• 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!

BBC article on Ladbroke Grove

Status
Not open for further replies.

InkyScrolls

On Moderation
Joined
20 Jul 2022
Messages
1,465
Location
North of England
Lessons from Ladbroke Grove crash 25 years on
It is 25 years since two passenger trains collided at Ladbroke Grove, two miles west of London's Paddington station.

The disaster was one of the worst rail crashes of the last century and resulted in 31 people dying and 417 being injured.
There are some interesting comments from a survivor of the crash regarding TPWS, which he thought was only meant to be a temporary solution, and from RSSB chief executive Mark Phillips.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

SCDR_WMR

Established Member
Joined
17 Dec 2017
Messages
2,637
Location
Crewe
Temporary but 'has far exceeded expectations and saved decades of resignalling work'.
 

Purple Train

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2022
Messages
2,487
Location
Exile or exile
The same article also appeared, in slightly jargon-ified format, in the most recent issue of RAIL (1019, I think). A very sobering read.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,347
Let us bear in mind that the GW main line at Ladbroke Grove was fitted with Automatic Train Protection (ATP), more sophisticated than TPWS, but one of the operators involved had decided not to fit it to their trains. All this after the earlier serious accident nearby at Southall, again when the line was fitted with ATP, but also the train, it was just the operator had decided not to use it. However did all not move to use it after that warning? Especially as FGW on their High Speed Trains after Southall used to have notices inside their trains confirming that ATP was in use. How unfortunate that the FGW train was given the clear road over the Thames train, rather than the other way round.

There was movement afterwards, following much "discussion", that finally enforced fitment. None of this seemed to recognise that after the (old) GWR installed their ATC system (a pioneer AWS) here in the 1930s, they enforced that all passenger services had to use locomotives fitted to use it, which spread as the system rolled out all across the GWR main lines, and led to loco changing at boundaries of the system if needed, which nobody then whinged on about the additional costs resulting. Some BR wiseacre accountant in the 1970s finally rescinded this, and unfitted London Midland diesels started to run through, whereupon within a year or two there was the fatal collision at Bridgwater where such an unfitted LMR loco ran through signals at danger which were fitted with the GWR system.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,725
Location
Hope Valley
Were the Thames Trains (as was) Turbos ever fitted with ATP after Ladbroke Grove? I had thought that they went directly to TPWS like the rest of the network.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,897
Some BR wiseacre accountant in the 1970s finally rescinded this, and unfitted London Midland diesels started to run through,
Why would accountants be deciding on operational deployments?
 

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,906
Were the Thames Trains (as was) Turbos ever fitted with ATP after Ladbroke Grove? I had thought that they went directly to TPWS like the rest of the network.
Chiltern ones were, but Thames Trains ones weren't as far as I know. I think maybe the Chiltern ATP worked differently to the Great Western one as well?
 

Efini92

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
2,143
Let us bear in mind that the GW main line at Ladbroke Grove was fitted with Automatic Train Protection (ATP), more sophisticated than TPWS, but one of the operators involved had decided not to fit it to their trains. All this after the earlier serious accident nearby at Southall, again when the line was fitted with ATP, but also the train, it was just the operator had decided not to use it. However did all not move to use it after that warning? Especially as FGW on their High Speed Trains after Southall used to have notices inside their trains confirming that ATP was in use. How unfortunate that the FGW train was given the clear road over the Thames train, rather than the other way round.

There was movement afterwards, following much "discussion", that finally enforced fitment. None of this seemed to recognise that after the (old) GWR installed their ATC system (a pioneer AWS) here in the 1930s, they enforced that all passenger services had to use locomotives fitted to use it, which spread as the system rolled out all across the GWR main lines, and led to loco changing at boundaries of the system if needed, which nobody then whinged on about the additional costs resulting. Some BR wiseacre accountant in the 1970s finally rescinded this, and unfitted London Midland diesels started to run through, whereupon within a year or two there was the fatal collision at Bridgwater where such an unfitted LMR loco ran through signals at danger which were fitted with the GWR system.
Something else that never gets much mention is why the signalling system was designed to allow the points to be set for a conflicting move. Had the points been set the other way the Thames train would never have been in the path of the HST.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,856
Location
Oakham
Something else that never gets much mention is why the signalling system was designed to allow the points to be set for a conflicting move. Had the points been set the other way the Thames train would never have been in the path of the HST.
I recall reading about that at the time; apparently if they were set the other way there would have been another conflicting move possible ( not with the HST ) but with a shorter over-run distance, so they were routinely left set for the longer over-run?

Which comes back down to the overall design of the layout because if that's true then it means there was no flank protection at all at those points?
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,725
Location
Hope Valley
I recall reading about that at the time; apparently if they were set the other way there would have been another conflicting move possible ( not with the HST ) but with a shorter over-run distance, so they were routinely left set for the longer over-run?

Which comes back down to the overall design of the layout because if that's true then it means there was no flank protection at all at those points?
I’m not sure how you achieve complete flank protection on a layout with six parallel bi-directional lines with multiple crossovers and ‘ladders’ in regular use.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,856
Location
Oakham
I’m not sure how you achieve complete flank protection on a layout with six parallel bi-directional lines with multiple crossovers and ‘ladders’ in regular use.
I agree - I don't think you can... in which case the points would always have been set for one conflict or another wouldn't they?
 

Efini92

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
2,143
I recall reading about that at the time; apparently if they were set the other way there would have been another conflicting move possible ( not with the HST ) but with a shorter over-run distance, so they were routinely left set for the longer over-run?

Which comes back down to the overall design of the layout because if that's true then it means there was no flank protection at all at those points?
I recall reading, it may have been in the Cullen report, that when designing the layout they chose not to use flank protection to allow faster signalling of freight trains.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,725
Location
Hope Valley
I recall reading, it may have been in the Cullen report, that when designing the layout they chose not to use flank protection to allow faster signalling of freight trains.
So the occasional stone train to/from Paddington New Yard dictated an entire signalling principle? Seems totally bizarre. (I realise that the layout was designed in BR days.)
 

Efini92

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
2,143
So the occasional stone train to/from Paddington New Yard dictated an entire signalling principle? Seems totally bizarre. (I realise that the layout was designed in BR days.)
Pass, just recall reading that somewhere, I’m sure it was in the Cullen report.
I don’t think anyone involved in the design phase could ever imagined a train accelerating beyond a red.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,347
It has got mention from me in the past. Both the Southall and Ladbroke Grove accidents would have been prevented had the flank protection of the previous layouts been in place. At Southall a single lead ladder had not long before replaced the previous double crossover, which the interlocking ensured was set for the Up Main to the crossover whenever a move across to the Down Main was in place. It was single lead instead of full double leads (as some other crossovers on this line are) to "save the costs of point ends".

At Ladbroke Grove the crossover from the Turbo line to the Down Relief, which would have offered flank protection with a move signalled on the Up Main, which the previous installation's locking did at the equivalent point, a sideswipe collision between trains going the same way having been scored less than a head-on by the design engineer of the era, was not taken forward. Notably these points were somewhat glossed over in the official reports.

I count both accidents "single lead" collisions, of which there were a significant number around the 1990s on newly designed layouts. Someone knowledgeable on here wrote in response the last time I raised these points that the signalling profession were "genuinely surprised" at the number of single lead collisions that started to arise when they threw flank protection away. Hmmmm. I believe at Ladbroke Grove they actively thought they were safeguarded from SPADs by ATP - which of course was installed on the signalling, but the new trains there, the 165s, were ordered without it.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,725
Location
Hope Valley
It has got mention from me in the past. Both the Southall and Ladbroke Grove accidents would have been prevented had the flank protection of the previous layouts been in place. At Southall a single lead ladder had not long before replaced the previous double crossover, which the interlocking ensured was set for the Up Main to the crossover whenever a move across to the Down Main was in place. It was single lead instead of full double leads (as some other crossovers on this line are) to "save the costs of point ends".

At Ladbroke Grove the crossover from the Turbo line to the Down Relief, which would have offered flank protection with a move signalled on the Up Main, which the previous installation's locking did at the equivalent point, a sideswipe collision between trains going the same way having been scored less than a head-on by the design engineer of the era, was not taken forward. Notably these points were somewhat glossed over in the official reports.

I count both accidents "single lead" collisions, of which there were a significant number around the 1990s on newly designed layouts. Someone knowledgeable on here wrote in response the last time I raised these points that the signalling profession were "genuinely surprised" at the number of single lead collisions that started to arise when they threw flank protection away. Hmmmm. I believe at Ladbroke Grove they actively thought they were safeguarded from SPADs by ATP - which of course was installed on the signalling, but the new trains there, the 165s, were ordered without it.
The March 1989 'first edition' Quail map shows Southall East, Portobello and Subway Junctions were already single ladders at that time. So well before privatisation, Railtrack and so on. Many older 'double junctions' had quite low speeds and fixed diamonds, hardly ideal when overrunning trains might be approaching at high speed.
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
Chiltern ones were, but Thames Trains ones weren't as far as I know. I think maybe the Chiltern ATP worked differently to the Great Western one as well?

This is correct and most of the differences were found in the track-borne equipment. Chiltern of course no longer use ATP which is a shame as it was a more effective and intelligent system than TPWS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top