Lumo overspeed incident at Peterborough (17/04/2022)

[Jason48]

Would the driver have had to be relieved at Peterborough for drink/drug test? If this doesn't fall under the category for such a thing, why not?! I'm guessing he/she was quite shook up by the incident as well to continue? Where would Lumo find a replacement driver? Although the passengers on board have every right to be upset, they should also be thanking their lucky stars it wasn't much more serious.

Yes he would be taken off and tested as its classed as an Operational incident. Interview with an on call manager too

 

[james_the_xv]

The statement suggests an emergency brake application was the cause of the injuries. Witness statements from onboard suggest otherwise. It just wasn't a very good statement.

It is in the best interest of Lumo to not say anything which may admit fault where any RAIB/BTP investigation is on the cards. It’s not about the PR - it’s the legal side that’s more important for them in a corporate sense at the moment.

 

[Watershed]

They have a responsibility to protect the driver until a investigation has been completed.

They don't have any such responsibility. But in any case, the driver's identity will remain confidential, regardless of fault.

 

[Darandio]

It is in the best interest of Lumo to not say anything which may admit fault where any RAIB/BTP investigation is on the cards. It’s not about the PR - it’s the legal side that’s more important for them in a corporate sense at the moment.

Indeed and it's not a situation unusual to the railway. What is unusual is that they have already publicly attributed the incident to an emergency brake application. Normally such a statement would have simply claimed the issue to be under investigation.

 

[43096]

They have a responsibility to protect the driver until a investigation has been completed.

No-one's asking them to name the driver.

They'd be well advised to go for a bit of honesty. What's been said so far doesn't stack up with what the passengers have said.

 

[tony6499]

The RAIB report will be interesting as an emergency stop doesn't see a train rocking from side to side nearly coming off of the rails, that would have been taking the junction far above the permitted speed.

 

[Megafuss]

They don't have any such responsibility. But in any case, the driver's identity will remain confidential, regardless of fault.

They have a responsibility to ensure the member of staff concerned has a fair hearing. Releasing a statement effectively throwing them under the bus while an investigation is ongoing would be a "bold strategy"

 

[the sniper]

I agree - though I’m sure the RAIB investigator wannabes in here want all the info up to and including the OTDR and signalling data

There will be people here who know far more than is public. There's a difference between being vague and giving entirely the wrong impression of what has occurred. Unless people would have been injured by the EBA regardless?

 

[thejuggler]

Frightening for all involved, including no doubt the driver (appreciating the speeds involved do drivers look at points to see how they are set?).

However if the set did hit a 30 point at 80 it probably demonstrates just how well modern rolling stock can handle unexpected occurences.

 

[cambsy]

I think, the investigation and report of this incident, will make interesting reading, as seems, quite a few things at play here, the signalling of the train, over slow and complicated set of points, is not great, when a through line of 105mph, is available, so maybe best route a stopping train through these points, as its expecting to stop and, not a train booked non stop, as this would remove a risk, and looks possible, that the driver got caught out by signalling in front of him, unexpected route, through platform 1, and if the train did indeed, go through the points close to or 80mph, then the railways, were very lucky, there wasn’t a big derailment and crash, and im surprised if the speed is true, that there was very little impact to other services, at the same time, and after the incident.

 

[james_the_xv]

Indeed and it's not a situation unusual to the railway. What is unusual is that they have already publicly attributed the incident to an emergency brake application. Normally such a statement would have simply claimed the issue to be under investigation.

Which might be down to inexperience as a TOC, especially as there has been a fair amount of pressure on twitter to release an explanation - but its also better to wrongly attribute an incident to something that does not infer blame to any party than attribute it to something which might infer blame (driver error or signalling irregularities)

 

[Efini92]

I think, the investigation and report of this incident, will make interesting reading, as seems, quite a few things at play here, the signalling of the train, over slow and complicated set of points, is not great, when a through line of 105mph, is available, so maybe best route a stopping train through these points, as its expecting to stop and, not a train booked non stop, as this would remove a risk, and looks possible, that the driver got caught out by signalling in front of him, unexpected route, through platform 1, and if the train did indeed, go through the points close to or 80mph, then the railways, were very lucky, there wasn’t a big derailment and crash, and im surprised if the speed is true, that there was very little impact to other services, at the same time, and after the incident.

Isn’t the signalling there all recently renewed? I doubt there’s any issues with the signalling. It’s more likely the driver was stopped or nearly stopped and didn’t see the junction indicator when it cleared.

 

[GB]

They have a responsibility to ensure the member of staff concerned has a fair hearing. Releasing a statement effectively throwing them under the bus while an investigation is ongoing would be a "bold strategy"

I don't think anyone is suggesting they should have said "Our driver, Joe Bloggs, drove the train too fast over a set of points almost to the point of derailment. He has been stood down, medscreened and is now having his entire career picked over".

Lying by effectively stating the emergency brake application caused the injures and was the only incident is pretty poor and underhanded. It at least gives a poor and erroneous image about what happens during an emergency brake application.

 

[DanNCL]

I do have to wonder based on the wording of the Lumo statement if a possibility could be something similar to what happened with a 385 back in 2018 whereby (if I recall correctly) a software problem limited the effectiveness of the brakes, which led to them being grounded for a while.

People here are being very quick to blame the driver, and whilst that would be the most likely explanation it’s not the only plausible one.

I meant in the sense that it would imply everyone was delayed by an hour or more, but surely that's not going to be the case? Some people will depart on an LNER service which gets them to their destination more quickly surely.

In this case almost all will have been - ticket acceptance was declined for the 12:00 and 13:00 LNER departures from Kings across and only offered on the 12:30 and 13:30. I’m not sure about southbound.

 

[Starmill]

They have a responsibility to ensure the member of staff concerned has a fair hearing. Releasing a statement effectively throwing them under the bus while an investigation is ongoing would be a "bold strategy"

So you'd release a statement apologising for the disruption and for any alarm caused, confirming that everyone is OK other than some minor injuries, and saying that an investigation has begun and you'll have more information soon. But that's not what they did.

 

[Megafuss]

I don't think anyone is suggesting they should have said "Our driver, Joe Bloggs, drove the train too fast over a set of points almost to the point of derailment. He has been stood down, medscreened and is now having his entire career picked over".

Lying by effectively stating the emergency brake application caused the injures and was the only incident is pretty poor and underhanded. It at least gives a poor and erroneous image about what happens during an emergency brake application.

You don't know they are lying. I don't know they are lying. So leave it to the the RAIB and Lumo will need to deal with any fallout. Simple as that

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Not the first time something like this has happened at Peterborough, if the chap who authored traintesting.com is to be believed. A remarkably similar occurrence under ‘A Very Close Call’ relating stories about when IC225 was under testing in the late 80s.

http://www.traintesting.com/ic225_9.htm

A very close call

Another occasion I remember well was an ‘incident’ at Peterborough. We had been to Grantham on another ordinary run where we had picked up several traction inspectors from the Doncaster area to give them a taste of the locomotive.
The train was made up of a class 91 – five Mk3 sleepers and an HST DVT. We set off back to Bounds Green with the HST leading and had dawdled down Stoke behind a local I think. I was in the blunt end of the class 91 at the rear of the train. As we had been following another train we had been running on double yellows at about 30 mile/h and as we approached Peterborough the signals cleared to green
North of Peterborough was the controlling signal for the Up platform 2 which at the time had a fibre-optic route indicator display instead of the more common separate route indicators. These consisted of 5 white lights in a row for each possible route and known as ‘feathers’. However the principal was the same, the direction of the route set would be indicated on a large black screen adjacent to the signal head. Hence if the train was routed into the Up platform the left pointing horizontal ‘feather’ would be illuminated. If into the Down Slow the upper left ‘feather’ at approx 45 degrees, if into the Down Fast (on the opposite side) the upper right ‘feather’ at approx 45 degrees etc and if no feathers were lit then the route would be set for the Up line.
So we were headed towards Peterborough under clear signals with the display blank i.e. a clear road through on the same Up Fast line hence no ‘feathers’ were lit – so the driver opened her up.
At the time we had approx 8000 HP available hence we took off like a rocket.
As we were approaching the turnouts for the Up platform the driver and inspectors noted to their dismay that they were set for the platform road and a 30 mph restriction applied when turning onto the Up Slow with a 20 mph restriction from Up Slow to the Up Platform 2. From estimates we were probably doing about 70 when we hit the first turnout. Needless to say the brakes were applied but even so I was thrown about in the class 91 as it lurched right then left then right again before stopping. We must have entered the platform at about 40 mile/h but came safely to a stand.
The Power Box was contacted to find out why the route set was different to the indications – quite what was said was not clear but the outcome was an enquiry and investigation which I understand discovered that the fibre-optic route indicator display was faulty and was indeed displaying nothing at all. Indications in the power box were normal hence when the route was set the display showed that the fibre-optic route indicator was operating correctly.
Lucky for the driver that he had several expert witnesses in the cab with him! Lucky for us all that the train didn’t derail and end up on platform 2 instead of alongside it!

A very near miss!

Not long after the incident the traditional type of route indicator ‘feathers’ were installed at the signal.

 

[choochoochoo]

I've been on trains that have done emergency stops. It was certainly harsh but not "throw people from their seats and luggage from the overhead racks and injure a few dozen people harsh".

Not saying that Lumo are playing fast and loose with the sequence of events and omitting key details but...

I frequently have 'emergency stops' at 75mph on the hertford loop when pheasants hit my tripcock.

Definitely won't throw you from your seat.

 

[muz379]

At this moment in time there will realistically only be a small pool of people with detailed enough information to piece together what has really happened . Then of course there is the driver themselves who will also likely know . That won't stretch to PR teams

I think in PR terms the less that they said whilst acknowledging the incident the better . Really all they need to say at this point is that they are aware of an incident , that affected customers are being contacted. Then something about the incident being investigated and lumo cooperating with other agencies investigations .

Talking about emergency brakes in the way they have makes it sound like there's some inherent issue and in a situation when emergency brakes are applied there is a risk of injury from flying luggage which is simply not the case .

 

[Starmill]

Talking about emergency brakes in the way they have makes it sound like there's some inherent issue and in a situation when emergency brakes are applied there is a risk of injury from flying luggage which is simply not the case .

It definitely does. It's quite concerning.

 

[brad465]

The BBC article above is now the site's most read article.

 

[AndrewE]

if the train did indeed, go through the points close to or 80mph, then the railways, were very lucky, there wasn’t a big derailment and crash, and im surprised if the speed is true, that there was very little impact to other services, at the same time, and after the incident.

Not the first time something like this has happened at Peterborough, if the chap who authored traintesting.com is to be believed. A remarkably similar occurrence under ‘A Very Close Call’ relating stories about when IC225 was under testing in the late 80s.

http://www.traintesting.com/ic225_9.htm

and also happened on the LMS during their speed record attempt in 1937: https://preservedbritishsteamlocomo...2-lms-stanier-princess-coronation-or-duchess/ (but not because of driver error)

The speed record was broken on the gentle descent from Whitmore to Crewe and it is well known that Riddles who was on the footplate of the locomotive delayed the breaking for the Crewe stop in order to achieve the speed record.

so trains can stay on the tracks in conditions that the public would never believe. Not necessarily "safe," certainly not ideal but not neccessarily life-threatening.
I shall always remember my first footplate ride in 1975 when the Peak went over a p-way jack that hadn't been let down in time near Worcester. The loco reared up, the driver just commented "that will have broken the jack!"
A bit later on the footplate, about midnight on an electric train Brum to Crewe in about 1978 I couldn't believe that the loco wasn't going to jump the track - and that was just in normal running!
A

 

[Watershed]

Which might be down to inexperience as a TOC, especially as there has been a fair amount of pressure on twitter to release an explanation - but its also better to wrongly attribute an incident to something that does not infer blame to any party than attribute it to something which might infer blame (driver error or signalling irregularities)

It would be better to say it's still "under investigation" than to give a misleading explanation.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I’m not going to comment on the exact circumstances of the incident (those of you who know me and know of my connection to Lumo will know why) but nobody here knows how long before, if at all, the brake was put in emergency before the train hit the points or the de-acceleration effect afterwards.

For those of you that haven’t experienced an emergency brake application from a relatively high speed on an 800 series unit, it’s completely different to that experienced on an HST or modern EMU. If you are standing up or not sitting securely in your seat, you will be at risk. Luggage will move too, depending on size and how it is stowed.

That is all before you hit any points and potentially get displaced by the sideways movement and then you have those remaining de-acceleration effects to consider.

People should be very careful about throwing accusations of lying if they don’t know the full facts to disprove them. The reasons for LUMO saying what they have said have been stated above, by calmer posters. It’s the job of the RAIB to determine the full facts here.

 

[43096]

Which might be down to inexperience as a TOC, especially as there has been a fair amount of pressure on twitter to release an explanation - but its also better to wrongly attribute an incident to something that does not infer blame to any party than attribute it to something which might infer blame (driver error or signalling irregularities)

This isn't some totally new operation that has no corporate history of operating trains - First have been a train operator for 25 years now.

 

[800001]

There wasn't a train in platform 3. 1A81 0757 Bradford Interchange to London Kings Cross left before 1000. 1Y16 0754 Newcastle to London Kings Cross was behind the Lumo service.

Oops that’s what I got told.

 

[ComUtoR]

Lying by effectively stating the emergency brake application caused the injures and was the only incident is pretty poor and underhanded. It at least gives a poor and erroneous image about what happens during an emergency brake application.

Which came first. The brake application or blasting through the points ?

An emergency brake at 80mph can be pretty heavy. If you consider what happens during an attachment then you also understand how low speed braking also affects passengers onboard.

 

[Cowley]

Today’s RAIB statement is here:

Overspeeding incident at Peterborough station

Overspeeding incident at Peterborough station, Cambridgeshire, 17 April 2022.

www.gov.uk

At around 10:20 hrs on 17 April 2022, the 08:20 hrs Newcastle to King’s Cross service, operated by Lumo, passed over three sets of points at the north end of Peterborough station at a speed of 75 mph (121 km/h). This was above the maximum permitted speed limit for these points of 25 mph (40 km/h). Passing over the points at this speed meant that the train suddenly lurched sideways.

The sudden movement of the train resulted in some passengers being thrown from their seats and in luggage falling from the overhead storage in the passenger compartments. This resulted in a number of minor injuries being sustained by passengers. The train subsequently came to a stand beyond the far end of Peterborough station. The train did not derail during the incident, and no damage was caused to the infrastructure of the railway, or to the vehicles involved.

The train involved in the incident was not due to call at Peterborough and had originally been approaching the station on a fast line, before being routed onto a slower line via the points where the overspeed occurred. The route onto this slower line was being displayed on the signal situated on the approach to the points.

Our investigation will seek to identify the sequence of events which led to this incident. It will include consideration of:

• the way in which the train was driven
• any factors which may have influenced the actions of the driver of the train
• the condition of the signalling system at the time of the incident
• the nature of the reported injuries
• any underlying management factors.

 

[Watershed]

Today’s RAIB statement is here:

Overspeeding incident at Peterborough station

Overspeeding incident at Peterborough station, Cambridgeshire, 17 April 2022.

www.gov.uk

So there we go, it's in black and white that the injuries weren't caused by the 'emergency stop' as Lumo misleadingly claimed, but by the lurching resulting from the overspeed. Not that that's any surprise.

 

[bramling]

So there we go, it's in black and white that the injuries weren't caused by the 'emergency stop' as Lumo misleadingly claimed, but by the lurching resulting from the overspeed. Not that that's any surprise.

This is a pretty poor showing from Lumo. As we knew, not an emergency stop, but running through points at three times the permitted speed, which they would have known about pretty soon after the incident.