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

[TreacleMiller]

It's a JI (for Junction Indicator) and that is a very poor photo, the human eye would see it much better / clearer than that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jul 2023 ==

The human eye certainly does.

 

[800001]

The human eye certainly does.

There LED signals I believe round there? So very bright?

 

[Horizon22]

I wondered this too, as 1Y16 was booked to stop at PBO, one would have thought the Lumo service would be approaching Connington by the time the LNER was ready to depart (if the running order had been maintained). The report refers to the signaller deciding to regulate, but I wonder if the source was a misguided request from LNER which should have been declined?

With a train running 4 early, and the LNER 20 late, I think that's a perfectly valid regulation decision. 1Y16 was also booked into Platform 3 so no need to make platform changes. You'd reduce the overall delay, even though it had still failed all performance metrics.

 

[38Cto15E]

The sighting of the route indicator (feather) on P468 in the video isn’t very clear. This is not helped by being rather divorced from the green below it. Perhaps if the green was moved to the top position on the signal the feather would have been more obvious. To me it looks like the driver concentrated on the green without noticing the feather.
View attachment 138864

My thoughts entirely.

 

[TreacleMiller]

There LED signals I believe round there? So very bright?

Could see it from space.

But, in all seriousness, whilst the junction isn't great it's a valuable lesson for me as a reasonably new driver.

Quite what either of them were thinking is beyond me. Unfamiliar moves = slow and steady.

Imagine it's only a matter of time before incidents on the slow lines around there really catch out drivers from TOCs that dont use them at all.

 

[IanXC]

I have a fair bit of sympathy for this driver given:

- The deficiencies identified in Lumo route learning materials
- The limited exposure to this route even with the flashing aspects
- Having never seen the route set without the flashing aspects
- The questionable derogation that allowed this set up in the first place
- The signal head having been replaced with an LED one thus would be much brighter than the Junction Indicator
- The fact the new signal head was outside specification for distance to the Junction Indicator
- The fact the Junction Indicator, when lit, was aligned with the structure of the bridge and so far from the green aspect
- That even after this incident another driver managed to have exactly the same incident a year later!

 

[Watershed]

I have a fair bit of sympathy for this driver given:

- The deficiencies identified in Lumo route learning materials
- The limited exposure to this route even with the flashing aspects
- Having never seen the route set without the flashing aspects
- The questionable derogation that allowed this set up in the first place
- The signal head having been replaced with an LED one thus would be much brighter than the Junction Indicator
- The fact the new signal head was outside specification for distance to the Junction Indicator
- The fact the Junction Indicator, when lit, was aligned with the structure of the bridge and so far from the green aspect
- That even after this incident another driver managed to have exactly the same incident a year later!

Indeed. It may have been a human error, but for it to happen twice in a year suggests that there are systemic risks which need to be addressed. I would concur with others who find it strange that the signalling standards allow for the signal to step up to green, given the substantial distance between the signal and the (much slower) diverging pointwork it protects. I'm sure there are other slow-speed junctions where the signal can only display a yellow aspect when cleared for the diverging route - what's the reason behind this disparity?

As for Lumo, it's obvious that their "stack them high and sell them cheap" strategy has contributed to the severity of the outcome. People shouldn't be having to put bulky suitcases in overhead racks; there should be sufficient space provided at floor level. Many people struggle to lift luggage up that high anyway. I do have some sympathy with the luggage restrictions they've introduced following the incident - some people really do take the kitchen sink with them when they travel - but it's not sufficient on its own, and they should have been doing something about it far sooner rather than waiting for the publication of the RAIB report.

 

[greatkingrat]

Could see it from space.

But, in all seriousness, whilst the junction isn't great it's a valuable lesson for me as a reasonably new driver.

Quite what either of them were thinking is beyond me. Unfamiliar moves = slow and steady.

Imagine it's only a matter of time before incidents on the slow lines around there really catch out drivers from TOCs that dont use them at all.

But the point is they didn't think they were doing an unfamiliar move, they though they were going straight through on the fast line.

 

[dk1]

Could see it from space.

Agreed (and one of my favourite comments so far).

 

[Purple Train]

I have a fair bit of sympathy for this driver given:

- The deficiencies identified in Lumo route learning materials
- The limited exposure to this route even with the flashing aspects
- Having never seen the route set without the flashing aspects
- The questionable derogation that allowed this set up in the first place
- The signal head having been replaced with an LED one thus would be much brighter than the Junction Indicator
- The fact the new signal head was outside specification for distance to the Junction Indicator
- The fact the Junction Indicator, when lit, was aligned with the structure of the bridge and so far from the green aspect
- That even after this incident another driver managed to have exactly the same incident a year later!

Agreed.

I presume the differing brightness of the feather in relation to the signal head would be the major mental cue to identifying them as unrelated. That being said, given Lumo's strategy is as stated in post #368, would that have also led to cutting corners on "Customer Driver" training?

 

[LAX54]

Agreed.

I presume the differing brightness of the feather in relation to the signal head would be the major mental cue to identifying them as unrelated. That being said, given Lumo's strategy is as stated in post #368, would that have also led to cutting corners on "Customer Driver" training?

The video is poor though, with the 'camera' covered in dead bugs etc, plus it's off the driver's eye line, so will appear 'dimmer'
the actual route lights will be bright, reckon it just didnt register.

As for stepping up to a green, possible pressure from TOC's previously, wanting a Green vice Yellow, to avoid the 'delay' that a single yellow may introduce to the service.

 

[D6130]

Agreed.

I presume the differing brightness of the feather in relation to the signal head would be the major mental cue to identifying them as unrelated. That being said, given Lumo's strategy is as stated in post #368, would that have also led to cutting corners on "Customer Driver" training?

....but we're there really differences in brightness between the signal aspect and the route indicator? In my experience, white LED route indicators are even brighter than the coloured main aspects

 

[TreacleMiller]

But the point is they didn't think they were doing an unfamiliar move, they though they were going straight through on the fast line.

Yes I'm aware, the signal is visible though.

 

[Railsigns]

As for stepping up to a green, possible pressure from TOC's previously, wanting a Green vice Yellow, to avoid the 'delay' that a single yellow may introduce to the service.

It's standard practice to let a junction signal step up to the appropriate aspect according to the conditions ahead once the approach release conditions are satisfied. Holding the junction signal at a restrictive aspect until the train approaches is what controls its speed through the junction, not the aspect that the signal steps up to.

 

[43066]

As for stepping up to a green, possible pressure from TOC's previously, wanting a Green vice Yellow, to avoid the 'delay' that a single yellow may introduce to the service.

This is a standard arrangement all over the network. Drivers need to a. React correctly to the signal aspects theyre getting, and b. know the speed of the various turnouts on the junctions they sign.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

It seems the driver just saw what he was hoping and expecting to see, a green signal, and the junction indicator either wasn’t seen or didn’t register. Lessons for us all.

 

[Stampy]

Excuse my ignorance, but shouldn't the driver had "flashing yellows" on the approach to the diverging signal if they were being diverted through Platform 1 ??

And am I correct in thinking that IF the driver of the Lumo was diverted through Platform 1 to allow the late-running LNER train to overtake - the Lumo driver should have only got a DOUBLE YELLOW, as the next 2 signals would be at the end of P1 and the next one at Fletton Junction??

 

[jfollows]

Excuse my ignorance, but shouldn't the driver had "flashing yellows" on the approach to the diverging signal if they were being diverted through Platform 1 ??

And am I correct in thinking that IF the driver of the Lumo was diverted through Platform 1 to allow the late-running LNER train to overtake - the Lumo driver should have only got a DOUBLE YELLOW, as the next 2 signals would be at the end of P1 and the next one at Fletton Junction??

Flashing yellows only apply if the speed differential between the straight route and the diverging route is lower than it is; when the diverging route is significantly slower (as in this case) approach control is used which is more restrictive. Flashing yellows are allowed more nowadays than when they were first introduced, but still can't be used where the turnout is significantly slower.
For example, https://www.rssb.co.uk/-/media/Proj...Standards/2020/09/16/10/40/GKRT0032-Iss-2.pdf

Flashing yellows (can be used) if:

1. It is not possible to apply either an unrestricted aspect sequence or a free yellow at the junction.
2. Approach control from red is too restrictive to enable trains to take the diverging route at the permissible speed (taking into account also the permissible speed beyond the junction on the diverging route).

In this case, approach control from red is appropriate.

 

[martin2345uk]

Flashing yellows only apply if the speed differential between the straight route and the diverging route is lower than it is; when the diverging route is significantly slower (as in this case) approach control is used which is more restrictive. Flashing yellows are allowed more nowadays than when they were first introduced, but still can't be used where the turnout is significantly slower.
For example, https://www.rssb.co.uk/-/media/Proj...Standards/2020/09/16/10/40/GKRT0032-Iss-2.pdf

I think the RAIB report does say that flashing yellows ARE used on the diverging route in question, into Platform 1, when certain criteria are met..? Am I misreading?

 

[4COR]

Excuse my ignorance, but shouldn't the driver had "flashing yellows" on the approach to the diverging signal if they were being diverted through Platform 1 ??

And am I correct in thinking that IF the driver of the Lumo was diverted through Platform 1 to allow the late-running LNER train to overtake - the Lumo driver should have only got a DOUBLE YELLOW, as the next 2 signals would be at the end of P1 and the next one at Fletton Junction??

If you read the report fully (paragraph 69), it explains that, since no route was set from the junction after P468 (locked since the train in front 1L06 was still crossing over to the lines towards Ely) the previous two signals were held as single and double yellow respectively.

Once the Lumo had passed the double, non-flashing yellows at P486, it then is not permitted to be offered a flashing single yellow at P474 (even though P468 now has a route set into platform 1), and instead has approach release from red on P468.

 

[66701GBRF]

Flashing aspects will be suppressed if there is a delay in setting a route and the driver cannot receive all flashing aspect indications.

 

[Stampy]

Indeed, just re-read the report...

Like others it seems odd to route the train via the slow line at Peterborough Station - when they could have done it further South, if needed - maybe by putting the Lumo on the slow from Huntingdon??

 

[800001]

Indeed, just re-read the report...

Like others it seems odd to route the train via the slow line at Peterborough Station - when they could have done it further South, if needed - maybe by putting the Lumo on the slow from Huntingdon??

Then it all depends what other trains, GTR, Great Northern etc are on the slow lines, Peterborough May have been the easiest place to get the trains back into correct order.

 

[AJD]

Flashing yellows only apply if the speed differential between the straight route and the diverging route is lower than it is, when the diverging route is significantly slower (as in this case) approach control is used which is more restrictive. Flashing yellows are allowed more nowadays than when they were first introduced, but still can't be used where the turnout is significantly slower.

The approach to platform 1 and 2 from the up fast at Peterborough does include the use of flashing yellows. As stated in a recent post, it all depends on when the route is set relative to the inhibition point. Had it myself last week! The distance between P468 and the initial 30mph turnout allowed for an ideal braking curve using about 30% brake force from sighting the double flashing yellow, so to me the way they have set it up makes logical sense and I've often said there's nothing inherently wrong with the layout around Peterborough. It has a few little quirks, but that makes it easier to remember in my book as it stands out a little more. Just my 2p worth.

Imagine it's only a matter of time before incidents on the slow lines around there really catch out drivers from TOCs that dont use them at all.

I pray this doesn't become an issue. Despite being routed on the fast lines practically every day, I still put the same amount of time into learning and maintaining knowledge on all of the slow lines so that when I do get routed onto any of them, I don't bat an eyelid. Been advising new starters for years that we sign the lot and there's really no excuse to not learn them. I'm told one trainee at another depot was recently failed for declaring that they don't need to know any of the slow lines on their final pass out! And another who refused to take a route offered by the signaller that wasn't on the fast line despite it being part of our core route. It's fair to say I'm met with polite resistance when I suggest reviewing slow line speeds until I point out that learning 3-4 different speed changes in as much as 40 miles isn't unreasonable or beyond their ability considering the lengthy selection process and rules course that preceded handling.

 

[TreacleMiller]

Should be noted - you are "flashed" into Platform 1/2 usually when calling.

In this instance a red was shown to control approach speed.

Peterborough both north and south at Fletton do flash on some occasions, on others they do not.

It's more often than not that I'm slowed down in the up direction, regardless of stopping pattern as its a busy station and there are freight operations in and around the area too.

Flashing yellows only apply if the speed differential between the straight route and the diverging route is lower than it is; when the diverging route is significantly slower (as in this case) approach control is used which is more restrictive. Flashing yellows are allowed more nowadays than when they were first introduced, but still can't be used where the turnout is significantly slower.
For example, https://www.rssb.co.uk/-/media/Proj...Standards/2020/09/16/10/40/GKRT0032-Iss-2.pdf

In this case, approach control from red is appropriate.

 

[12LDA28C]

Not really. Approach release (ie brought down to a red that steps up)

I was always taught quite firmly that there's no such thing as an approach release signal, the correct term would be approach controlled and I certainly wouldn't expect an experienced driver to describe a signal as the former, especially on a Rules exam. If you teach drivers to expect that the signal will always 'step up', that's just a SPaD waiting to happen.

 

[dk1]

I was always taught quite firmly that there's no such thing as an approach release signal, the correct term would be approach controlled and I certainly wouldn't expect an experienced driver to describe a signal as the former, especially on a Rules exam. If you teach drivers to expect that the signal will always 'step up', that's just a SPaD waiting to happen.

Never assume

 

[skyhigh]

I was always taught quite firmly that there's no such thing as an approach release signal, the correct term would be approach controlled and I certainly wouldn't expect an experienced driver to describe a signal as the former, especially on a Rules exam. If you teach drivers to expect that the signal will always 'step up', that's just a SPaD waiting to happen.

Our TOC doesn't even acknowledge that approach controlled signals exist. You are simply told to drive assuming the red will stay red (and if that signal normally clears at a certain point that just happens to be chance, there is no reason for it).

 

[WAB]

Indeed, just re-read the report...

Like others it seems odd to route the train via the slow line at Peterborough Station - when they could have done it further South, if needed - maybe by putting the Lumo on the slow from Huntingdon??

Are the regulating decisions something which should cause concern? From my layman's perspective, signallers should be free to route trains as they wish (within the bounds of route knowledge and traction clearance) without worrying that the driver is not going to know the route they sign.

 

[Railsigns]

Once the Lumo had passed the double, non-flashing yellows at P486, it then is not permitted to be offered a flashing single yellow at P474 (even though P468 now has a route set into platform 1), and instead has approach release from red on P468.

Even though it passed P486 without the flashing double yellow aspect being displayed, it could still have been shown a flashing single yellow aspect at P474 had it not been so close to the signal when the route from P468 was set. It is not necessary to inhibit a flashing sequence just because the driver wouldn't see the flashing double yellow.