Collision at Norwich Station 21 July 2013

[ainsworth74]

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

RAIB I would have thought rather than RSSB?

 

[Dave1987]

RAIB I would have thought rather than RSSB?

Sorry typo you are right

 

[edwin_m]

And the RAIB doesn't ascribe blame either.

 

[Ben.A.98]

The RAIB have started their investigation

http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/current_investigations_register/130721_norwich.cfm

At about 00:10 hrs on Sunday 21 July 2013, train 2C45, the 23:34 hrs service from Great Yarmouth to Norwich, collided with a stationary train at about 8 mph (13 km/h) as it entered into platform 6 at Norwich station. The stationary train was stabled in the platform (ie it was empty and had been placed out of service until needed next). The collision pushed the stabled train about 1.5 metres, against a second stabled train, causing damage to the trains’ couplers. There were 34 passengers on train 2C45; eight of those who suffered injuries were taken to hospital. The train crew were uninjured

The train was operated by Greater Anglia and comprised a two-car class 156 diesel multiple unit. The trains stabled in platform 6 were two two-car class 158 diesel multiple units, which had arrived in Norwich earlier that evening.


The RAIB’s preliminary examination found that the collision occurred because the train was travelling too fast when it entered the platform. Consequently, it was unable to stop in time and collided with the stabled train. The RAIB also found that the length of unoccupied platform could not accommodate the full length of train 2C45....
.

 

[ainsworth74]

And the RAIB doesn't ascribe blame either.

They don't, but it's normally possible to work out who/which organisation is to blame in any case.

 

[Sleepy]

They don't, but it's normally possible to work out who/which organisation is to blame in any case.

:roll: GA in hot water then for trying to put too many trains into platform 6 !

 

[ainsworth74]

GA in hot water then for trying to put too many trains into platform 6 !

Surely that would be Network Rail? They're the signalling bods after all!

 

[Marklund]

Surely that would be Network Rail? They're the signalling bods after all!

Depends if the TOC tell NR the train is longer than diagrammed.

Not the first time I've seen a set too long for the scheduled platform.

 

[ainsworth74]

Hmm that's true, I hadn't thought of that!

 

[87015]

:roll: GA in hot water then for trying to put too many trains into platform 6 !

Shouldn't be, its approved local practise to put 6 cars in that platform, as mentioned up thread just gets the guard to move passengers forward from last door.

 

[Sleepy]

Shouldn't be, its approved local practise to put 6 cars in that platform, as mentioned up thread just gets the guard to move passengers forward from last door.

bad local practise then - and are guards trained to expect to have part of the train hanging off the platform ?

 

[A-driver]

bad local practise then - and are guards trained to expect to have part of the train hanging off the platform ?

Why is it bad local practice exactly? If its approved local practice then thee is nothing wrong with it- it will have been risk assessed and procedures and training put into place for it. And if its approved then guards are of course trained to expect part if the train not to be accommodated by the platform.

So why is it bad practice?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sleepy]

Why is it bad local practice exactly? If its approved local practice then thee is nothing wrong with it- it will have been risk assessed and procedures and training put into place for it. And if its approved then guards are of course trained to expect part if the train not to be accommodated by the platform.

So why is it bad practice?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

because have it on good authority Norwich station is not one they are trained to expect to de- select etc. (not that this is possible with class 156).

 

[A-driver]

because have it on good authority Norwich station is not one they are trained to expect to de- select etc. (not that this is possible with class 156).

Well if it is 'approved local practice' then they will be trained in it. Otherwise it certainly isn't approved local practice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[westcoaster]

Anyone know what the warning triangle is for on the platform end slope.

 

[Sleepy]

Anyone know what the warning triangle is for on the platform end slope.

Just the standard beware of trains

 

[dk1]

bad local practise then - and are guards trained to expect to have part of the train hanging off the platform ?

Yes.

Happened all over the place a few years ago too & that was without CDL, SDO or even Traction Interlock.

 

[yorksrob]

Surely if the Guard's standing at the door warning passengers to move along the train, it's not an issue ?

 

[BestWestern]

bad local practise then - and are guards trained to expect to have part of the train hanging off the platform ?

Essentially, yes.

It is standard operating procedure across all TOCs for any Guard releasing power operated doors to first release a 'local' door (i.e. the one they are standing at), and check that their train is correctly positioned in the platform before releasing all doors. A Driver can miss the stop mark at any location, over or under and for a wide variety of reasons, and where the Guard is responsible for door release they are also responsible for checking the positioning of the train first. Very simple situation to deal with on a Sprinter, simply manually lock the rearmost door with your key and then move forwards and release from another panel.

Regarding the earlier comment about the RAIB not apportioning blame, I always take that as a bit of a red herring really. They publish a report setting out in considerable detail exactly who or what was responsible for an incident, including all primary and secondary causes, which is surely pretty much the same thing to all intents and purposes?!

 

[dk1]

Happens all the time in platform 6 at Norwich late evening. Never thought it was an issue.

 

[Zoidberg]

...

Regarding the earlier comment about the RAIB not apportioning blame, I always take that as a bit of a red herring really. They publish a report setting out in considerable detail exactly who or what was responsible for an incident, including all primary and secondary causes, which is surely pretty much the same thing to all intents and purposes?!

Indeed, their reports do not apportion blame, but when reading them it's usually clear who, or what, is to blame.

 

[O L Leigh]

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.

Luckily the railway does not run on assumptions. The question is whether or not Norwich station has "Lime Street Control".

"Lime Street Control" is an arrangement of track circuits in the platform line and on approach to the signal protecting the platform lines that effectively measures the amount of unoccupied space in the platform and the length of an incoming train. If the incoming train is longer than the available space in the platform the protecting signal cannot be cleared. Liverpool Street has this which means that you shouldn't be able to signal more than a total of 12 cars into any platform (P17 and 18 excepted).

However, even stations with "Lime Street Control" are not immune from problems due to the way that the track circuits are arranged. I've seen it go wrong for myself at Liverpool Street. The signaller tried to put an empty 4 car Cl317 on top of a mainline push-pull set, probably by mistake. The signalling allowed this to happen because the mainline set was long enough to occupy the track circuits to show as an 8 car train but not so long to show as a 12 car train. Therefore the protecting signal could be cleared even though, with the trains nose-to-nose, there was barely space for the first car and a half of the Cl317 to fit in.

Therefore it really is NOT a reasonable assumption to make, even where the facilities are supposed to exist to ensure these things don't happen. There can be technical or human errors that result in a breakdown in working.

O L Leigh

 

[AlexS]

I've always wondered about Lime Street control myself. At my location, a control is fitted for moves from the mainline running signals using the cat's eyes. If all the track circuits in the platform are occupied (there's 3 or 4, can't remember exactly without being there for some reason!), you can't even use the calling on function to arrive from the running lines. However, it doesn't apply to moves from the adjacent sidings. So if I assure the signaller that the movement will fit, even if the track circuit is occupied, the move can still be made by arriving in to another platform, out to the sidings, and back in to the platform. Presumably this is set up to allow loco changes on long trains or something (obviously not something we do now with the lack of loco haulage).

The only time we really have to do this is when the outer track circuit, which from memory is 3-4 cars long, is just occupied and we want to put a 2 car unit in on top for whatever reason.