Train Reporting Number 1T08 not to be used in Scotland following rule change in 2022

[Ianno87]

This is like how they renamed 91123 to 91132. I never did understand that - surely nothing other than superstition

I don't think it was ever numbered 91123? It was originally 91023, becoming 91132 on refurbishment.

All the other 91s just had 100 added to change from 910xx to 911xx.

So in 023/132's case the number was changing *anyway* so may as well give it a "proper" renumber whilst you're at it.

 

[bramling]

I don't think it was ever numbered 91123? It was originally 91023, becoming 91132 on refurbishment.

All the other 91s just had 100 added to change from 910xx to 911xx.

So in 023/132's case the number was changing *anyway* so may as well give it a "proper" renumber whilst you're at it.

That’s my memory. After being involved in the Heck accident as 91023 (where ISTR it sustained minor damage) it went in for refurbishment, and emerged as 91132.

Certainly the media did pick up on the Heck loco being the same as Hatfield, I remember it being mentioned as a footnote on the news (*), though I don’t remember a big thing being made of it, nor of the number.

(* nowadays it would probably be “breaking news” scrolling across the bottom of the screen for hours on end, such is the way the news channels operate nowadays!).

 

[sprinterguy]

The two carriages being used by Virgin were at their training centre in Crewe, and were subsequently listed for preservation. Incidentally, anyone know whether they are still there? They did actually belong to Virgin as they bought them from the insurers.

Another couple of carriages from that Pendolino are at the fire brigade training place near Moreton in Marsh.Don't know whether any others still survive. The leading driiving car was certainly scrapped.

Yes those two vehicles are still at the training centre at Crewe, in the care of Avanti now.

As well as the two vehicles at Moreton in Marsh, Motor Standard 69933 is at the Safety & Accident Investigation Centre at Cranfield University in Bedfordshire.

 

[66701GBRF]

While this maybe a gesture, I agree with other‘s opinion that I don’t see it a particularly needed or necessary.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes those two vehicles are still at the training centre at Crewe, in the care of Avanti now.

As well as the two vehicles at Moreton in Marsh, Motor Standard 69933 is at the Safety & Accident Investigation Centre at Cranfield University in Bedfordshire.

The vehicles at Crewe are clearly visible on Google Maps aerial view.

 

[GB]

I don't understand why this applies to the whole of Scotland, doesn't come into affect until 2022 or is even a thing in the first place.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't understand why this applies to the whole of Scotland, doesn't come into affect until 2022 or is even a thing in the first place.

Presumably whole of Scotland pretty much correlates to all of Scotrail TOC.

Has to wait until 2022 due to the timeliness for issuing draft rules, consulting on them with operators, etc etc.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As a driver myself I do think this is daft and unnecessary.

I'm not a driver but I agree. As a gesture or mark of respect I can see the point of it but not to the extent of updating the rule book.

Had the incident been caused by (for example) a signaller misreading the headcode, then there would be a valid reason to stop using the number. But changing the rules doesn't achieve anything that a "gentleman's agreement" couldn't do.

 

[GB]

But changing the rules doesn't achieve anything that a "gentleman's agreement" couldn't do.

This. If the TOC concerned doesn't want to use the headcode then leave it up to them...no need produce a rule forbidding it, particularly when said rule won't come in for nearly two years and the headcode will only be remembered by a few staff and enthusiasts anyway.

 

[43096]

Random coincidence - this was the second time 47125 had not become a 47/4 - it was scheduled to become 47548 in 1974, but the conversion was cancelled for unclear reasons, leaving the number 47548, uniquely, unused in the 47/4 series.

The reasons aren’t unclear. It was to do with the accident involving 47046, which received significant damage. 47046 was then earmarked for conversion to 47601, which created a shortage of steam heat locos, so the conversion of 47125 to 47548 was cancelled. Seems strange looking back that it was steam heat locos in short supply, particularly given the subsequent number of ETH conversions undertaken!

 

[SteveM70]

People seem to say ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’, and then get upset at the slightest thing

I think that saying has largely been replaced by “read Twitter and panic”

 

[Deepgreen]

I find this both surprising and depressing - I really don't see it as a respect issue but smacking of superstition, along the lines of the banning of the '666' car registration number a while back. Next will be the banning of the number 13, etc.

This. If the TOC concerned doesn't want to use the headcode then leave it up to them...no need produce a rule forbidding it, particularly when said rule won't come in for nearly two years and the headcode will only be remembered by a few staff and enthusiasts anyway.

Indeed; and what will happen to the unfortunate individual who accidentally puts the code into the system? Time taken to correct the entry, disciplinary action (even if only minor), and so on.

 

[D1537]

The reasons aren’t unclear. It was to do with the accident involving 47046, which received significant damage. 47046 was then earmarked for conversion to 47601, which created a shortage of steam heat locos, so the conversion of 47125 to 47548 was cancelled. Seems strange looking back that it was steam heat locos in short supply, particularly given the subsequent number of ETH conversions undertaken!

Yes, I've heard this idea before, but it's a strange one. For one thing, 47126 (which wasn't on the list of locomotives to be converted originally), was converted instead of 47125, even if 126 was not renumbered to 548 (it got 47555 instead). Secondly, if the ER were short of steam-heat locos after 046's accident, I'ts a little bizarrre that 47125 - which was a Tinsley loco - was reallocated to Cardiff while it was in Crewe works! Anyway, with that one I'm sure we'll never know (and it's pretty trivial as it's not a superstition related one anyway, like 47299 or 47666!).

 

[SteveM70]

I find this both surprising and depressing - I really don't see it as a respect issue but smacking of superstition, along the lines of the banning of the '666' car registration number a while back. Next will be the banning of the number 13, etc.

That’s already happening - plenty of new housing developments don’t have a 13

 

[Ianigsy]

I could be wrong, but I think I remember that the RMT put out a press release in which they complained that carriages from the 390 derailed at Greyrigg were still being used by Virgin (obviously not the carriage that the fatality happened in), which seemed a little OTT.

It's often struck me as interesting that the 'City of Glasgow' name was never reapplied, particularly as the Stanier Pacific of the same name was rebuilt after the Harrow collision but the Class 87 of the same name seems to have avoided major incident

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That’s already happening - plenty of new housing developments don’t have a 13

Back when I first started watching football, only two substitutes were permitted in domestic games. Their numbers? 12 & 14.

Superstitions are nonsense in every measurable way. I shouldn't judge but if anyone I meet expresses a genuine belief in such things, I can't help but lose a bit of respect for them.

As I said upthread, retiring the headcode as a mark of respect I have no problem with, but updating the rulebook is going too far especially when it will take two years to take effect anyway. The fact that this has been made public feels like a virtue signal to be honest.

 

[30907]

As I said upthread, retiring the headcode as a mark of respect I have no problem with, but updating the rulebook is going too far especially when it will take two years to take effect anyway.

I assumed the 2022 timetable is the one that comes into effect in December 2021?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I assumed the 2022 timetable is the one that comes into effect in December 2021?

Whether it's one year, two years or six months, it is still essentially an unnecessary paperwork exercise. The rulebook should be for essential things related to safety of the line, not for forbidding a particular headcode because something tragic happened and someone wants to show that "something is being done".

Once the investigation into the derailment is complete, there may well be recommendations and lessons to learn. Hollow gestures don't solve anything.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm afraid that I must add my name to the list of the baffled.

While the TOC can do as it wishes, it does seem to be a very strange thing to have chosen to do. A train reporting number is not something that the general public will even be aware of existing, never mind having any attachment between an alphanumeric code and an incident. It certainly appears to be a strange way to pay respect to the deceased.

As for the reactions of rail workers, my own feeling is that this has been overplayed. I very quickly forgot the unit number, headcode and even the service I was in charge of when I had a fatality; currently my most traumatic railway experience. These details never entered my head and I certainly never had any flashbacks nor unwanted psychological reactions as a consequence of seeing a certain unit or mention of a certain service. While we all mourn the loss of colleagues, and those who work for ScotRail more so than others, the number of staff directly involved in this accident is small and therefore any psychological effect will be localised. To retire a headcode entirely within the region on the grounds of psychological harm seems a bit over-the-top.

But then, these are just my own thoughts and feelings on the matter.

 

[py_megapixel]

On a more practical note, I assume 1T08 is a part of a sequence (so 1T07 will be the same service but earlier; 1T09 the same but later etc.)
If so, is this likely to lead to the disuse of the entire 1Txx sequence, or will they simply jump from 1T07 to 1T09?

 

[Trainfan344]

IF 1T07 formed 1T08 and 1T09 formed 1T10, then surely it will just be a case of 1T07 forms 1T10 and 1T09 forms 1T12 etc... At least that would be a logical step

 

[snookertam]

It’s really not that at all

Imagine if you’re the signaller covering that location and get an emergency call from that particular train. That could be a major psychological trigger if that signaller is traumatised from the previous incident (which has a high statistical likelihood of being the case). Anyone with an elementary knowledge of psychiatrics will know (and even if they don’t any compassionate person will work out) that psychological triggers are to be avoided at all costs, it’s a matter of serious mental illness not to be dismissed by some nasty hateful platitudes from the Daily Heil

This is a small, reasonable step to substantially reduce the risk of such triggers. There are many headcodes that aren’t used, one more doesn’t hurt. From an operational perspective it’s a non event and 99.9% of passengers would be none the wiser.

I would agree with this completely. Staff from drivers and conductors, signallers and control office staff could potentially be triggered. Might be unlikely, but a worthwhile safeguard. Fatal derailments and crashes are far far rarer on the railway than they used to be, so the chances of a head code being strongly associated with such an incident are much higher.

The only routes it should affect are Perth (or points north) to Glasgow Queen Street or Largs/Glasgow Central either direction EDIT, actually up direction only which is towards Glasgow Central. Not aware of any other 1TXX head codes in Scotland - the borders line are all 2TXX.

 

[IanXC]

IF 1T07 formed 1T08 and 1T09 formed 1T10, then surely it will just be a case of 1T07 forms 1T10 and 1T09 forms 1T12 etc... At least that would be a logical step

The other way to resolve this would be for 1T07 to form 1T98, then 1T09 to form 1T10.

A significant problem in all of this is that xTxx is the default 'on the day' amended plan headcode for what was the London Midland Region. So, for example, should 1S08 be restarted from Crewe, whilst it should run as 1Z08, the equivalent service being restarted that was intended to only run within the London Midland Region should be run as 1T08 so it is not entirely uncommon, in the heat of the moment, to have something like 1T08 running across regional borders. This means the impact of this change is wider than just being limited to Scotland.

 

[DB]

I find this both surprising and depressing - I really don't see it as a respect issue but smacking of superstition, along the lines of the banning of the '666' car registration number a while back. Next will be the banning of the number 13, etc.


Indeed; and what will happen to the unfortunate individual who accidentally puts the code into the system? Time taken to correct the entry, disciplinary action (even if only minor), and so on.

If they want to show respect for the staff who died, surely something like naming a power car / unit after them would be more appropriate, i.e. like GW did with two of their drivers who died in accidents?

 

[D7666]

Interesting. I knew that airlines don't re-use flight numbers of flights that come to grief, but I didn't know it was usual railway practice to do this - is it, or is this a respectful one-off?

Without me entering into the debate as to whether this is a right or wrong thing to be doing, there is precedent for reserving a train reporting number to not be used again - although not for the same reasons. By coincidence, it happens to be another '1T--'.

The very last BR steam special was 1T57 - a bog standard LMR internal special passenger train number. At that time - 1968 - it was stated LMR would never use that number again.

It seems to have been held to for a long period. The first re-use of it appears to have been c.1982 when some Birmingham NewSt <-> International motor show EMU shuttles used it running as 1T57 all day [and even carried paper stickers displaying it]. I remember this at the time as one of the Crewe train planner cranks commented on it and said then it was the first re-sue of it he was aware of.

Of course, that did not block use of 1T57 by other BR regions.