Train slides at speed for more than TWO MILES because of leaves on the line

[At_traction]

The RAIB report said:
"The train was unable to stop at Stonegate, and came to a stand some 2.45 miles (4 km) beyond the station"

The Daily Wail said:
"A major investigation has been launched after a commuter train slid at speed for more than two miles because of leaves on the line."
(My highlighting)

Hardly the same !!!

Hmm? If you are unable to stop a train at a station and come stationary only 4 klicks beyond, something must affect the performance of brakes... Unless it's a result of inability of driver to engage brakes or of brakes to connect properly, loss of friction would be the next (or rather, most probable) possibility to ponder. Especially given the time of year. Slidding might not even be that far off as the loss of friction leads to just that at a certain low point of friction co-efficient. And rail with wet leaves has that effect (or not possible in the British weather? ).

Just because the way of reporting (or reporter) is not to one's liking, doesn't necessarily make the facts behind any less poignant. Leaves on the rail is a very real problem associated with rail travel (like snow and ice is for every form of transport) and reporting stating just that is "unfortunate" but true nevertheless.

 

[Tomnick]

It would if the train had activated the track circuits correctly.
One reason that leaves cause so much problem is that they can play havoc with track circuits.

But there were no red signals, therefore the route must be clear. So the crossing gates would be against the road traffic.

Automatic crossings are generally (always?) provided with treadles as an additional safeguard against wrong-side failures of track circuits. I don't think I'm mistaken to suggest that the crossing in question is MCB or CCTV though, in which case EM2's comments would be relevant and correct.

 

[43167]

There is a nice little video clip with a short CGI "reconstruction" on the BBC site - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11790330 .

Plus you get to see a couple of Class 60's (I think?) behind a man with a leaf blower!

Class 92's actually.

 

[mumrar]

Admittedly, I'm much more interested in the loco. Since I can't make out the second last digit of the number, can someone confirm or deny that this is Miss Cromwell?

To reignite an oldie, it is Mr Cromwell, Oliver was our King, not our Queen, hence the loco can't be Miss.....

 

[moonrakerz]

Hmm? If you are unable to stop a train at a station and come stationary only 4 klicks beyond, something must affect the performance of brakes... Unless it's a result of inability of driver to engage brakes or of brakes to connect properly, loss of friction would be the next (or rather, most probable) possibility to ponder. Especially given the time of year. Slidding might not even be that far off as the loss of friction leads to just that at a certain low point of friction co-efficient. And rail with wet leaves has that effect (or not possible in the British weather? ).

Just because the way of reporting (or reporter) is not to one's liking, doesn't necessarily make the facts behind any less poignant. Leaves on the rail is a very real problem associated with rail travel (like snow and ice is for every form of transport) and reporting stating just that is "unfortunate" but true nevertheless.

It wasn't the "way" the incident was reported that wasn't to "my liking" - it was the way in which an "incident" was made into something that the facts (from the RAIB) did not support.
Not sloppy journalism but sensationalist hype !

Just read the RAIB statement and compare it to the Daily Mail "story" - it would appear that the Mail "reporter" is in possession of a considerable amount of information that should be made available to the full RAIB investigation - somehow I don't think he will be called.

I find it hard to believe that the train slid for that distance, it seems more likely that the driver became aware of of "poor adhesion conditions" (RAIB) and applied gentle progressive braking to slowly bring to the train to a standstill - knowing that he had a clear track in front of him.
If I was aware of "poor adhesion conditions" under my car tyres, the very last thing I would do is stamp on the brake pedal and cause a slide.

 

[Respite]

It If I was aware of "poor adhesion conditions" under my car tyres, the very last thing I would do is stamp on the brake pedal and cause a slide.

Not really the same issue at all, I know what you are saying but does not translate to rail at times. Defensive driving policy dictates a similar start to what you say. For my lot it says class 221 brake earlier & lighter which is all well & good, however being the fact that Voyagers slide at the first hint of moisture then we go onto the second part which states that you should apply full brake. Next step is chuck it into emergency & deploy the one shot sander that is your only backup on a 220/221 & then that is only used in teh event of a spad or similar that will cause an incident. Station overuns you are not supposed to use it. Then of course the set has to come out of service at the first available station anyway even though are 221's have Two "one" shot sanders.
Class 390, well Alstom actually listened to driver feedback on these & gave us proper sanders. With a Pendo you are instructed in leaf fall to go straight to brake step 3 or 4 as brake step 1 & 2 are a regen brake not on all axles, step 3 & higher (to 6 +em) are friction on all axles. WSP works well on 390's with that added sand & I've never had a real problem with it bar a bit of juddering about a bit. As for WSP, well it works at all times even if all sets locked up, it just knows. Plus with 9 coaches worth of axles sensed it can figure out if we are moving or not.

 

[Flywaver]

There have been a hell of alot of incidents lately and i can think of one that was worse than this... The WSP often plays havoc with braking. In these conditions i find it best to brake earlier and lighter. But when you see wheel slide in step 1 you begin to wonder your going to end up stopping at peterborough instead of Stamford..... I remember Rectory Road having to shut as units couldnt get up the gradient to Hackney Downs....

 

[GB]

I find it hard to believe that the train slid for that distance,

Why do you find it hard to believe a train is capable of sliding such distances in such circumstances? Its not the first times its happened and I doubt it will be the last.

Wasn't it only last year a similar thing happened down on 3rd rail land somewhere where a train slid for some distance passing two red signals only avoiding a collision due to a quick thinking signaller?

it seems more likely that the driver became aware of of "poor adhesion conditions" (RAIB) and applied gentle progressive braking to slowly bring to the train to a standstill...

How could you possibly know what "more than likely" went on?

 

[Sapphire Blue]

Why do you find it hard to believe a train is capable of sliding such distances in such circumstances? Its not the first times its happened and I doubt it will be the last.

But it IS hard to believe. That's why it is a story.

 

[turbo mick]

Nothing new guys you only heard about that one via the news iam a fgw driver and we suffer with leaves on the lines every year and it wont go away i heard southern had 17 trains slip through stations due poor rail heads in one day

 

[Sapphire Blue]

Nothing new guys you only heard about that one via the news iam a fgw driver and we suffer with leaves on the lines every year and it wont go away i heard southern had 17 trains slip through stations due poor rail heads in one day

Yeah, but. . .

Trains slip thru' a station - easy to believe.

Train slips more than 2 miles thru' a station - hard to believe

 

[Jan]

Wasn't it only last year a similar thing happened down on 3rd rail land somewhere where a train slid for some distance passing two red signals only avoiding a collision due to a quick thinking signaller?

Unless there's been a similar incident more recently, your description sounds like Part 1 of this here: http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2007/report252006.cfm

 

[turbo mick]

you have to also take into consideration how fast the train was going approaching.the driver could have put the brake in 1 mile from the station and started slipping luckily with the units i drive 165/166 we have wsp, sanders in traction and also braking but that dosent mean you will stop if the rail head conditions are exceptional all drivers tend to know where the rail heads could be bad when driving over routes they sign

 

[moonrakerz]

Why do you find it hard to believe a train is capable of sliding such distances in such circumstances? Its not the first times its happened and I doubt it will be the last.

Wasn't it only last year a similar thing happened down on 3rd rail land somewhere where a train slid for some distance passing two red signals only avoiding a collision due to a quick thinking signaller?

How could you possibly know what "more than likely" went on?

I base my comments on a reasonable knowledge of engineering principles and the fact that the Daily Mail has "history" on this type of incident. (FGW HST hitting tree at Lavington - for a start)
As I have already pointed out, the story in the Mail varies enormously, in fact , when compared to the RAIB statement.

If an experienced railway man can offer me evidence that a train travelling at the speed it was is capable of "sliding" 4km I will quite happily bow to that superior source of knowledge. I DO NOT consider the Daily Mail to be such an authoritative source

"How could you possibly know what "more than likely" went on?" I think that question is better posed to the Daily Mail reporter as he appears to know a lot more than the RAIB !

 

[Ploughman]

it also works the other way round.
Leeds - Harrogate trains often cannot notch up due to wheel slip when clinbing the bank through Headingley towards Horsforth.
Frequently have to stay in "low gear " until the gradient eases.

 

[mumrar]

it also works the other way round.
Leeds - Harrogate trains often cannot notch up due to wheel slip when clinbing the bank through Headingley towards Horsforth.
Frequently have to stay in "low gear " until the gradient eases.

The gears on a DMMUs type unit change over dependant on speed and stay in the first gear till at least around 40mph on 75mph units, and higher for faster DMMUs. If they slip they'll sound like they're in a lower gear because the sound is similar to an automatic car, as in the more throttle the higher the revs, so when slipping a driver can only use, say notch 3 so the engine is at reduced revs.

 

[LE Greys]

What sort of gradient was the train passing over at the time? I ask this because of the famous incident on Bincombe Bank when a "Schools"-class 4-4-0 (I think) ground to a halt somewhere near the tunnel and slid backwards towards Weymouth.

 

[TDK]

But there were no red signals, therefore the route must be clear. So the crossing gates would be against the road traffic.

Depends on what sort of crossing it is AHB crossings do not have signals protectings they are activated either by treadles or track circuits
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It never ceases to amaze me how posters on this forum deliver such cr*p about a subject they do not understand. That isn't directed at you EM2 but to many of the comments on this thread, DMMU's have 2 meathods of drive, one is a torque converter and the other a fluid coupling usually found in the voith gearbox, if you cut all the trees down there will eventually be landslides as there was in france, the train involved may have had contaminated wheels, the driver did not stand a chance in this situation if he slid as far as reported, when you slide in a train it is not a brake fault as the brakes must be working for the wheels to lock.

 

[LE Greys]

I think the main reason for cutting down trees in steam days had more to do with spark-throwing from engines than leaves on the line. Another thing that tended to happen in Southern territory, especially with Bulleid Pacifics.

 

[90019]

if you cut all the trees down there will eventually be landslides as there was in france

Not necessarily, it depends what types of tree you're cutting down, what the soil type is, water table, saturation levels, average precipitation, what wildlife is living under the ground and what other plant life there is, etc.

Obviously gradient of embankment/cutting plays a part as well.

 

[Lampshade]

Is it unfeasible to have steam jets on the front of the bogies to clear the leaf mulch? A pressure washer can clear it from a patio, it could work.

 

[boing_uk]

if you cut all the trees down there will eventually be landslides as there was in france

As discussed in a previous thread, that is not really so.

A proper geotechnical survey should always be done before doing any significant felling of trees and certainly taking no mitigating measures such as improving drainage and checking slope stability may lead to a slope failure. But to say that removing all the trees WILL eventually lead to a landslip is not entirely true. A trees rootball only makes up the top 1m or so... think of it as a patio umbrella. Slope instability will often arise from the top layer losing its "friction" with the underlying subsoils... it can happen anywhere given the right conditions; trees or no trees.

Unfortunately I do not have any faith in NR to manage their earthworks properly, due to their prolific use of consultants to do this work rather than in-house area staff, and it does concern me to see such wholesale felling without any apparent mitigation, particularly on older slopes.

I broadly agree with the removal of trees and vegetation from slops and the vicinity at the top and toe of any slope, but only if it is done correctly.

 

[EM2]

Depends on what sort of crossing it is AHB crossings do not have signals protectings they are activated either by treadles or track circuits

Fair enough, I only ever worked in areas with full barriers.

 

[Trainstopper]

It is conceivable that, in sustained very low wheel-rail adhesion conditions, a passenger train of the type likely to have been involved in this incident could in certain circumstances travel a distance of 2.5 miles following a driver application of the brakes at a speed of 65 mile/hour. However, to do so would require a brake system failure and/or a sanding system failure. If these systems were both working normally, whilst still extended, the stopping distance in low adhesion conditions would have been much shorter than 2.5 miles. Let's see what the RAIB determines during their investigation shall we?

 

[jon0844]

And spoil what the Daily Mail has already concluded?!

The fact is, the people who read the Daily Mail/Evening Standard/Metro story now have their view. By the time the report comes out, they will have forgotten and take no notice (well, that and the fact that the DM won't print the report findings).

 

[boing_uk]

Was on a 142 on Thursday morning out of Blackpool South and the rail conditions were not very good at all, to the point where the driver approached Lytham station at less than walking pace and still skidded to a stop - after that we were barely able to get away.

Some NR guys were on the platform at Moss Side and the driver also stopped at the signals at protecting signals at Kirkham, presumably to warn the driver of the next train on to the line. We were around 25 mins late getting in to Preston.

The railhead conditions arent great on that line this time of year but Ive not been on a train where the conditions were so bad with the driver furiously working the power and the brakes to keep the train under control. Well done that man.

(To top off the journey, there were signalling problems between Bamber Bridge and Blackburn, to do with the level crossings. Two signals passed at danger and crawl across the two LC's on the way - into Blackburn at 11:30-ish).

 

[jon0844]

Two weeks ago, it was horrible on the ECML into London and my train was clearly struggling to accelerate (a 313 FWIW). There were numerous delays due to poor railhead conditions, and it was (as has been said on here) when we had the fine mist type rain along with cold conditions that presumably covered the rails in condensation.

I am not aware of any station overruns (not sure I would ever find out) but there were pretty large delays. I wonder what the Daily Mail would say about that. They'd no doubt moan about how slow our railway is, forgetting the bit about the slippery rail conditions that they wrote about a few days/hours/minutes/seconds/on the same page before.

 

[westcoaster]

I am not aware of any station overruns (not sure I would ever find out) but there were pretty large delays.

We had 6 in one day on the tl side, plus it was about the same on the gn.

 

[driver9000]

Was on a 142 on Thursday morning out of Blackpool South and the rail conditions were not very good at all, to the point where the driver approached Lytham station at less than walking pace and still skidded to a stop - after that we were barely able to get away.

Lytham is well known to the local train crews for suffering from low adhesion, the station lies at the bottom of a falling gradient in both directions. Network Rail staff can often be found around the station laying sand on to the rails from a push along dropper. There are also sandite applicators on the approaches in both directions which help a little.

 

[At_traction]

I am not aware of any station overruns (not sure I would ever find out) but there were pretty large delays. I wonder what the Daily Mail would say about that. They'd no doubt moan about how slow our railway is, forgetting the bit about the slippery rail conditions that they wrote about a few days/hours/minutes/seconds/on the same page before.

It's their effin' [cue the forum's de-expletatinator] style (and they're welcome to it), but the piece of reporting was anyway about a factual overrun that - as so many better acknowledgable people here have already stated - has nevertheless unfortunately happened due to various reasons related to the nature of railway infrastructure, ie. rails. Like Seinfeld said: "people who read tabloids deserve to be lied to" - I wonder what he'd have said about people who waste their time complaining between themselves about those lies...
Leave the rags alone. I'm off.