Collision at Norwich Station 21 July 2013

[edwin_m]

Carrier pigeon?

Anyway it is breaking news. It is news about one train breaking the coupling box on the other one.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Trains are being talked by the signal opposite Crown Point until it can be determined that signal failure was not the cause. Permissive working is permitted in all platforms at Norwich & the driver should have received the 'calling on' as opposed to the main aspect.

Well, there are two likely scenarios here.

1. A signalling defect caused the main aspect of the controlling signal to show rather than the subsidiary.

2. There was already two sets in the platform, the signalman forgetting/not realising/not having been informed by the man he was relieving routed the inbound in there and the Driver having observed the subsidiary cleared moved in assuming - with some justification - that there was room for his train.
In both cases the result was a most unfortunate meeting of metal upon metal.

Time and the R.A.I.B. will reveal the answer.

 

[WatcherZero]

And the Daily Mail's take on it would be?

Two trains collide in Nottingham, more evidence of the shocking waste of the 4 quadrillion pounds that will be spent on HS2 and why the money would be better spent on roads and tax cuts for the wealthy.

In related news are there unexpected chiropractic health benefits for the elderly from train collisions? The shocking potential new evidence.



There you go, the elderly, HS2, health stories, tax cuts. A perfect Daily Mail news storm.

 

[thelongestroad]

Two trains collide in Nottingham, more evidence of the shocking waste of the 4 quadrillion pounds that will be spent on HS2 and why the money would be better spent on roads and tax cuts for the wealthy.

In related news are there unexpected chiropractic health benefits for the elderly from train collisions? The shocking potential new evidence.



There you go, the elderly, HS2, health stories, tax cuts. A perfect Daily Mail news storm.

You forgot one thing:

 

[boing_uk]

That can't have been a Daily Mail article; it had nothing about the black transsexual gay rights activist from Eastern Europe that probably caused the crash.

 

[dk1]

Living in Norfolk with its poor connections, back of beyond feel & no through main roads is exactly how we like it.

 

[pitdiver]

Living in Norfolk with its poor connections, back of beyond feel & no through main roads is exactly how we like it.

Please don't get me wrong I love the very things about Norfolk that you mention that's why we sail on the Broads every year.

 

[Antman]

And the Daily Mail's take on it would be?

Why do the DM haters have to hijack every thread with this rubbish? If you don't like the paper then do as I do...............don't buy it:roll:

 

[rebmcr]

Why do the DM haters have to hijack every thread with this rubbish? If you don't like the paper then do as I do...............don't buy it:roll:

It's pretty insidious though. I think the habitual criticism is a good thing if it keeps even a few people from filling their heads with its fabrications and hatred.

 

[starrymarkb]

You forgot one thing:

Wrong Paper - It's the Express that had the Diana obsession (and the editor admitted that most of the stories were made up)

 

[JB25]

Even if the driver was signalled incorrectly I find it extraordinary he didn't see a whacking great train coming closer and closer to him in the platform. hock:

 

[TDK]

Well, there are two likely scenarios here.

1. A signalling defect caused the main aspect of the controlling signal to show rather than the subsidiary.

If a signal clears when a platform is occupied this would surely be down to the train not being detected. Could it be contaminated rails, TCA or problems with the TC?.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even if the driver was signalled incorrectly I find it extraordinary he didn't see a whacking great train coming closer and closer to him in the platform. hock:

There could be so many reasons why the collision happened from distraction to poor brakes to anything. Best not to speculate.

 

[MCR247]

Even if the driver was signalled incorrectly I find it extraordinary he didn't see a whacking great train coming closer and closer to him in the platform. hock:

Yes but by that time it might have been too late? I'm not a driver or anything so this is just an assumption, but if he was signalled into the bay incorrectly and was approaching at say 20mph which would be fine to make a normal stop, that may have been too fast to be able to stop at least 4 coachlengths earlier than planned

 

[W230]

Even if the driver was signalled incorrectly I find it extraordinary he didn't see a whacking great train coming closer and closer to him in the platform. hock:

I'm sure he/she did. But those there trains don't always like to stop easily (metal on metal and all that) and 2 x 158's would have reduced the available stopping distance around ~80m.

I should imagine it was a fairly low speed collision but that's all it needs to be sadly - the Cannon Street collision years ago involved the train hitting buffer stops at only 10mph and resulted in a fatality. While train safety has improved since then, momentum is still momentum when hitting a stationary object.

 

[TDK]

Yes but by that time it might have been too late? I'm not a driver or anything so this is just an assumption, but if he was signalled into the bay incorrectly and was approaching at say 20mph which would be fine to make a normal stop, that may have been too fast to be able to stop at least 4 coachlengths earlier than planned

The professional driving policies of most TOC's quote that a driver should not be exceeding 15mph at any platform ramp at a terminus station or being called on.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Well, there are two likely scenarios here.

1. A signalling defect caused the main aspect of the controlling signal to show rather than the subsidiary.

2. There was already two sets in the platform, the signalman forgetting/not realising/not having been informed by the man he was relieving routed the inbound in there and the Driver having observed the subsidiary cleared moved in assuming - with some justification - that there was room for his train.
In both cases the result was a most unfortunate meeting of metal upon metal.

Time and the R.A.I.B. will reveal the answer.

Wouldn't the two EMT trains have been showing on the track circuit
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
EMT trains aren't normally routed into that platform, they usually spend the night in platform 3

 

[GB]

Well, there are two likely scenarios here.

1. A signalling defect caused the main aspect of the controlling signal to show rather than the subsidiary.

2. There was already two sets in the platform, the signalman forgetting/not realising/not having been informed by the man he was relieving routed the inbound in there and the Driver having observed the subsidiary cleared moved in assuming - with some justification - that there was room for his train.
In both cases the result was a most unfortunate meeting of metal upon metal.

Time and the R.A.I.B. will reveal the answer.

I'm not sure there is any justification in assuming there was room for the train because the subsidiary cleared.

 

[Sleepy]

Not unusual for any 2x 2-car units to already occupy platform 6 late at night (and even a 3 car 170 to follow, de-select then required) all 3 units could then couple before heading to Crown Point depot.

 

[MCR247]

The professional driving policies of most TOC's quote that a driver should not be exceeding 15mph at any platform ramp at a terminus station or being called on.

I was just using 20mph as an example really, I think W230 was making a similar point

 

[dk1]

Wouldn't the two EMT trains have been showing on the track circuit
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
EMT trains aren't normally routed into that platform, they usually spend the night in platform 3

Yes, & thus the signal should've shown the calling-on aspect.

EMTs sometimes start the day in 3 but can arrive anywhere before tripping over to Crown Pt. Remember this was a Saturday night so often get left in the Jubillee.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Wouldn't the two EMT trains have been showing on the track circuit
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
EMT trains aren't normally routed into that platform, they usually spend the night in platform 3

The key phrase I've posted is, "signalling defect" which covers defective signals and signals being made defective by faulty track circuits. The latter - following a wrongly wired relay - being the cause of a collision at Clapham Junction.

I'm not sure there is any justification in assuming there was room for the train because the subsidiary cleared.

I am. If a signal is cleared for entry to a platform it's a reasonable assumption that there's room enough for it to fit unless local instructions apply such as an 10 car train into platform 9 at Clapham Junction like the one that I caught to Southampton this morning.

 

[AlexS]

Certainly where I work if we are doing something involving permissive working the person in charge of the platform will ring the signaller to confirm the first train/trains are at a stand and that there is physically room to fit the next movement. If something is unexpectedly required to enter the platform when it's already occupied, the signaller will call the person in charge for confirmation that it is ok to do so before clearing the signal.

 

[Tomnick]

All sorts of reasons why there might not be room though - the incoming train could be longer than booked, for example (and we all know how good Control are at keeping secrets!). Anyone who thinks a cleared sub is authority to pile in until the rear of the train's inside is a fool.

 

[GB]

I am. If a signal is cleared for entry to a platform it's a reasonable assumption that there's room enough for it to fit unless local instructions apply such as an 10 car train into platform 9 at Clapham Junction like the one that I caught to Southampton this morning.

I think you have totally missed the point of a calling on signal.

As far as I am concerned, assuming there is enough room at the platform because you have a calling on signal is no different to assuming a red will clear when you approach it.

For the record, I am not stating that the driver concerned did assume anything as I do not know the facts surrounding this incident.

 

[dk1]

A calling on or subsidiary signal indicates that the incoming driver should stop short of any obstruction. That's the way I have always read & interpreted it.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

I think you have totally missed the point of a calling on signal.

As far as I am concerned, assuming there is enough room at the platform because you have a calling on signal is no different to assuming a red will clear when you approach it.

For the record, I am not stating that the driver concerned did assume anything as I do not know the facts surrounding this incident.

I'm perfectly aware of what a calling-on signal is and what it indicates thank-you. A driver of a train, if a calling-on signal is cleared for a platform should expect to be able to fit his train in there unless told otherwise. Notwithstanding that, the clearing of a calling-on signal indicates that the section of line ahead is occupied and a driver should be running at a speed where he is able to stop short of any obstruction ie a train. The way I explained it to a class when instructing was that when a stop signal is cleared the line is clear to the next stop signal plus the overlap beyond. When a calling-on signal is cleared the line is clear as far as it's clear.

Approaching a signal displaying a stop aspect assuming it will clear is generally an invitation to join the Cat "A" spad club.

 

[Dieseldriver]

A calling on or subsidiary signal indicates that the incoming driver should stop short of any obstruction. That's the way I have always read & interpreted it.

Same as, I interpret 'cats eyes' as authority to pass the signal at danger.

 

[edwin_m]

In the normal course of working a train should not be signalled into an occupied platform that has not got enough free length to take it. However this isn't necessarily automatically enforced by the signalling and the driver should never assume that there is enough space for the train. As stated, the rule is to drive slowly enough to be able to stop short of any obstruction.

 

[D1009]

If we must speculate on possible causes, how about rail head contamination due to leaking fuel causing the wheels to pick up?

 

[Dave1987]

There could be loads of causes! If he got a main aspect instead of a position light then he would not have been expecting another train in the platform. If the rail head was contaminated the train could of slid into the others.

Until the *RAIB* releases its report then it is an accident and no blame is applicable yet!