Why always Tangmere?

[alexl92]

Haivng picked up a copy of the Railway Magazine yesterday I noticed that 34067 Tangmere has been involved in another incident - this time hitting the buffers...

Tangmere collided with the buffer stops at Weymouth station on September 5 writes Michel Hooper-Immins Eyewitness Joe Ward said "I thought the train was coming in a bit fast and then there was a big bang as the locomotive hit the buffer stops, which were moved five or six inches by the impact."

I know WCRC have their failings but 4 of every 5 incidents their trains are involved in seem to involve 34067. Far be it from me as a complete novice to question the integrity of the professionals who drive this machine but surely it's beyond coincidence that it's almost always 34067 concerned?

Is there actually an underlying reason for this or is it really just chance?

Apologies if there's already a thread on this.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Perhaps it's jinxed... A renumbering may be in order, after all it worked for 91023/91132

Half expected Mario Balotelli to be involved in this thread!

 

[30909]

Haivng picked up a copy of the Railway Magazine yesterday I noticed that 34067 Tangmere has been involved in another incident - this time hitting the buffers having entered the station too quickly.

I know WCRC have their failings but 4 of every 5 incidents their trains are involved in seem to involve 34067. Far be it from me as a complete novice to question the integrity of the professionals who drive this machine but surely it's beyond coincidence that it's almost always 34067 concerned?

Is there actually an underlying reason for this or is it really just chance?

Apologies if there's already a thread on this.

Could you reference the edition of The Railway Magazine and if it's in your possession, the page number as it is not apparent with a quick scan in the October RM

 

[Ash Bridge]

I can see on page 68 of Octobers Railway Magazine, that B12 No.8572 hit the buffer stops at Holt station on the North Norfolk Railway on 20th September, can't find anything about Tangmere though.

 

[ComUtoR]

Looks like it hit the buffers at Weymouth on 5th September.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/mctumshie/20998449708/

 

[alexl92]

Looks like it hit the buffers at Weymouth on 5th September.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/mctumshie/20998449708/

Could you reference the edition of The Railway Magazine and if it's in your possession, the page number as it is not apparent with a quick scan in the October RM

Page 95. The Weymouth incident it is.

 

[30909]

Thanks, missed it as associated picture captioned re Ramsgate Open Day.

 

[eastwestdivide]

...
I know WCRC have their failings but 4 of every 5 incidents their trains are involved in seem to involve 34067. ...

As Wikipedia would say, "citation needed".

Or to put it another way, proper statistical analysis needed, correlation is not causation, and it would be very strange if coincidences didn't happen every so often.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Haivng picked up a copy of the Railway Magazine yesterday I noticed that 34067 Tangmere has been involved in another incident - this time hitting the buffers having entered the station too quickly.

I know WCRC have their failings but 4 of every 5 incidents their trains are involved in seem to involve 34067. Far be it from me as a complete novice to question the integrity of the professionals who drive this machine but surely it's beyond coincidence that it's almost always 34067 concerned?

Is there actually an underlying reason for this or is it really just chance?

Apologies if there's already a thread on this.

Do you have proof that it entered the station too fast? If it had done so and hit the blocks then there would have been injuries, just as there were at King's Cross.

It is more likely that the logo eased forward to detach from the train and accidentally came into gentle contact with them.

 

[SPADTrap]

Do you have proof that it entered the station too fast? If it had done so and hit the blocks then there would have been injuries, just as there were at King's Cross.

It is more likely that the logo eased forward to detach from the train and accidentally came into gentle contact with them.

The unit at King's Cross didn't enter too fast?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Still under investigation by RAIB.

 

[Chris M]

Do you have proof that it entered the station too fast? If it had done so and hit the blocks then there would have been injuries, just as there were at King's Cross.

It is more likely that the logo eased forward to detach from the train and accidentally came into gentle contact with them.

Well the caption of the flckr image linked above describes the impact as "on arrival" and that the buffers got "moved back" "a few centimetres". Using all the expertise sitting in my comfortable armchair* brings me, I think that suggests an impact speed somewhere above "gentle contact".
As for comparison with King's Cross impact speed, my first thought was lower but I guess though that the couplings between loco and tender and between tender and first coach will also provide some cushioning to the impact felt by the forwardmost passengers - even more so if there was a support coach behind the tender. Those on a steam charter tour to the seaside are also more likely to be sat in their seats on arrival than commuters arriving into a London terminus, which should in theory reduce the chance of injury. Further, at least one of the injuries at King's Cross was, as I understand it, from detached fixtures/fittings in the EMU rather than directly from the impact. So, on second thoughts, I'm not sure passenger injuries and King's Cross and the lack at Weymouth give any useful indication of impact speed or force due to the dissimilarity of rolling stock and passenger behaviour.

*it's actually an office chair, and not particularly noteworthy for either comfort or discomfort

 

[pdeaves]

It is more likely that the logo eased forward to detach from the train and accidentally came into gentle contact with them.

As I understand it the buffers shifted so it was a bit more than 'gentle contact'. Whether 'entering station at speed' or clumsy run-round or any other reason I don't know.

 

[ComUtoR]

How heavy is a steam loco compared to an EMU ?

My basic physics is a little rusty but wouldn't a slow moving loco cause significantly more damage than a slow moving EMU ?

 

[yorkie]

Could you reference the edition of The Railway Magazine and if it's in your possession, the page number as it is not apparent with a quick scan in the October RM

Very good point. I have now edited the original post to include this information.

I will briefly issue a gentle reminder to people to familiarise themselves with the Forum Rules, in this case the bullet point commencing with "If referring to an external source..." which, if followed, will ensure there is no confusion over what the article says, and avoid misunderstandings If anyone spots a missing quote please report it to us using the report button so we can fix it. Thanks!

Back on topic... The quote "I thought the train was coming in a bit fast" doesn't necessarily mean the train was going too fast.

Edit: It's been reported that the article states there will not be a RAIB investigation, therefore I would conclude that there is no reasonable suspicion the train was speeding.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How heavy is a steam loco compared to an EMU ?

Approximately twice the weight of a single EMU vehicle (and, of course, there would normally be more coaches behind it too) based on the figures quoted on Wikipedia.

My basic physics is a little rusty but wouldn't a slow moving loco cause significantly more damage than a slow moving EMU ?

I agree that seems likely.

 

[30909]

The final paragraph said "The Rail Accident Investigation Branch and the Department of Transport are not investigating the collision"

 

[Mugby]

Isn't that particular type of buffer stop at Weymouth specially designed to absorb very low speed impacts and retract accordingly?

There doesn't appear to be any damage to either loco or buffer stop.

 

[455driver]

As I understand it the buffers shifted so it was a bit more than 'gentle contact'. Whether 'entering station at speed' or clumsy run-round or any other reason I don't know.

The type of buffers at Weymouth are designed to move even under 'gentle' contact, but of course you will know that after carrying out extensive research wouldnt you!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The final paragraph said "The Rail Accident Investigation Branch and the Department of Transport are not investigating the collision"

Probably because the cause was quickly established so there was nothing to investigate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Isn't that particular type of buffer stop at Weymouth specially designed to absorb very low speed impacts and retract accordingly?

There doesn't appear to be any damage to either loco or buffer stop.

Yes it is.

 

[TheEdge]

How heavy is a steam loco compared to an EMU ?

My basic physics is a little rusty but wouldn't a slow moving loco cause significantly more damage than a slow moving EMU ?

Pub maths, 86 tons of loco, depending on how much water and coal in the tender somewhere up to 40 tons. So the loco alone is fairly comparable to a BR era 4 car unit and about 40-50 lighter than a 4 car Electrostar.

But thats loco alone and without know the details it looks like this was with a train so I guess that would add another 200-300 tons of train and people.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can see on page 68 of Octobers Railway Magazine, that B12 No.8572 hit the buffer stops at Holt station on the North Norfolk Railway on 20th September, can't find anything about Tangmere though.

That might actually turn out to be a lot more serious that it first appears. Conjecture from someone who knows what he is looking at (mainline passed steam driver) reckons that B12 collision might have caused chassis problems and there is a decent chance it might have hit the cylinders and motion fairly badly too!

 

[yorkie]

The final paragraph said "The Rail Accident Investigation Branch and the Department of Transport are not investigating the collision"

But do we know if have RAIB decided for definite not to open an investigation... or could it be that they are still considering whether or not to do so...?

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Was the return journey scrapped on the day of this incident?

 

[Ash Bridge]

Was the return journey scrapped on the day of this incident?

No, according to the same article the charter returned diesel hauled because of engineering works unconnected to the incident, whilst elsewhere it is reported that 34067 returned the train as far as Eastleigh, being removed there in favour of 47832 to enable the steam loco to return to its base to avoid the above mentioned engineering blockade, either way it seems to prove this incident at Weymouth was of a rather minor nature.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Haivng picked up a copy of the Railway Magazine yesterday I noticed that 34067 Tangmere has been involved in another incident - this time hitting the buffers...




I know WCRC have their failings but 4 of every 5 incidents their trains are involved in seem to involve 34067. Far be it from me as a complete novice to question the integrity of the professionals who drive this machine but surely it's beyond coincidence that it's almost always 34067 concerned?

Is there actually an underlying reason for this or is it really just chance?

Apologies if there's already a thread on this.

Nothing to do with the loco. Everything to do with failure of operation.
From the perspective of my very comfortable driving seat, I would regard impacting with a buffer stop, regardless of how hard, or with whatever type of traction, as being very serious, potentially livelihood threatening. Of course, that's not the case if you can go back to your retirement/ day job/ hobby railway.

 

[alexl92]

Dear All,

I'd like to apologise for any offence I've caused in my statements in this thread. As I've just explained to the Mods, my comment about the engine coming in too fast were taken from a quote of an eyewitness as printed in Railway Magazine, along the lines of 'I thought it looked to be coming in a bit fast...'

I understand that my original statement upset a number of people who work on the railways and for that I am sorry.

With regard to my generalisation of Tangmere being involved in 4/5 of West Coast incidents - I accept that this was a rather foolish statement, but I did say it 'seems like' this was the case. In my mind was the fact that Tangmere's been involved in the SPAD, various stalls and the motion dropping off as well as this in the past few years alone, and I can't (off the top of my head) think of any of their other locos that have had that same record.

Nonetheless, I do appreciate that my wording was unwise and that offence has been caused. Once again, I do apologise. Thanks to the Mods for handling this in a fair manner.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Tangmere has, of course, worked a large proportion of the recent charter trains so while one would of course hope that there would not be any incidents, it is a fact of life that there will be some.

It follows that if there are going to be incidents then the locomotive that works the highest proportion of the trains will very likely be involved in a similar proportion of incidents of whatever nature.

So all this really shows is that it's a very busy locomotive; it's not jinxed in any way.

 

[alexl92]

Tangmere has, of course, worked a large proportion of the recent charter trains so while one would of course hope that there would not be any incidents, it is a fact of life that there will be some.

It follows that if there are going to be incidents then the locomotive that works the highest proportion of the trains will very likely be involved in a similar proportion of incidents of whatever nature.

So all this really shows is that it's a very busy locomotive; it's not jinxed in any way.

This is very true. I suppose though that you could argue that 44871/45407 seem to work a large number of trips, especially through the summer, and don't seem to have the same number of incidents.

On the subject of which, why don't WCR have a spare steam loco down south to allow Tangmere to work less intensively? Is it due to cost? I remember reading a while back that it was the only kettle they had in the south at one point and all the others that run in that region are DBS-operated. (Or am I mistaken and in fact they do have a spare?)

 

[E&W Lucas]

Tangmere has, of course, worked a large proportion of the recent charter trains so while one would of course hope that there would not be any incidents, it is a fact of life that there will be some.

It follows that if there are going to be incidents then the locomotive that works the highest proportion of the trains will very likely be involved in a similar proportion of incidents of whatever nature.

So all this really shows is that it's a very busy locomotive; it's not jinxed in any way.

You're missing the point gentlemen. The assumption should be that there won't be these operating incidents. A more valid comparison would be between their incidents per route mile or service operated, compared to other operators doing similar work.
Re the Scottish services, don't forget that they are operating over what is effectively a low speed, isolated single line.

 

[alexl92]

You're missing the point gentlemen. The assumption should be that there won't be these operating incidents.

That's where I was coming from.

Re the Scottish services, don't forget that they are operating over what is effectively a low speed, isolated single line.

I was actually thinking of the tours that the Riley pair do around Britain the rest of the year - when they're not on the Jacobite (but within season) they seem to be out almost daily with incidents being very rare.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

You're missing the point gentlemen. The assumption should be that there won't be these operating incidents.

Well, I did state:

Originally Posted by Peter Mugridge while one would of course hope that there would not be any incidents

You are of course correct that comparing incidents per mile / per charter would give a fairer figure and also that the Scottish charters are generally on lightly worked single track routes, but there is another factor:

Those charters are also generally of the "repeat itinerary" type and one-offs are, by their very nature, going to be more vulnerable to things going wrong simply because they are not being run day in day out.

Yes, the assumption should be that there will not be operating incidents, but things are being run by humans and errors will occasionally be made. Sometimes the incidents will be beyond prevention - supposing the train ahead of a charter leaks oil on the rails in otherwise perfect adhesion conditions, for instance, which leads to a charter being unexpectedly unable to brake properly? If that were to happen it would not be the fault of the charter crew if the train then slides past a signal.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Well, I did state:

You are of course correct that comparing incidents per mile / per charter would give a fairer figure and also that the Scottish charters are generally on lightly worked single track routes, but there is another factor:

Those charters are also generally of the "repeat itinerary" type and one-offs are, by their very nature, going to be more vulnerable to things going wrong simply because they are not being run day in day out.

Yes, the assumption should be that there will not be operating incidents, but things are being run by humans and errors will occasionally be made. Sometimes the incidents will be beyond prevention - supposing the train ahead of a charter leaks oil on the rails in otherwise perfect adhesion conditions, for instance, which leads to a charter being unexpectedly unable to brake properly? If that were to happen it would not be the fault of the charter crew if the train then slides past a signal.

Forget unexpected rail conditions - that's just driving, but you're getting there with the "repeat" bit.
Mainline driving is same routes, same traction, day in, day out. Route cards are built up slowly and incrementally over time. If you're dealing with a "one off", which we all do from time to time, you've the depth of everyday experience to fall back on.

Now into the mix throw people who've maybe only just learned a particular route, so that they can work a charter over it (audit their route learning, compared to regular TOCs), and in some cases who've never been full time mainline drivers. The firemen certainly haven't.

Compare with DBS, where both members of the crew are full time mainline drivers.