West Coast Railways Suspended (now reinstated)

[Llanigraham]

I am not defending anyone.

Merely pointing out a fact, which could turn out to be relevant, as I think I know (initially, at least) what went on on the footplate and why.

And the important words are shown in red!
It is your opinion, and nothing more than that.
You or we do NOT know the facts.

 

[455driver]

Are you familiar with the valve located at the bottom left of this photo?
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...3549954&thid=HN.608031687323549954&ajaxhist=0

Oh I know I know!

 

[DDB]

I just saw a diesel rail tour go past Derby and wondered who was running it. A quick bit if internet searching told me it was the "The Dimple, Darley and Dale" by pathfinder tours. On the front page of their website "http://www.pathfindertours.co.uk/" there is the following

Our Train Operating Companies

For the operation of our excursions we only use reputable train operating companies, who have a proven record of safety and reliability. These in the main are DB Schenker and Direct Rail Services.

Therefore, customers can book with Pathfinder Tours knowing that their safety and enjoyment is paramount.

I'm wondering if this is new and a reaction to the publicity around WCR?

DDB

 

[ainsworth74]

Does anyone care to share with the class or is this secret insider only knowledge?

 

[Tracky]

... a reaction to the publicity around WCR?

DDB

Exactly that

 

[The Planner]

That is a superb piece of trolling by Pathfinder.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I don't see how another company could spring up that easily. There is a lot of safety stuff required when running a railway and unless some group of people with that knowledge start a company, not sure how they would go about doing it.

There again how did Grand Central start up? Was that people with the right knowledge of the railways. I guess it is possible, just not something that can happen quickly.

Wonder what will happen with other Steam Dreams tours. They seemed to be doing well.

This. It'll be slow, but industry gaps happen all the time all over the place, often in very specialised industries. I'm certainly not saying things will be good in the short-term, but in the longer-term I doubt things will change too much.

So long as there is demand for steam charters they'll keep happening.

 

[najaB]

That is a superb piece of trolling by Pathfinder.

I wouldn't describe it as trolling. They know that their customers will have heard that 'the company that runs heritage trains' got it's licence suspended, they may have no clue at all that there is more than one. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Pathfinder (and the other railtour organisers) have had worried calls and/or cancellations as a result of WCR's suspension being made public.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The AWS warning was acknowledged for the single yellow at SN43 signal, which was after the AWS warning for the TSR, which was where the chain of events started. As the AWS warning at SN43 was acknowledged, it IS PLAINLY OBVIOUS THE AWS WAS NOT ISOLATED.
The report does not actually state "The AWS was isolated" , but if you read the report properly and actually understand it, it's obvious it wasn't.

Based on my experience of operating steam locomotives, yes I think I know what was going on at the time, which could explain the initial action taken by the crew. I could be very wrong. Thats my opinion, I'm sure others have an opinion what happened as well, but I think this incident is not as clear cut as some think. We shall see.

The AWS may not have been electrically isolated, however its ability to apply the brakes certainly was.

The RAIB has found evidence that the driver of 1Z67 did not bring the train to a stand and contact the signaller after experiencing this brake application. Evidence shows that the driver and fireman instead took an action which cancelled the effect of the AWS braking demand after a short period and a reduction in train speed of only around 8 mph. The action taken also had the effect of making subsequent AWS or TPWS brake demands ineffective.

 

[alexl92]

Also, what of WCRC's rolling stock if they have to stop operating? Will there be enough takers for their fleet of 47s? What of those which are stored out of service or awating reactivation/overhaul?

 

[matchmaker]

As an aside to this, why on earth do we still allow obsolete vacuum braked passenger trains to operate on mainlines - it's not like there is any real problem with fitting steam locomotives with air compressors (like they always have been in most parts of the world), or with fitting Mk1 stock with air brakes - BR did it years ago.

I don't think the fact that it was a vacuum braked train had any bearing on the incident. You could just as easily argue why on earth to we allow obsolete steam locomotives on main lines.

Most passenger trains in the UK managed perfectly well with vacuum brakes until well into the diesel era :roll:

 

[edwin_m]

Also from a commercial viewpoint, I assume any passenger train operator has to have considerable public/third party liability insurance - this is likely to get more expensive for WCR, and of course their reputation is now tainted by just about the worst sort of publicity you can have. This is bound to have some effect on the willingness of tour promoters and their customers to use them in the future.

Good point.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think the fact that it was a vacuum braked train had any bearing on the incident. You could just as easily argue why on earth to we allow obsolete steam locomotives on main lines.

I would expect the RAIB to look at both issues. The fact it was a steam loco may have made it easier to achieve whatever it was that was done to prevent the TPWS operating.

Not vacuum brakes as such, but tread braked stock does have longer stopping distances than disc braked. The signal spacings etc are long enough for a tread-braked train to stop from its maximum permitted speed, but a longer stopping distance does increase the likelihood of an accident in this sort of situation. I don't think anyone has answered my question of several pages back on whether the TPWS timer is increased for tread-braked passenger stock.

 

[341o2]

Adrian Quine has been around for quite a long period in the field of journalism. I should well imagine that many years have elapsed since he could be described as a "work experience student".

His hair parting is a now a lot wider now than it was in his youth...

Maybe the poofreader was responsible for "safety breeches" (are they workwear?), but to describe WCRC as "likely to be banned....."

 

[455driver]

Also, what of WCRC's rolling stock if they have to stop operating? Will there be enough takers for their fleet of 47s? What of those which are stored out of service or awating reactivation/overhaul?

Deleted.

 

[Llama]

I don't think anyone has answered my question of several pages back on whether the TPWS timer is increased for tread-braked passenger stock.

No, it has the same timing characteristics regardless of whether tread or disc brakes. The difference in performance is not as simple as 'disc brakes are better' - at high speed, yes; at low speed, not necessarily.

The AWS may not have been electrically isolated, however its ability to apply the brakes certainly was.

The fact that AWS wasn't isolated meant that it would still provide audible and visual warnings to the driver, even if brake demands were rendered ineffective.

 

[SPADTrap]

The fact that AWS wasn't isolated meant that it would still provide audible and visual warnings to the driver, even if brake demands were rendered ineffective.

Which clearly wasn't enough in this case?

Wouldn't want to be saying that in my defense!

 

[D1009]

Not vacuum brakes as such, but tread braked stock does have longer stopping distances than disc braked. The signal spacings etc are long enough for a tread-braked train to stop from its maximum permitted speed, but a longer stopping distance does increase the likelihood of an accident in this sort of situation. I don't think anyone has answered my question of several pages back on whether the TPWS timer is increased for tread-braked passenger stock.

Stopping distances are increased for other reasons as well, given freight train and light engine charecteristics. I'm sure the TPWS timer allows for the worst case scenario which is probably not vacuum braked passenger trains.

 

[Via Bank]

Maybe the poofreader was responsible for "safety breeches" (are they workwear?), but to describe WCRC as "likely to be banned....."

One assumes they have a "laisse fair" approach to proofreading.

In all seriousness, even the interim report from RAIB is pretty damning.

 

[ac6000cw]

Most passenger trains in the UK managed perfectly well with vacuum brakes until well into the diesel era :roll:

I'm well aware of that - I travelled on them (starting in 1972), but we didn't have either the high speeds and/or the density of trains on much of the network that we have now (and BR had already switched to air brakes for new trains).

My question was actually prompted by similar comments made by a senior ex-BR manager at a railway society talk I attended some months ago, in relation to (re-)allowing the use of vacuum braked stock on steam charters. I had thought up to then that vacuum braked stock was not allowed in passenger service in the 21st century - I was slightly shocked to find that it was....

 

[kjhskj75]

My question was actually prompted by similar comments made by a senior ex-BR manager at a railway society talk I attended some months ago, in relation to (re-)allowing the use of vacuum braked stock on steam charters. I had thought up to then that vacuum braked stock was not allowed in passenger service in the 21st century - I was slightly shocked to find that it was....

Off-topic I know, but Class 121 (still in use by Chiltern) have vacuum brakes.

 

[edwin_m]

No, it has the same timing characteristics regardless of whether tread or disc brakes. The difference in performance is not as simple as 'disc brakes are better' - at high speed, yes; at low speed, not necessarily.

Thanks for the clarification. I think the performance from higher speeds is what is relevant here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Stopping distances are increased for other reasons as well, given freight train and light engine charecteristics. I'm sure the TPWS timer allows for the worst case scenario which is probably not vacuum braked passenger trains.

When I was involved in the early planning of TPWS it was being developed around 9%g brakes (ie modern disc brakes), with the timer increased to reduce the trip speed for freight trains. However I don't know what happened to it in detail since, other than that Llama has posted above that the timer isn't increased for tread braked stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My question was actually prompted by similar comments made by a senior ex-BR manager at a railway society talk I attended some months ago, in relation to (re-)allowing the use of vacuum braked stock on steam charters. I had thought up to then that vacuum braked stock was not allowed in passenger service in the 21st century - I was slightly shocked to find that it was....

I don't think anyone is suggesting that vacuum braked stock is unsafe, and as I pointed out above the improvement in stopping distance is down to disc brakes (which didn't arrive in any great numbers until Mk3 stock) not (as far as I know) the change from vacuum to air.

The big problem I can see with the vacuum brake these days is that so few locomotives still have it. If the train engine can no longer produce vacuum, the line will be blocked until another vacuum-fitted loco can be brought in. I know excursions often have a second loco either in train or following block on block - if this isn't mandatory for vacuum stock then it might be soon.

 

[Skutter]

Not sure which work experience student they got to write this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11530499/Off-the-rails.html

Nigel Harris, Editor of Rail magazine
“It doesn’t get much more serious than this. Seconds earlier and these two trains would have collided and hundreds would have died causing one of Britain’s worst train crashes”.

Did Nigel really say this? Shame on him.

 

[infobleep]

This. It'll be slow, but industry gaps happen all the time all over the place, often in very specialised industries. I'm certainly not saying things will be good in the short-term, but in the longer-term I doubt things will change too much.

So long as there is demand for steam charters they'll keep happening.

There is definitely demand judging by how Steam Dreams seem to be going. Over the years they have expanded to more places. I've not been on that many steam tours but always enjoyed them.

 

[edwin_m]

Did Nigel really say this? Shame on him.

Exaggerating somewhat, particularly the sense of certainty, but not hugely in my view. The outcome of high speed derailments/collisions is unpredictable but the worst case could indeed have been severe.

A sidelong impact by an HST on the actual junction could easily have been on the scale of Southall or Ladbroke Grove. If the signal check had been for an HST heading over the diamond towards South Wales then the excursion would have derailed (assuming the diamond is a switch type) possibly with the HST closely approaching.

Worth noting also that some high speed points systems aren't trailable, and if that had applied here the train could have derailed with the routes set as they were, regardless of any collision.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Apart from charter trains and trains from preserved lines which might run on a short stretch of the national network, do any other trains use vacuum brakes? Is it possible that NR might just permanently ban the use of vacuum brakes?

 

[alxndr]

A sidelong impact by an HST on the actual junction could easily have been on the scale of Southall or Ladbroke Grove. If the signal check had been for an HST heading over the diamond towards South Wales then the excursion would have derailed (assuming the diamond is a switch type) possibly with the HST closely approaching.

Both trains were heading in the up direction towards Swindon, with the HST passing through before the excursion, so it would have been the HST that would have been struck sidelong. Although the other scenario would have been potentially possible too.

 

[MarkyT]

Exaggerating somewhat, particularly the sense of certainty, but not hugely in my view.

Also the excursion trains are formed of structurally fairly weak mk1 rolling stock, with much less attention paid in their now archaic interior design to protection of passengers being thrown about within from sharp corners and unforgiving tables etc. So in a high-speed collision scenario occupants of those mk1s would be more likely to be seriously injured or killed than those in modern vehicles.

Worth noting also that some high speed points systems aren't trailable, and if that had applied here the train could have derailed with the routes set as they were, regardless of any collision.

Whilst they can't be 'trailed' without damage requiring a repair before normal operation can be resumed, most modern point actuation systems are protected from more serious damage by 'frangible' components, so these are very unlikely to cause a derailment in these circumstances.

 

[edwin_m]

Whilst they can't be 'trailed' without damage requiring a repair before normal operation can be resumed, most modern point actuation systems are protected from more serious damage by 'frangible' components, so these are very unlikely to cause a derailment in these circumstances.

I don't have time to read it now, but Annex 1 of this document is pertinent.

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Impact_Assessments/09 IA12.pdf

I'm not sure on a quick scan if it is saying there is a derailment risk or not!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Both trains were heading in the up direction towards Swindon, with the HST passing through before the excursion, so it would have been the HST that would have been struck sidelong. Although the other scenario would have been potentially possible too.

That depends critically on the relative timing of the two trains, Nigel Harris's few seconds. If the steam train had reached the junction first, the HST would probably have been braking due to the protecting signal going back in front of it, but could still have been doing a significant speed.

 

[MarkyT]

I don't have time to read it now, but Annex 1 of this document is pertinent.

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Impact_Assessments/09 IA12.pdf

I'm not sure on a quick scan if it is saying there is a derailment risk or not!

That is an interesting if somewhat confusing document! When I was working in the industry just before its publication I was greatly impressed with the IAD Rail Systems HPSS product and recommended it for projects I was involved with, in line with Network Rail's national engineering guidelines. I understood, at the time that a frangible component was intended to be introduced.

The document states there is a risk but there is a very low probablity that non-frangibility could result in a 'permanent' derailment rather than just a 'wheel-jump' over the rails except possibly for very light weight vehicles, of which a Bullied pacific or for that matter an HST power car would not be examples. the overall risk of the run through occuring in the first place is significantly reduced by having TPWS (and TPWS+ where required at particularly high speed junctions) . . . hmmmm.

The problem with the document is that it is primarily part of a great exercise by RSSB to expunge the railway group standards series of all matters where only one duty holder is responsible, their revised terms of reference being now only to provide standards where separate organisations within the railway group have to cooperate to establish safety. Thus point run through is now in RSSB eyes a wholly NR issue and therefore following this 'impact assessment' there needs to be no further mention of it in current RGS documents. It is that process that has seen the entire signalling principles series of documents (amongst many others) withdrawn, to be replaced (no doubt) by a series of identical but internal Network Rail documents. The unfortunate side effect of this is that the current NR documents in their latest form are no longer publicly accessible, as were the RSSB series. At least the withdrawn documents are still available at RSSB but as an interested member of the public now I can no longer see any subsequent updates.

An interesting little aside - In researching this reply I found an article reporting that Network Rail liked the HPSS so much they bought the company, in 2012.

http://www.bristol-business.net/inn...ineering-firm-iad-snapped-up-by-network-rail/

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

An interesting little aside - In researching this reply I found an article reporting that Network Rail liked the HPSS so much they bought the company, in 2012.

http://www.bristol-business.net/inn...ineering-firm-iad-snapped-up-by-network-rail/

When I read this final part of your posting, I was mindful of a television advertisement many years ago in what I can just about remember as having an elderly American person who said that he enjoyed a product so much, that he bought the company. Can anyone recall what the product being advertised was?