• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

GC incident at Peterborough (04/05)

Status
Not open for further replies.

66701GBRF

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2017
Messages
913
Similar incident to last years LUMO incident where train going to fast over point work into P1 at Peterbrough. Though the speed in this incident is reported to be around 45-50mph.

Edit: Last years incident.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
7,476
Location
Gomshall, Surrey
Similar incident to last years LUMO incident where train going to fast over point work into P1 at Peterbrough. Though the speed in this incident is reported to be around 45-50mph.
So, for those of us unfamiliar with what happened last year, is it an over-speed, derailment, SPAD...?
 

bspahh

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2017
Messages
2,433
So, for those of us unfamiliar with what happened last year, is it an over-speed, derailment, SPAD...?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/overspeeding-incident-at-peterborough-station says:

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.
Our investigation is independent of any investigation by the railway industry or by the industry’s regulator, the Office of Rail and Road.

We will publish our findings, including any recommendations to improve safety, at the conclusion of our investigation. This report will be available on our website.
 
Joined
6 May 2022
Messages
91
Location
North
What I find strange is within 10hrs of posting there are only 3 comments on this post yet when it was Lumo there was a lot more with some calling for an RAIB investigation and some rather negative comments towards the driver.

There may be a difference in speed here, but the incident was still the same. Excessive speed over points. Will be interesting to see what the cause is of this, twice within a year, is there some kind of incorrect signalling sequence appearing at PBO?
 

43066

Veteran Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
12,089
Location
London
What I find strange is within 10hrs of posting there are only 3 comments on this post yet when it was Lumo there was a lot more with some calling for an RAIB investigation and some rather negative comments towards the driver.

There may be a difference in speed here, but the incident was still the same. Excessive speed over points. Will be interesting to see what the cause is of this, twice within a year, is there some kind of incorrect signalling sequence appearing at PBO?

The Lumo incident seemed to be reported more widely and included minor injuries. I also seem to remember Lumo at least initially blamed it on the driver making an emergency stop, which prompted some debate.

I doubt there’s any more to it than that.
 

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
5,123
Location
County Durham
Twice in as many years in the same place. Does something need to be done here to reduce the likelihood of an accident?
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,579
Location
Northampton
Twice in as many years in the same place. Does something need to be done here to reduce the likelihood of an accident?
Something is being done - its being fitted with ETCS (I think L2 overlay).
The question is whether there is something that can usefully be done in the meantime that will still be value for money.
 

AJD

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2013
Messages
66
Should be noted that neither GC or Lumo stop at Peterborough and fading route knowledge may play a factor. Once passed out on the route, there may not be enough emphasis on maintaining knowledge on all lines around the stations they pass through. See it happen quite regularly, sadly.

Also what set of points are they meant to have gone too fast over? That RTT link shows the service being routed towards the up slow at Tallington Junction so I'm wondering if it's a different incident to last year's one.

Not sure it's an issue on the signalling side tbh. I drive through that area all the time and I've never experienced any sort of irregular sequencing. If anything, that patch is quite robust. Signallers can be very slow to set routes but certainly no technical issues I'm aware of.
 

andythebrave

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2009
Messages
570
Location
England
Also what set of points are they meant to have gone too fast over? That RTT link shows the service being routed towards the up slow at Tallington Junction so I'm wondering if it's a different incident to last year's one.
The reported times from Stoke through to Werrington would seem to indicate that it remained on the fast.
 

louis97

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,153
Location
Derby
Also what set of points are they meant to have gone too fast over? That RTT link shows the service being routed towards the up slow at Tallington Junction so I'm wondering if it's a different incident to last year's one.
That is a booked line code, not an actual line code. Booked line codes are in grey text, compared to actual line codes in black.
 

Stampy

Member
Joined
21 Sep 2014
Messages
417
Location
Peterborough
Am I reading it correctly that the train was booked to PASS Platform 1 at Peterborough??

That would involve a route OFF the mainline as most of the GC and Lumo trains pass through Platform 3 at Peterborough...
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,576
Location
Torbay
Something is being done - its being fitted with ETCS (I think L2 overlay).
Overlay in the Peterborough area and north thereof on ECML to cater for non fitted trains on east- west axis I understand. No signals, AWS/TPWS south thereof on ECML. Not sure of timescale though.
The question is whether there is something that can usefully be done in the meantime that will still be value for money.
Two incidents in a year suggest a particularly high risk that might justify an interim intervention. PSR OSS on approach, switched by point position as discussed on the other thread? Could be a fairly cheap job I think.

On the other hand, these incidents appears to indicate the 8xx trains hold the road very well, even at extreme overspeed through pointwork! My gut says that the industry was extremely lucky the LUMO case didn't lead to a derailment with very much more visible and possibly tragic consequences, so I suggest it would be worth doing something, even just from a PR perspective.
 
Last edited:

Royston Vasey

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,999
Location
Cambridge
What I find strange is within 10hrs of posting there are only 3 comments on this post yet when it was Lumo there was a lot more with some calling for an RAIB investigation and some rather negative comments towards the driver.

There may be a difference in speed here, but the incident was still the same. Excessive speed over points. Will be interesting to see what the cause is of this, twice within a year, is there some kind of incorrect signalling sequence appearing at PBO?
But there is no source for the information here - not even Twitter. Someone saying "Reported to be" is not a source.

I'm not saying it is made up, but it could be, and it would be rather speculative, even for this place, to demand recriminations based on no sourced information or even any detail in the OP.

I am sure something like a preliminary statement from RAIB, or reports of injuries, would generate as much fuss as the Lumo event.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,100
Location
Redcar
On the other hand, these incident appears to indicate the 8xx trains hold the road very well, even at extreme overspeed through pointwork!
Worth noting that GC operate 180s not 80xs.
 

Towers

Established Member
Joined
30 Aug 2021
Messages
2,999
Location
UK
On the other hand, these incidents appears to indicate the 8xx trains hold the road very well, even at extreme overspeed through pointwork!
Just not at normal operating speeds!
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,579
Location
Northampton
Overlay in the Peterborough area and north thereof on ECML to cater for non fitted trains on east- west axis I understand. No signals, AWS/TPWS south thereof on ECML. Not sure of timescale though.
Yes, that's my understanding as well - preserving non-ETCS access to the Ely line. Not sure if signals will stay as far south as Fletton for the NVR, but that would be a natural limit so that drivers get a full aspect sequence into Peterborough station.
On the other hand, these incidents appears to indicate the 8xx trains hold the road very well, even at extreme overspeed through pointwork! My gut says that the industry was extremely lucky the LUMO case didn't lead to a derailment with very much more visible and possibly tragic consequences, so I suggest it would be worth doing something, even just from a PR perspective.
A PR job is worse than nothing, because it will inevitably be ineffective. The switched TPWS is probably the most feasible option as it would be a very minimal change to the maintenance and operational workload.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,576
Location
Torbay
Yes, that's my understanding as well - preserving non-ETCS access to the Ely line. Not sure if signals will stay as far south as Fletton for the NVR, but that would be a natural limit so that drivers get a full aspect sequence into Peterborough station.

A PR job is worse than nothing, because it will inevitably be ineffective. The switched TPWS is probably the most feasible option as it would be a very minimal change to the maintenance and operational workload.
I meant it could be worth doing the cheap switched TPWS job 'for PR reasons', even if safety professionals calculated the risk of not doing it was theoretically tolerable.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,579
Location
Northampton
I meant it could be worth doing the cheap switched TPWS job 'for PR reasons', even if safety professionals calculated the risk of not doing it was theoretically tolerable.
Given the amount of mainstream attention the incidents have received, attempting to make a fuss about solving this issue could do more harm than good by drawing attention to the fact it happened in the first place.

It depends how easy it would be to get the control feed out of the interlocking to power the TPWS. If there's something that can be tapped into at the Location cabinet adding in the controls would be reasonably straightforward. However if it requires tinkering with the actual interlocking in Peterborough PSB then I can see the numbers not adding up.
 

TheBigD

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2008
Messages
2,043
But there is no source for the information here - not even Twitter. Someone saying "Reported to be" is not a source.

I'm not saying it is made up, but it could be, and it would be rather speculative, even for this place, to demand recriminations based on no sourced information or even any detail in the OP.

I am sure something like a preliminary statement from RAIB, or reports of injuries, would generate as much fuss as the Lumo event.

Some people have access to the TRUST details/Control logs etc and will know what has been reported but for sensible reasons wouldn't post an extract of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Am I reading it correctly that the train was booked to PASS Platform 1 at Peterborough??

That would involve a route OFF the mainline as most of the GC and Lumo trains pass through Platform 3 at Peterborough...

That particular GC train regularly runs through platform 1 as it is booked to be overtaken by a LNER train between Stoke tunnel and Peterborough. The same train also gets passed by a LNER train during it's 15 minute stop at York, then gets looped at Doncaster for a Lumo service to pass it. It's a crap path that has been added around other services.

For reference, you can access the up slow at Stoke Jn, Tallington, New England, and Spittal/Peterborough North. You can access the the up fast from the up slow at Tallington, Werrington, Spittal/Peterborough North, and Fletton Jn.

Depending upon how other services are running this service will tale any combination of the above!

LNER's Middlesbrough to Kings Cross also runs slow line Stoke to Peterborough to allow a Grand Central service to overtake.
 
Last edited:

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,576
Location
Torbay
Given the amount of mainstream attention the incidents have received, attempting to make a fuss about solving this issue could do more harm than good by drawing attention to the fact it happened in the first place.
Very good point. So the best PR strategy might be silence, but have material ready if challenged while mitigation goes ahead.
It depends how easy it would be to get the control feed out of the interlocking to power the TPWS. If there's something that can be tapped into at the Location cabinet adding in the controls would be reasonably straightforward. However if it requires tinkering with the actual interlocking in Peterborough PSB then I can see the numbers not adding up.
Looks like Altom MkIIIA SSI through the station, commissioned 2004, and still controlled from Peterborough PSB, so a data change might be required as well as local wiring in cabinets nearby.
Info from British Power Signalling Register https://bpsr.org.uk/
The British Power Signalling Register is a free listing and historical analysis of all power signalling equipment installations ever commissioned in Britain from 1883 to the present day, excluding London Underground and metro networks.
 
Last edited:

Evolution

Member
Joined
29 Jun 2016
Messages
232
Location
Manchester
I don’t sign the route myself but sign routes with a similar layout.

I’m I right in thinking you get double flashing yellows for platform 1 at Peterborough if coming off the fast lines?

Surely a quick and easy solution would be approach control, check you down to the red that then pulls off when the speed is well down, thus avoiding an over speed. This is how it’s done on quite a few of the routes I drive.
 

66701GBRF

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2017
Messages
913
I don’t sign the route myself but sign routes with a similar layout.

I’m I right in thinking you get double flashing yellows for platform 1 at Peterborough if coming off the fast lines?

Surely a quick and easy solution would be approach control, check you down to the red that then pulls off when the speed is well down, thus avoiding an over speed. This is how it’s done on quite a few of the routes I drive.

I am not sure but I think that particular route in conventional approach release. Maybe someone else can confirm but how far is the protecting signal from the points? I wonder if it's a case of the train being checked down correctly, the signal coming off but for whatever reason the junction indicator not registering with the driver and due to modern units acceleration capabilities getting to a higher speed than what you would have got with the older trains?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Some people have access to the TRUST details/Control logs etc and will know what has been reported but for sensible reasons wouldn't post an extract of it.
^This^
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
8,388
Location
Back in Sussex
This is hardly a 'modern' event, I remember a it happening a couple of times in the late 90s so it's not exactly got anybody enthused enough to do anything
 

louis97

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,153
Location
Derby
I don’t sign the route myself but sign routes with a similar layout.

I’m I right in thinking you get double flashing yellows for platform 1 at Peterborough if coming off the fast lines?

Surely a quick and easy solution would be approach control, check you down to the red that then pulls off when the speed is well down, thus avoiding an over speed. This is how it’s done on quite a few of the routes I drive.
You do get flashing yellows, although arguable according to current standards you shouldn't. The turnout is 30mph (it then drops to 25mph for the turnout towards Platform 1) with a line speed of above 75mph, the current standards say that at line speeds above 75mph the turnout speed is a minimum of 40mph for flashing yellows to be permitted.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,576
Location
Torbay
Maybe someone else can confirm but how far is the protecting signal from the points? I wonder if it's a case of the train being checked down correctly, the signal coming off but for whatever reason the junction indicator not registering with the driver and due to modern units acceleration capabilities getting to a higher speed than what you would have got with the older trains?
It's just over 700m from signal to first turnout, and the approach release from red might be very early anyway as the approach is dead straight and a PLJI (Position Light Junction Indicator) is used, so sighting and readability is probably very good. The driver might be nearly a mile from the turnout at the point at which the aspect steps up.
 

Royston Vasey

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,999
Location
Cambridge
Some people have access to the TRUST details/Control logs etc and will know what has been reported but for sensible reasons wouldn't post an extract of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Absolutely, and I am sure it happened, but the poster I quoted can hardly expect a mass debate without anything to go on, that can be publicly revealed...
 
Last edited:

66701GBRF

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2017
Messages
913
It's just over 700m from signal to first turnout, and the approach release from red might be very early anyway as the approach is dead straight and a PLJI (Position Light Junction Indicator) is used, so sighting and readability is probably very good. The driver might be nearly a mile from the turnout at the point at which the aspect steps up.
Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top