Low Speed Derailment Sheffield 11/11

[WestRiding]

The RAIB have now published their report into this accident. You can find the full report here and a summary is below:

And all this time later, the Through Line is out of use, none existent. It never got put back.

 

[A Challenge]

And all this time later, the Through Line is out of use, none existent. It never got put back.

Is there any chance of the Through Line past 1B ever going back in, I assume not?

 

[_toommm_]

Is there any chance of the Through Line past 1B ever going back in, I assume not?

Is there not still the other through-line past 2B? Not lived in Sheffield for a while so can't remember. And does the currently severed through-road still stable stock on Sundays?

 

[Taunton]

I see the accident report has comments about how both track inspections and the running of testing trains was impeded by the use of platform lines for stabling stock night and day.

We do need to move away from the developed practice of using stations and running lines as surrogate sidings. Is it that it avoids getting an extra movement charge for taking the stock out to a proper stabling siding? Is it that NR have removed so many of these, in their pursuit of minimising the number of point ends? There have been multiple reports of collisions where trains are squeezing in to what is left of platform space among stabled trains, now we find maintenance activities cannot be done properly either because of this.

 

[Bald Rick]

We do need to move away from the developed practice of using stations and running lines as surrogate sidings. Is it that it avoids getting an extra movement charge for taking the stock out to a proper stabling siding? Is it that NR have removed so many of these, in their pursuit of minimising the number of point ends?

Not aware of any stabling sidings being removed, at least not without the explicit consent of operators and the ORR, which implies that they were content that they had sufficient capacity elsewhere.

Perhaps it’s because there’s a lot more vehicles on the network than there were 10-20 years ago?

 

[GB]

The track screws had failed several weeks, or perhaps months, before the derailment, but the failures had not been identified by Network Rail’s maintenance inspection activities

I thought the RAIB dealt in facts? "or perhaps months" doesn't seem like one to me. If you don't know when the screws failed then just say so.

 

[Spartacus]

I see the accident report has comments about how both track inspections and the running of testing trains was impeded by the use of platform lines for stabling stock night and day.

We do need to move away from the developed practice of using stations and running lines as surrogate sidings. Is it that it avoids getting an extra movement charge for taking the stock out to a proper stabling siding? Is it that NR have removed so many of these, in their pursuit of minimising the number of point ends? There have been multiple reports of collisions where trains are squeezing in to what is left of platform space among stabled trains, now we find maintenance activities cannot be done properly either because of this.

Sheffield's been used for stabling stock since long before anyone had even thought what a movement charge might be, and stations are usually far more secure than an out of the way siding with adjacent housing estates, fields, factories, or a combination of all three.

Network Rail, or previously Railtrack, has never actually owned a great deal of sidings, most are usually in the hands of TOCs and FOCs.

 

[Domh245]

I thought the RAIB dealt in facts? "or perhaps months" doesn't seem like one to me. If you don't know when the screws failed then just say so.

They do know that the screws failed on that order of magnitude ago though - para 46 refers:

The amount of corrosion on the fracture face surfaces indicated that the breaks had occurred weeks, or perhaps months, before the derailment (figure 15). This was further evidenced by the presence of marks showing repeated relative movement between the two fracture faces on each screw. None of the screws had failed immediately prior to the derailment

It's impossible to narrow it down to a specific time period, but it's a fact that the failure happened long before the incident, on the order of multiple weeks. They could have worded it better granted but I suspect it's a near-verbatim quote from the contractor who performed the metallurgical examination

 

[WestRiding]

Is there any chance of the Through Line past 1B ever going back in, I assume not?

We got told it will be Easter next year, its booked in apparently.

Is there not still the other through-line past 2B? Not lived in Sheffield for a while so can't remember. And does the currently severed through-road still stable stock on Sundays?

That to what you refer is the Down Station Siding, and not signalled by main aspects, or passenger certified. Though we do use it for freight if struggling for a gap through the station, just like we do Up Sidings 1&2 in between 5 and 6.

I see the accident report has comments about how both track inspections and the running of testing trains was impeded by the use of platform lines for stabling stock night and day.

We do need to move away from the developed practice of using stations and running lines as surrogate sidings. Is it that it avoids getting an extra movement charge for taking the stock out to a proper stabling siding? Is it that NR have removed so many of these, in their pursuit of minimising the number of point ends? There have been multiple reports of collisions where trains are squeezing in to what is left of platform space among stabled trains, now we find maintenance activities cannot be done properly either because of this.

Sheffield does not have enough sidings to store the units over night coming into service at the start of day, that is why they use Platform 2, 2c, 1a and 7 to store units for start of service, because the Fish Dock is full, as are DSS and UP 1&2, also with the Shunt Spur. There just isn't room. And then there is a TPX unit sits in 5 all night to do the 0325 Airport, which nobody uses.

If only Tinsley had been utilised for all Northern needs, and bring them all in to Sheffield empty stock on a morning.

 

[_toommm_]

We got told it will be Easter next year, its booked in apparently.

That to what you refer is the Down Station Siding, and not signalled by main aspects, or passenger certified. Though we do use it for freight if struggling for a gap through the station, just like we do Up Sidings 1&2 in between 5 and 6.

Sheffield does not have enough sidings to store the units over night coming into service at the start of day, that is why they use Platform 2, 2c, 1a and 7 to store units for start of service, because the Fish Dock is full, as are DSS and UP 1&2, also with the Shunt Spur. There just isn't room. And then there is a TPX unit sits in 5 all night to do the 0325 Airport, which nobody uses.

If only Tinsley had been utilised for all Northern needs, and bring them all in to Sheffield empty stock on a morning.

They could also potentially stable the trains at the sidings next to the Royal Mail depot in Brightside, but this is definitely speculative so I’ll leave it there!

 

[Watershed]

We do need to move away from the developed practice of using stations and running lines as surrogate sidings. Is it that it avoids getting an extra movement charge for taking the stock out to a proper stabling siding? Is it that NR have removed so many of these, in their pursuit of minimising the number of point ends? There have been multiple reports of collisions where trains are squeezing in to what is left of platform space among stabled trains, now we find maintenance activities cannot be done properly either because of this.

It can certainly be a problematic practice at times. But it's primarily done because it saves on the cost of leasing land for a depot or sidings. And secondly because it saves money because you're not having to taxi drivers to a depot to pick up the stock.

 

[Class 170101]

Not aware of any stabling sidings being removed, at least not without the explicit consent of operators and the ORR, which implies that they were content that they had sufficient capacity elsewhere.

Perhaps it’s because there’s a lot more vehicles on the network than there were 10-20 years ago?

Inevitably its your last sentence here that is the issue.

If only Tinsley had been utilised for all Northern needs, and bring them all in to Sheffield empty stock on a morning.

Is Tinsley actually available anymore? I thought most of the sidings had been removed and those that remain are used for loading / unloading of Containers of Intermodal trains?

The stabling of trains in platforms isn't just an issue at Sheffield but around the whole network with units in platforms and moved around through the week to accommodate maintenance on stabled lines. It should be noted however that NR can be just as responsible for this. For example stabling at Tinsley (but note above) would require a route from there to Sheffield to be open most of the night. How would you maintain the trackwork and other assets to the north of Sheffield? Probably by stabling at Sheffield.

 

[WestRiding]

Inevitably its your last sentence here that is the issue.


Is Tinsley actually available anymore? I thought most of the sidings had been removed and those that remain are used for loading / unloading of Containers of Intermodal trains?

The stabling of trains in platforms isn't just an issue at Sheffield but around the whole network with units in platforms and moved around through the week to accommodate maintenance on stabled lines. It should be noted however that NR can be just as responsible for this. For example stabling at Tinsley (but note above) would require a route from there to Sheffield to be open most of the night. How would you maintain the trackwork and other assets to the north of Sheffield? Probably by stabling at Sheffield.

It could have been with foresight

 

[Spartacus]

It could have been with foresight

Has Tinsley ever been used to stable passenger stock? really, it's not the most suitable location, for a number of reasons. I wouldn't like to be the one trying to overcome the issues just trying to get drivers or shunters back and forth.

Nunnery sidings would have been a better bet, opposite the current tram depot, though I think they closed about 35 years ago now, a good while before the current issues became apparent, but I don't think there's anything that couldn't be easily moved on the down side to prevent them being rebuilt, just the bin lorries, the usual trackwork and signalling issues aside. Put a footbridge in and there's even the tram to shuttle crews back and forth to the station.

Anyway, I think that's starting to go firmly down the speculative route......

 

[WestRiding]

Has Tinsley ever been used to stable passenger stock? really, it's not the most suitable location, for a number of reasons. I wouldn't like to be the one trying to overcome the issues just trying to get drivers or shunters back and forth.

Nunnery sidings would have been a better bet, opposite the current tram depot, though I think they closed about 35 years ago now, a good while before the current issues became apparent, but I don't think there's anything that couldn't be easily moved on the down side to prevent them being rebuilt, just the bin lorries, the usual trackwork and signalling issues aside. Put a footbridge in and there's even the tram to shuttle crews back and forth to the station.

Anyway, I think that's starting to go firmly down the speculative route......

Yep. At the end of the day, Sheffield always has and always will be a problem case that nobody wants to invest in.

 

[MCR247]

It can certainly be a problematic practice at times. But it's primarily done because it saves on the cost of leasing land for a depot or sidings. And secondly because it saves money because you're not having to taxi drivers to a depot to pick up the stock.

East Midlands Railway similarly use Nottingham station with all bar one (through) platform usually occupied with stock overnight.
Interestingly I believe stock is rotated between the station and Eastcroft depot during the night, with all internal cleaning taking place at the station rather than the depot.

 

[Steve Harris]

Has Tinsley ever been used to stable passenger stock? really, it's not the most suitable location, for a number of reasons. I wouldn't like to be the one trying to overcome the issues just trying to get drivers or shunters back and forth.

Nunnery sidings would have been a better bet, opposite the current tram depot, though I think they closed about 35 years ago now, a good while before the current issues became apparent, but I don't think there's anything that couldn't be easily moved on the down side to prevent them being rebuilt, just the bin lorries, the usual trackwork and signalling issues aside. Put a footbridge in and there's even the tram to shuttle crews back and forth to the station.

Anyway, I think that's starting to go firmly down the speculative route......

Yes, Tinsley yard has been used to stable passenger stock..... although said stock was withdrawn/condemned and was awaiting scrapping. IIRC the windows on most of the vehicles were smashed, no idea if they got broken at Tinsley or elsewhere though.

 

[Mariner16]

East Midlands Railway similarly use Nottingham station with all bar one (through) platform usually occupied with stock overnight.
Interestingly I believe stock is rotated between the station and Eastcroft depot during the night, with all internal cleaning taking place at the station rather than the depot.

Two through platforms, 4 and 6.

Units into Nottingham get cleaned on arrival before heading to the depot, most come back to the station to be finished later in the night. Cleaning does also take place at the depot overnight if trains don't go back to the station.

 

[MCR247]

Two through platforms, 4 and 6.

Units into Nottingham get cleaned on arrival before heading to the depot, most come back to the station to be finished later in the night. Cleaning does also take place at the depot overnight if trains don't go back to the station.

Thanks for the insight

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Surprised RAIB didn't make more the fact that after the Ordsall Lane derailment in 2013 they made a recommendation to NR over the management of <200m curves to which NR responded to ORR in 2017

On 16 February 2017, ORR reported to RAIB that this recommendation had been implemented by Network Rail, with the following comment: ‘Network Rail report they have identified curves with sub 200m radii that are not fitted with check rails (68% of the 422 curves identified with sub 200m radii), assessed the risk at each curve taking account of local factors and identified appropriate corrective actions. These include measures such as providing or enhancing lubrication, and fitting of check rails as necessary.’

So why didn't RAIB review NRs response from this exercise to see how 4062 points had been evaluated. This appears at first hand hand to be failure to learn and apply lessons despite NR saying they have.

That said it would have also have been useful for them to randomly review how other points in the area were being looked after to determining if it was a systemic issue. I suspect they would have found that the main running points were well looked after and that these points with low usage? didn't get attention as the teams main efforts are directed to where the risk is greatest on the higher used and faster speed points.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Surely it is up to the ORR/HMRI to monitor ongoing compliance with and implementation of recommendations and responses to reports.

The RAIB's role is strictly to investigate 'accidents' (as defined).

 

[Horizon22]

I see the accident report has comments about how both track inspections and the running of testing trains was impeded by the use of platform lines for stabling stock night and day.

We do need to move away from the developed practice of using stations and running lines as surrogate sidings. Is it that it avoids getting an extra movement charge for taking the stock out to a proper stabling siding? Is it that NR have removed so many of these, in their pursuit of minimising the number of point ends? There have been multiple reports of collisions where trains are squeezing in to what is left of platform space among stabled trains, now we find maintenance activities cannot be done properly either because of this.

It would be good if we could, and that will require significant investment to improve depot & proper stabling capacity all across the UK; and this might be of minimal gain. As @Bald Rick mentioned, there's been a significant rise in the number of trains / units running (approximately 30% more in last 20 years). In some places its been disproportionately higher and there's been imbalance between new units and an equivalent number of stabling locations. Something to push forward though, certainly.

 

[markymark2000]

It would be good if we could, and that will require significant investment to improve depot & proper stabling capacity all across the UK; and this might be of minimal gain. As @Bald Rick mentioned, there's been a significant rise in the number of trains / units running (approximately 30% more in last 20 years). In some places its been disproportionately higher and there's been imbalance between new units and an equivalent number of stabling locations. Something to push forward though, certainly.

Rather than this being an issue, can't we rotate which platforms are used for storing trains? Maybe keep 1 through platform open each week and rotate it so then each track can get inspected.

And could/are any advancements being made to technology to enable passenger trains to be fitted with more track checking sensors or whatever so then the track trains don't need to go around as often and then that eases the situation. It is ok to find places for trains for a night perhaps but every night, much more difficult.


I think it's better for trains to be in stations than in depots for security and it means less taxis for staff hopefully maybe less driver hours too (based on the train not having to go to the depot at all, not even for cleaning). Less land for railway purposes too which is good. More land for other uses. There are benefits to station parking but of course, we can't risk things like this happening again as a result of it.

 

[Class 170101]

Stations can be a problem from a security point of view as access is somewhat easier than a depot as its an accessible public place, or at least it should be when compared to depots, but of course we have seen stories and incidents where depot access was far too easy.

 

[Horizon22]

Rather than this being an issue, can't we rotate which platforms are used for storing trains? Maybe keep 1 through platform open each week and rotate it so then each track can get inspected.

And could/are any advancements being made to technology to enable passenger trains to be fitted with more track checking sensors or whatever so then the track trains don't need to go around as often and then that eases the situation. It is ok to find places for trains for a night perhaps but every night, much more difficult.


I think it's better for trains to be in stations than in depots for security and it means less taxis for staff hopefully maybe less driver hours too (based on the train not having to go to the depot at all, not even for cleaning). Less land for railway purposes too which is good. More land for other uses. There are benefits to station parking but of course, we can't risk things like this happening again as a result of it.

I believe this occurs at many places. For example at Charing Cross and Cannon St where stabling regularly happens, the platforms do alter so that nightly inspections can be done on alternate nights.

Trains are equally secure in depots - its more stabling that tends to be less secure.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

I believe this occurs at many places. For example at Charing Cross and Cannon St where stabling regularly happens, the platforms do alter so that nightly inspections can be done on alternate nights.

Trains are equally secure in depots - its more stabling that tends to be less secure.

It happens at London Victoria, Brighton, Eastbourne, Littlehampton, Bognor Regis and many other stations too.

 

[syorksdeano]

What seems to be ignored is the fact that the section of track where the incident happened is regularly used by trains in passenger use. Admittedly any passenger train would have been going at slow speed.

 

[WestRiding]

What seems to be ignored is the fact that the section of track where the incident happened is regularly used by trains in passenger use. Admittedly any passenger train would have been going at slow speed.

The section of track which gave way, is/was in fact not used for regular passenger trains. Sheffield has no through trains which do not call. Any passenger trains that use the through line, then go through the centre slip into 1b. But no passenger trains ever use the through line where it gave way. Though technically, they could. It is signalled as such. It was a good way of getting freight through fairly quickly along with empty stock, or for standing light locos awaiting their path North. To this day, the track is still missing, no passenger trains affected, but its made it harder getting freight through.

 

[syorksdeano]

The section of track which gave way, is/was in fact not used for regular passenger trains. Sheffield has no through trains which do not call. Any passenger trains that use the through line, then go through the centre slip into 1b. But no passenger trains ever use the through line where it gave way. Though technically, they could. It is signalled as such. It was a good way of getting freight through fairly quickly along with empty stock, or for standing light locos awaiting their path North. To this day, the track is still missing, no passenger trains affected, but its made it harder getting freight through. View attachment 103765

Ah.

I thought the derailment happened just after the section where the platform ends

 

[_toommm_]

The section of track which gave way, is/was in fact not used for regular passenger trains. Sheffield has no through trains which do not call. Any passenger trains that use the through line, then go through the centre slip into 1b. But no passenger trains ever use the through line where it gave way. Though technically, they could. It is signalled as such. It was a good way of getting freight through fairly quickly along with empty stock, or for standing light locos awaiting their path North. To this day, the track is still missing, no passenger trains affected, but its made it harder getting freight through. View attachment 103765

Presumably you can still signal stock into the through line though that is going to stable there?