Five inch gap in track on East Coast mainline

[O L Leigh]

No. The RMT used this broken rail to attempt to make a political point that they have no way of proving. They say it is down to cost-cutting, but they have no way of knowing.

Nitwit Rail were already aware of the defect and, when it deteriorated, took action to safeguard rail services. As for material science, I think I'd prefer to take Nitwit Rail's word on the matter than the RMT's.

O L Leigh

 

[YorkshireBear]

The airline industry is able to maintain their metal parts such that fracture doesn't occur - the railway is already using similar techniques for crack detection, so it'd just be a case of better modelling when the part will fail and replacing it in time.

Oh do they now?
Ive watched every epidsode of aircraft investigation and i beg to differ.

Every failure could be serious if a decreasing amount of possibilities are followed.
We could even have, the i forgot my pencil for school leads to drug abuse and death argument if you really want?

 

[O L Leigh]

Nick: You have read the Nitwit Rail statement on the event, posted here...?

Pictures of a broken rail at York have been disseminated on social media in recent days. Phil Verster, route managing director for Network Rail, responded: “As soon as we knew about the crack in this rail we stopped all trains and rectified the problem. This was managed within all
safety standards and was in no way affected by changes to staffing levels.

“A minor defect in the rail – not a crack - was picked up by our monitoring train on 12 November. A rail replacement was scheduled for 9 December and the defect was maintained on 21 November. On 21 November there was no crack in the rail. Weekly inspections of this defect were completed. This is fully compliant with best practice and industry standards.

“The rail deteriorated which was identified by a train driver on the neighbouring line at 12.01 on Wednesday 28 November. We immediately stopped all trains from travelling over the fault and the track was replaced by 19.37 that evening. Safety issues will never be compromised in the name of managing costs.”

As this incident illustrates, all reports from drivers are investigated and action taken as appropriate.

The speed restriction referred to by the RMT was not on this section of line and has no relation to this fault.

 

[Nick W]

Ive watched every epidsode of aircraft investigation and i beg to differ.

Perhaps there's been one or two such accidents leading to loss of life per decade for the past few decades - with other circumstances other than not fixing the defect in time such as faulty repairs.

Nick: You have read the Nitwit Rail statement on the event, posted here...?

Yes it's shocking - they allowed a minor defect that they had discovered twice to grow until the point that the whole section of rail fractured.

Even worse, they act as is rail's fracturing is a common-place co-occurrence. To be honest, I suspect many people within Network Rail will have a different view and will be treating this very seriously.

The question is, why was the fix scheduled on the 9 December? They estimated the minor defect (hairline crack I suspect) would take over 19 days to manifest (hopefully they allowed what they thought was a safety margin). It actually fractured within 7 days! Did they take a risk due to lack of staff as the RMT propose? Is their modelling wrong? Did their monitoring equipment under-measure the size of the crack? Was the rail not manufactured to the correct specification?

 

[joeykins82]

No, they're suggesting that rail wear & tear is commonplace (not only commonplace but expected) and that in the vast majority of cases the maintenance and inspection regime is sufficient to keep the network operating safely until the scheduled replacement can be undertaken. In this instance further deterioration happened prior to the scheduled replacement, probably due to the highly unusual weather conditions which were present during November and so an urgent replacement took place which included the disruptive daytime closure of the line.

Or perhaps you're advocating a massive increase in the maintenance budget (passed on via fare rises) and the immediate closure of any line where any defect is detected, regardless of the professional opinions of NR's monitoring team as to how long it will take for an expected wear & tear related "safe defect" to deteriorate?

 

[O L Leigh]

Yes it's shocking - they allowed a minor defect that they had discovered twice to grow until the point that the whole section of rail fractured.

Even worse, they act as is rail's fracturing is a common-place co-occurrence. To be honest, I suspect many people within Network Rail will have a different view and will be treating this very seriously.

The question is, why was the fix scheduled on the 9 December? They estimated the minor defect (hairline crack I suspect) would take over 19 days to manifest (hopefully they allowed what they thought was a safety margin). It actually fractured within 7 days! Did they take a risk due to lack of staff as the RMT propose? Is their modelling wrong? Did their monitoring equipment under-measure the size of the crack? Was the rail not manufactured to the correct specification?

That's a lot of guesswork and supposition.

I'm still amazed that you insist there must have been a crack inspite of Nitwit Rail saying that on two occasions the rail was inspected and no crack was found. Is your computer monitor better from there than the expertise and equipment Nitwit Rail deployed on-site? Frankly you have seen nothing more than a couple of photos and a skewed report and applied your own interpretation. You have not seen the defect so cannot comment on what it may or may not have been. You are not privy to Nitwit Rail's policies and procedures or materials data regarding the rail and it's performance. But you seem to doubt the version of events put forward by Nitwit Rail, preferring instead your own interpretation.

Additionally, Nitwit Rail confirm that the defect was dealt with according to industry standards. So I think you can rule out staff shortages and "taking a risk" as you suggest. If we start getting a rash of these problems then perhaps there is a question mark hanging over the methods and procedures, but at the moment we are talking about an isolated incident. Nitwit Rail have the benefit of almost 200 years experience in rail technology and I'm sure they are perfectly well conversant to understand the science and maintain the rails (especially post-Hatfield).

And yes, rails do fracture from time to time. Most times they are not as dramatic as this one. This is why there are rolling programmes of track renewal to replace infrastructure as it approaches life-expired.

O L Leigh

 

[ainsworth74]

Am I the only one that finds it amusing that OL Leigh is mounting a very good defence of Network Rail and their personnel at the same time as they refer to them as Nitwit Rail at every turn

 

[O L Leigh]

Sorry. Old habits die hard.

O L Leigh

 

[YorkshireBear]

Perhaps there's been one or two such accidents leading to loss of life per decade for the past few decades - with other circumstances other than not fixing the defect in time such as faulty repairs.

Alloah airlines, i also believe american airlines were guilty in one case. Infact it was metal fatigue that caused the concorde disaster as it was a metal fatigued plate that fell off the aircraft infront.

Yes it's shocking - they allowed a minor defect that they had discovered twice to grow until the point that the whole section of rail fractured.

Even worse, they act as is rail's fracturing is a common-place co-occurrence. To be honest, I suspect many people within Network Rail will have a different view and will be treating this very seriously.

The question is, why was the fix scheduled on the 9 December? They estimated the minor defect (hairline crack I suspect) would take over 19 days to manifest (hopefully they allowed what they thought was a safety margin). It actually fractured within 7 days! Did they take a risk due to lack of staff as the RMT propose? Is their modelling wrong? Did their monitoring equipment under-measure the size of the crack? Was the rail not manufactured to the correct specification?

Not a hairline crack as it said there was no crack at all.
Do you write for the daily mail? you should this stuff is just what they want to hear.

 

[TDK]

TDK: You know better...?

O L Leigh

Errrm YES O Leigh, that statement made wast both unprofessional and damaging to the company, if you had done that pal you would be disciplined and of course you know everything sir!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Correct, and even if a crack occurred at a non-insulated joint it wouldn't put the signals back to danger, since the continuity bonds around the joint would maintain the track circuit.

Is the line not welded in this location?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suggest you do some research on the people involved before making such statements.

Media relations manager/spokesperson for NR - with a statement like that does she actually know how thw railway works? I quoted her and her team and I still believe the statement should be seriously looked at

 

[DarloRich]

Errrm YES O Leigh, that statement made wast both unprofessional and damaging to the company, if you had done that pal you would be disciplined and of course you know everything sir!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Is the line not welded in this location?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Media relations manager/spokesperson for NR - with a statement like that does she actually know how thw railway works? I quoted her and her team and I still believe the statement should be seriously looked at

Does a media person need to know how the railway works? Is it not more important they understand how the media works and what message the media and the consumers of that media want? Is it not more important for a media person to manage the media and transform what will no doubt be an incredibly complex engineering problem into something the average person can understand?

Did the statement do the job it needed to do? That job being to reassure the travelling public and close off the story? I think it did. Most people don’t care or know what a broken rail is, other than it is a rail that has broken and it might not be safe. They want reassurance that things are safe, are managed and are looked after by competent professional people. The statement issued seem to have done that.

 

[Pumbaa]

Errrm YES O Leigh, that statement made wast both unprofessional and damaging to the company, if you had done that pal you would be disciplined and of course you know everything sir!

Yes most NR bods know the ways of the railway. Even the lowest grade administrators have a fairly decent grounding in what the railway is/does. Given the likelihood of press scrutiny, I'm sure the statements and actions err checked countless times before it was put out.

And frankly what sets NR above other railway organisations is their ability to look forward and rethink things. Just because its been done that way forever is not a valid reason not to touch something!

And it's comments like your one above that are unhelpful and simply antagonise a relationship that is getting better each day.

 

[DarloRich]

Replacing or grinding them between the defects being discovered by inspection and them fracturing?
Use higher grade alloys which are more resistance to fatigue?

The airline industry is able to maintain their metal parts such that fracture doesn't occur - the railway is already using similar techniques for crack detection, so it'd just be a case of better modelling when the part will fail and replacing it in time.

WOW! You would think all this was new thinking. I mean the rail industry haven’t done any research into the properties of steel rails in the last 150 years nor have they invested in new technology to do this "griding" that you speak of. How has the railway industry not heard of this magic?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Switch_and_Crossing_Rail_Grinder_DR79261_and_DR79271.jpg

 

[O L Leigh]

Errrm YES O Leigh, that statement made wast both unprofessional and damaging to the company, if you had done that pal you would be disciplined and of course you know everything sir!

...and when I stopped laughing and got back up onto the sofa...

Honestly, chap. I just don't see what makes you certain to judge whether this statement is professional or not, nor why you feel Ms Lowe and her team's actions should be investigated and their competence questioned. It does seem to be largely in line with the later statement that I linked to.

I don't claim to know everything. It's your knowledge, competence and certainty that I am questioning and what it is that makes you feel so qualified to judge whether or not people within the industry should be disciplined. It is very extreme.

O L Leigh

 

[TDK]

...and when I stopped laughing and got back up onto the sofa...

Honestly, chap. I just don't see what makes you certain to judge whether this statement is professional or not, nor why you feel Ms Lowe and her team's actions should be investigated and their competence questioned. It does seem to be largely in line with the later statement that I linked to.

I don't claim to know everything. It's your knowledge, competence and certainty that I am questioning and what it is that makes you feel so qualified to judge whether or not people within the industry should be disciplined. It is very extreme.

O L Leigh

I hope it didn't hurt falling off the sofa, that staement is taking the rise! Anyway not offended. Not really extreme pal, think about it, this statement is and I will stick by this unprofessional, in the statement Ms Rowe cannot confirm that another train did or did not pass over the defect. I have had to give information to the media on many occasions railway related and I have been trained for it so I do know a little about what should and what should not be said. Firstly do you think the statement is the truth? secondly do you think that this statement is a professional reply to the medias questions? I think it could have been both worded and delivered better. Ok, Ms Rowe may not know much about the railway be hey she workd for the infrastructure champion of our railways unfortunately the railway is going down hill when it comes to railway experience and know how. Off topic slightly but to join the RIAB you have to have a degree and railway knowledge is not required as training will be given, Driver managers these days are being picked from graduates and not drivers/instructors. This is poor to be fair, I feel that experience far outweighs achedemic qualifications for these sort of jobs. If Ms Rowe does not know anything about the running of the railway why has she got the job?

And to add why are you questioning my competence when you do not even know my current or past roles?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes most NR bods know the ways of the railway. Even the lowest grade administrators have a fairly decent grounding in what the railway is/does. Given the likelihood of press scrutiny, I'm sure the statements and actions err checked countless times before it was put out.

And frankly what sets NR above other railway organisations is their ability to look forward and rethink things. Just because its been done that way forever is not a valid reason not to touch something!

And it's comments like your one above that are unhelpful and simply antagonise a relationship that is getting better each day.

Unfortunately it's comment like the statement that was made that damages the relationship with the workers on the gound and NR. After reading that I have less confidence now with NR than I had before!

 

[jimm]

If Ms Rowe does not know anything about the running of the railway why has she got the job?

Probably because she was hired for her media skills, not her experience in running a railway. Not entirely surprisingly, Network Rail don't ask for railway operating expertise when hiring media relations staff.

Any statements issued by Network Rail in circumstances such as these will have been approved by someone well up the management chain with railway operating experience before they are issued.

So maybe you could drop the witchhunt here and - if you feel so strongly - take it up with David Higgins, the chief executive of Network Rail, instead of making repeated personal attacks on a named individual in a public forum.

 

[O L Leigh]

I hope it didn't hurt falling off the sofa.

No, it's not far to fall.

Anyway not offended.

Glad to hear it. It was meant with affection after all. It's good to see that you can roll with the jokes as well as talk seriously on a topic.

Not really extreme pal, think about it, this statement is and I will stick by this unprofessional.

Fair enough. I disagree, but it's good to see you stand by your views.

In the statement Ms Rowe cannot confirm that another train did or did not pass over the defect.

I can't pretend to be surprised by this. How can Nitwit Rail be sure precisely when the rail broke?

However, from looking at the photos I can't honestly believe that any driver went across a break of that size and not notice it. Given that the break was reported by a driver on a different line, I have to conclude that Ms Lowe's statement is very likely to be as close to the truth as we're likely to get.

I have had to give information to the media on many occasions railway related and I have been trained for it so I do know a little about what should and what should not be said.

Have you...? In what capacity?

Firstly do you think the statement is the truth?

On balance, yes. See above.

Secondly do you think that this statement is a professional reply to the medias questions?

It's worded in fairly informal language, but I don't see a huge problem in it. But I don't see this as reason for calling her professionalism or position into question.

I think it could have been both worded and delivered better.

Perhaps. That's simply your opinion whether or not we agree.

Ok, Ms Rowe may not know much about the railway be hey she workd for the infrastructure champion of our railways.

Do we know...? As I believe someone else has said, if she's a media liaison officer it's probably better that she has training in dealing with the media than with packing ballast.

Unfortunately the railway is going down hill when it comes to railway experience and know how.

Hold onto your hats, folks. It's time to go down the garden path again.

Off topic slightly but to join the RIAB you have to have a degree and railway knowledge is not required as training will be given.

You know that to be a fact...? I would imagine that for the RAIB a certain amount of scientific knowledge would be helpful, but I doubt your account. Operational railway knowledge is also helpful for the RAIB.

Driver managers these days are being picked from graduates and not drivers/instructors.

Now that is just a total nonsense. I have never met a driver manager, nor even yet a depot manager, who has not had operational experience. They may also be graduates (as I am), but that is not the basis on which they have been employed.

This is poor to be fair.

No, it is unsupported. You may know of one or two people that lead you to believe that we are all going to hell in a handcart (though I still dispute the overall premise), but that does not mean that it is being replicated across the network.

I feel that experience far outweighs achedemic qualifications for these sort of jobs.

For operational and managerial positions, I would broadly agree.

If Ms Rowe does not know anything about the running of the railway why has she got the job?

See above.

If her job is to deal with the media, what need has she of operational experience?

And to add why are you questioning my competence when you do not even know my current or past roles?

Simply because I really can't see on what basis it's being made. It seems like a very odd thing to say and appears to be based on a lot of assumptions and suppositions. You are calling into question a person and her employer for doing what would appear to be her job on the sole basis that you believe it to be unprofessional. And so far, you've not said much to make me reconsider my own position.

Unfortunately it's comment like the statement that was made that damages the relationship with the workers on the gound and NR. After reading that I have less confidence now with NR than I had before!

Well you're entitled to your opinion. My own interpretation is that the system worked. The defect was identified and, when it became dangerous to train movements, it was spotted, reported and dealt with appropriately. The statements that have come from Nitwit Rail simply confirms this.

Or is there something you have spotted that I've missed...?

O L Leigh

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Errr ... Since the early 00's NR have changed their standards to drive the removal of dodgy pre-1974 concast rail. They have increased the frequency and accuracy of train-based ultrasonic testing. The standards for dealing with any rail defect have not been relaxed since I started in the business in the 80s. Detecting cracks at fishplated joints has always been the trickiest job, and is still done manually to reduce false outcomes resulting from surface defects.

However, commercial pressures mean that getting track access requires justification, so of course NR prioritises faults - it has to. If the defect had been discovered in time, the line would have been closed. The fact that the crack developed faster than the detection regime could react shows that such things can happen, but as Trog pointed out earlier, broken rail incidents continue to decline, even post privatisation.

Lastly, the last time I was party to this, a foot length of rail end fell out from under a royal train (doing 70mph), 4 hours after the line had been patrolled. Result? Steward on train reports bump. That is all.

 

[Trog]

I have also been told of an old lady years ago who got out of a train, and handed a Porter a six inches of rail head. Saying "This came in through the window at X, is it anything important?"

 

[TDK]

Have you...? In what capacity?

To answer this question, I have previously been a RIO and attended rail accidents/fatalities along the way. Regarding the graduate point with the RIAB, I attempted to apply for a job with them ans was told under certain terms that unless I have a univercity degree I would not be entertained by them, as for driver managers being chosen from graduates without railway experience the way things are going with many companies now is that the driver manager grade is going to be in 2 distictive roles, one will be a pen pusher and attending to competence records where the other sub role will be the assessing and as you know this can be done by a DI. I do feel strongly about managers and even railway spokepeople who do not have the railway experience to be able to answer questions fully on any issues but unfortunately as I perviously quoted most companies now have many employees in the management and even director grades that have had minimal railway experience.

I can see your point Mr Leigh however I cannot understand being a driver you do not feel that railway experience is essential for these roles?

Anyway, thanks for the detailed reponse and I can agree to dissagree with you pal!

 

[GB]

From the RAIB career page..

The RAIB recruits its Inspectors externally, but in accordance with civil service guidelines. We look for skills that can help in investigation, including forensics and human factors, and in railway disciplines such as operations, traction and rolling stock, signalling and civil engineering. We expect Inspectors to be qualified to degree or chartered level, or equivalent, and to be able to show considerable relevant experience in at least one of the disciplines that the RAIB seeks. We will consider the overall balance of skills in the branch when recruiting

.

Suggests its not a flat out "no" for anyone who doesn't have a degree (or similar) providing you can bring something to the table that the RAIB maybe looking for, at which point applications will be taken on a case by case basis.

There is still the option of being an "Accredited Agent" aswell.

 

[TDK]

From the RAIB career page..

.

Suggests its not a flat out "no" for anyone who doesn't have a degree (or similar) providing you can bring something to the table that the RAIB maybe looking for, at which point applications will be taken on a case by case basis.

There is still the option of being an "Accredited Agent" aswell.

When you go to the application stage if you cannot fill in the section regarding "a degree" the application will not be accepted. I called their head office and asked about qualifications and I was told that unless I have a degree in the sections or at least one of them I would be wasting my time, I have had direct experience with the trainees from the RIAB and to be fair the ones I encountered do not have any railway experoience at all and they were touring depots to try and gain some knowledge of how the depots were being run.

The qualifications I have covered Invetigations and root cause analysis, traction and route experience of nearly half the country, four different qualifictaions in human factors, all I need for railway discipline, totally converce with all signalling systems including ERTMS the only factor I would be missing would be civil engineering but hey I do not have a degree so I am no good to them!

 

[O L Leigh]

As for driver managers being chosen from graduates without railway experience the way things are going with many companies now is that the driver manager grade is going to be in 2 distictive roles, one will be a pen pusher and attending to competence records where the other sub role will be the assessing and as you know this can be done by a DI.

The job of driver manager is not the same as instructor or assessor and there is a lot of paperwork and other administrative tasks associated with it. However, this is not indicative of a change in recruitment for the role. As I said before, I have never yet come across a single driver manager or depot manager who has not previously had an operational role.

In addition to the tasks you list, the role also requires driver managers to provide leadership and training, both on an organised basis and ad-hoc as required. Therefore they are required to retain competence on rules, traction and routes and must complete a certain number of driving hours per annum. Therefore the role cannot be filled by anyone other than a driver.

I do feel strongly about managers and even railway spokepeople who do not have the railway experience to be able to answer questions fully on any issues but unfortunately as I perviously quoted most companies now have many employees in the management and even director grades that have had minimal railway experience.

The MD at the company I work for has no railway experience as far as I am aware. Does that make him bad at his job? Frankly I'd rather he had the experience of running a company and managing staff than operational experience if that makes him better at his job. I honestly don't see any problem with it. A detailed knowledge of operational experience is not necessarily required, especially for spokespeople. The media isn't going to be interested in the engineering details.

But clearly you have strong views which I respect. I happen not to share them, but we'll not worry too much about it.

I can see your point Mr Leigh however I cannot understand being a driver you do not feel that railway experience is essential for these roles?

For some roles, yes. But I think that the skills and experience should match the role, whether it be operational or otherwise, as I said above.

O L Leigh

 

[michael769]

The MD at the company I work for has no railway experience as far as I am aware. Does that make him bad at his job?

It is fair to say that many senior directors are hired without specific experience in their companies line of business - the railways are not unusual in this respect.

 

[Ploughman]

The manager at one Network Rail maintenance depot was a Shoe Salesman.

I don't seem to recall any adverse comments from the staff or senior managers about that at the time.

 

[michael769]

The RAIB have announced that they are launching an investigation into this and another broken rail incident.

http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/current_investigations_register/120914_broken_rail_incidents.cfm

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is fair to say that many senior directors are hired without specific experience in their companies line of business - the railways are not unusual in this respect.

One could draw a comparison to senior politicians who transfer from one ministry to another to head these in "reshuffles". Expertise they may have in one specific field of operations (but by no means certain), which will not have much use in another department, to which I make an most simplistic "Ministry-comparable" example below:-

Defence is to Social Security, as Transport is to.....?

 

[PFX]

One could draw a comparison to senior politicians who transfer from one ministry to another to head these in "reshuffles". Expertise they may have in one specific field of operations (but by no means certain), which will not have much use in another department, to which I make an most simplistic "Ministry-comparable" example below:-

Defence is to Social Security, as Transport is to.....?

In the legislature I work in, it would be unusual that the Ministers know a great deal about the department they head, most of it being spoon fed to them by the department itself. They know enough to appear like an expert but the real knowledge and power is with the permanent secretary of each department.

 

[LE Greys]

In the legislature I work in, it would be unusual that the Ministers know a great deal about the department they head, most of it being spoon fed to them by the department itself. They know enough to appear like an expert but the real knowledge and power is with the permanent secretary of each department.

I can't put it much better than Yes Minister.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, I have something to say to you which you may not like to hear.
James Hacker: Why should today be any different?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, the traditional allocation of executive responsibilities has always been so determined as to liberate the Ministerial incumbent from the administrative minutiae by devolving the managerial functions to those whose experience and qualifications have better formed them for the performance of such humble offices, thereby releasing their political overlords for the more onerous duties and profound deliberations that are the inevitable concomitant of their exalted position.
James Hacker: Now, whatever made you think I wouldn't want to hear that?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, I thought it might upset you.
James Hacker: How could it? I didn't understand a single word. Humphrey, for God's sake, for once in your life put it into plain English.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: If you insist. You are not here to run this Department.
James Hacker: I beg your pardon.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You are not here to run this Department.
James Hacker: I think I am. The people think I am, too.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: With respect, Minister, you are... they are wrong.
James Hacker: And who does run this Department?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: I do.

 

[yorkie]

Radio York are reporting that another gap, this time a "six inch gap" appeared "near Selby" 3 weeks ago and that trains travelled "at over 100mph" over this gap. They interviewed Bob Crow and have asked Network Rail for a response.