessity trumps operator convenience every time.
 

37057

Member
Joined
3 Jul 2009
Messages
422
Note that when I say "all parties", I didn't mean traincrew...

The point being that the unit design had been accepted, therefore, how can the manufacturer be solely blamed for a train failing due to the desk not being totally driver/coffee proof?!
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
2,863
Reason it was referred to in places as “between Kings Cross and Stevenage” was likely because Bayford is utterly meaningless to your typical LNER long distance traveller. Few will be aware without looking up on a map what the non-LNER stations are on the regular line of route, never mind a little-used diversion.
 

choochoochoo

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2013
Messages
927
Note that when I say "all parties", I didn't mean traincrew...

The point being that the unit design had been accepted, therefore, how can the manufacturer be solely blamed for a train failing due to the desk not being totally driver/coffee proof?!
I'm no cab design engineer, but I'd have thought about putting some sort of seal between the control and desk interface for potential spills.

It's not like that's the first time that drinks have been spilt. Unless its a cost/benefit analysis. They'd rather take a hit on the delay costs should it occur, rather than the installation costs to prevent it occurring.

It's a sorry state of affairs when the end-user isn't even consulted on the design of the thing they'll be using. Although I doubt the general travelling public had much input on the saloon design either.

I watched a programme on the design of 777 and how boeing actively involved the maintenance engineers/pilots/loaders on the design of that aircraft. And that was back in the 90s.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
4,849
Location
In the cab with the paper
This design problem will be dealt with the same way that the railway has always dealt with design problems; by issuing a traction notice instructing crew to do/not do whatever it is that results in the design problem causing a delay.

The point being that the unit design had been accepted, therefore, how can the manufacturer be solely blamed for a train failing due to the desk not being totally driver/coffee proof?!

However, yes I do blame Siemens the same as I blame the others. If they cannot provide a suitable safe place for the driver to put a drink then they must expect drivers to improvise and place their drinks wherever seems best. In most instances this will be within easy reach; ergo, on the nearest flat surface to the power/brake controller. Therefore a bit more effort ought to go into either providing a suitable place for a drink or for ensuring that the next most reasonable place is capable of withstanding the occasional spillage.
 

Crossover

Established Member
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Messages
8,829
Location
Yorkshire
It's a sorry state of affairs when the end-user isn't even consulted on the design of the thing they'll be using. Although I doubt the general travelling public had much input on the saloon design either.
Weren't the ScotRail 385's a similar story with the windscreen problem. Yes, it was captured at an earlier stage, but arguably not early enough and the fix looks like a bodge job!
 

traingeek97

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2020
Messages
61
Location
Kent
Would there have been any punishment for the driver in this case? Or would it just be a case of being a bit red-faced?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top