Opposite of an emergency stop

[fwsmVor]

Say a runaway is following a passenger train approaching a station. Is there established procedure (or even precedent) for the passenger train's driver to be told to speed up sharpish?

 

[J663738]

Aircraft do have something similar expedite runway without delay, I repeat without delay!

 

[Nym]

Say a runaway is following a passenger train approaching a station. Is there established procedure (or even precedent) for the passenger train's driver to be told to speed up sharpish?

The Northern Line had such instructions issued at one point when a coupler to a rail grinder experienced rapid self disassembly while being yanked unbaked and then decided to go on it's merry way down the line in the AM peak.

'Runaway train' on London Underground

A driverless train ran for almost four miles on the London Underground on Friday morning. The engineering train on the Northern line was allowed to roll between Archway and Warren Street stations, TfL has confirmed. The incident, which happened at 0640 BST, is now being investigated by...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Daniel]

The Northern Line had such instructions issued at one point when a coupler to a rail grinder experienced rapid self disassembly while being yanked unbaked and then decided to go on it's merry way down the line in the AM peak.

Correct, though there was no established procedure being followed.

 

[Retorus]

The Northern Line had such instructions issued at one point when a coupler to a rail grinder experienced rapid self disassembly while being yanked unbaked and then decided to go on it's merry way down the line in the AM peak.

Blimey, just read about that. Must have been some rush being on the train in front!

 

[Bald Rick]

No procedure as such. I do remember a DC Line train seeing a derailed Freightliner coming towards it at Camden Jn and accelerating to try and miss it. @ChiefPlanner may remember more.

 

[RailwayRookie]

Its treated as a vehicle proceeding without authority, so there is a definitive list of actions the rule book demands.

One of which is "any other possible action to reduce the risk of collision"

Which would cover telling a driver not to stop/slow down. I personally wouldnt tell them to speed up in them words, but i would tell them exactly whats happening behind them.

This is also somewhat covered in one of the requirements being for Train Radio messages to be sent.

 

[JetTheWolf]

Its treated as a vehicle proceeding without authority, so there is a definitive list of actions the rule book demands.

One of which is "any other possible action to reduce the risk of collision"

Which would cover telling a driver not to stop/slow down. I personally wouldnt tell them to speed up in them words, but i would tell them exactly whats happening behind them.

This is also somewhat covered in one of the requirements being for Train Radio messages to be sent.

Would it be a combination of that, and possibly the signaller deliberately making it derail to force a complete stop? (obviously if safe and won't impact anyone/thing surrounding the line, and there's a good gap between trains in either direction). Though I assume at some point if the speed of the runaway is great enough a deliberate derailment might cause more problems than it'd solve

 

[RailwayRookie]

Would it be a combination of that, and possibly the signaller deliberately making it derail to force a complete stop? (obviously if safe and won't impact anyone/thing surrounding the line, and there's a good gap between trains in either direction)

I only picked the requirements super relevant for the original question but yes, operating points to prevent collision and closing crossings to road users if possible are a couple more.

 

[Class15]

No procedure as such. I do remember a DC Line train seeing a derailed Freightliner coming towards it at Camden Jn and accelerating to try and miss it. @ChiefPlanner may remember more.

Interesting, I assume at least one train was off route (presumably the derailed Freightliner) as the DC lines (into Euston) would not normally come into contact with the standard freight route from Willesden to Primrose Hill.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting, I assume at least one train was off route (presumably the derailed Freightliner) as the DC lines (into Euston) would not normally come into contact with the standard freight route from Willesden to Primrose Hill.

That was confusing me when I wrote it, but I think it was during one of the blockades for clearing Hampstead Heath tunnel, when the DC trains went through to Camden and the NLL.

 

[Jimini]

Blimey, just read about that. Must have been some rush being on the train in front!

I’d forgotten about that! Didn’t the train in front run non-stop onto the Bank branch, and the runaway was routed onto the Charing X branch, shortly after which it derailed / stopped around Mornington Crescent?

 

[Dualsystem]

I was about to write my very first post here to posit what @Bald Rick has just semi-confirmed, but missed the window waiting for the registration process to complete! I had wondered if it may have been when DC trains were routed that way to Liverpool Street… in any case, hello everybody!

 

[RailwayRookie]

I’d forgotten about that! Didn’t the train in front run non-stop onto the Bank branch, and the runaway was routed onto the Charing X branch, shortly after which it derailed / stopped around Mornington Crescent?

That's the one, it stopped when it reached an incline.

Plainlydifficult on YouTube made a video on it, i wont link it because i dont know if theres rules on the forum about that.(but i do recommend the channel in general for your disaster related viewing)

 

[py_megapixel]

Its treated as a vehicle proceeding without authority, so there is a definitive list of actions the rule book demands.

One of which is "any other possible action to reduce the risk of collision"

Interesting. Would it ever be considered acceptable for a driver to exceed their line speed in such circumstances, if that appeared to reduce the risk of collision?

 

[WeGoAgain]

Interesting. Would it ever be considered acceptable for a driver to exceed their line speed in such circumstances, if that appeared to reduce the risk of collision?

I would imagine not; as that action in and of itself may cause even worse of an outcome than the potential one.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

That was confusing me when I wrote it, but I think it was during one of the blockades for clearing Hampstead Heath tunnel, when the DC trains went through to Camden and the NLL.

I remember it well - a DC diverted to or via Camden Road observed this derailing Freightliner (caused by a track defect) , but the very alert driver with impeccable route knowledge kept going a bit as he knew there was a wider 6ft near by , reached it and then slammed the brakes hard on and basically avoided a side swipe between the unit and the FLL train. He was warmly commended for his swift action. Not the sort of thing a driver is taught in a classroom.

There certainly were infrastructure issues on that bit of railway - one of the drivers spotten a broken rail in front of his train , but he got over it with extreme care and blocked the line - (he could not stop in time ) - changed ends at Camden Road and came back empty northbound to find his train had to stop as a result of a piece of the footbridge at Kilburn High Road was in danger of falling off - he stopped short of it. 1996 and a massive refurbisment came around PDQ as a result. This track work was very neccessary - the next day I insisted on a track walk with the PW from south of H&W on the DC , and we identifield some issues straight away - such that a 10 mph was put on straight away , some of the urgently changed sleepers were like Cadbury flake bars when removed - they crumbled on removal......this action went down well with the NLR drivers and the Bakerloo motormen seeing their operating managers taking a direct interest in such matters. Incidentally the rail lubricator approaching South Kenton was pumping lubricant onto the head of the running rail ,causing braking problems.

Some serious deferred mainentance issues , not helped by endemic problems in staffing at the time. It all got a lot better , and reliability and timekeeping improved dramatically.

Challenging times all right.

 

[Sakuradori]

Anyone watch that 2010 film Unstoppable, based on the CSX 8888 incident? Would such a thing even be possible in the UK?

 

[Nottingham59]

I was about to write my very first post here to posit what @Bald Rick has just semi-confirmed, but missed the window waiting for the registration process to complete! I had wondered if it may have been when DC trains were routed that way to Liverpool Street… in any case, hello everybody!

Welcome to the forum

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Anyone watch that 2010 film Unstoppable, based on the CSX 8888 incident? Would such a thing even be possible in the UK?

There was a unit , which ran away from Caterham one morning when the crew were off it , and despite some sterling attempts at boarding it enroute , was deliberately diverted and stopped. Might be an accident report on this.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==

Welcome to the forum

For a while - block of the normal route Camden Jct to Willesden HL via Hampstead Heath , - there was a temporary diversion giving 2 tph Watford Junction to North Woolwich via Kilburn High Road and a 2 tph Willesden LL to Camden Road.

The block over by a modest 6 months .....

 

[Taunton]

There was such a situation at Gormanston, Dublin, in 1974, unfortunately culminating with fatalities, when a train at full power set with no driver caused the one ahead to be told, by shouted message, to run ahead at speed, there being no way to divert it. The one ahead doing about 65 mph at point of being rear-ended by the runaway doing about 80 mph. Both these were fortunately ECS but very unfortunately a passenger service running in the opposite direction, though stopped, was right at the point of collision and was badly sideswiped. Here's the Irish accident report:

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DTP_Gormanston1974.pdf

 

[bramling]

Interesting. Would it ever be considered acceptable for a driver to exceed their line speed in such circumstances, if that appeared to reduce the risk of collision?

The driver of the Northern Line train was told to proceed “at line speed”, so wasn’t told to exceed any speed limits. Though on LU there is a requirement to pass station starting signals at 5 mph, which I suspect may have been taken liberally on this occasion.

One irony with the Northern Line incident was that the driver concerned (now long since retired) had a reputation for being one of the slower drivers on the line.

 

[Efini92]

Anyone watch that 2010 film Unstoppable, based on the CSX 8888 incident? Would such a thing even be possible in the UK?

There was a runaway 66 a few years ago on the styal line. Though that didn’t get very far, just kept going backwards and forwards in the dip at east didsbury.
Fortunately it was during to engineering works, so there was no harm to other trains.

 

[4COR]

There was a unit , which ran away from Caterham one morning when the crew were off it , and despite some sterling attempts at boarding it enroute , was deliberately diverted and stopped. Might be an accident report on this.

Yes (30th March 1974), they "stopped" it at Norwood Junction by running it into the buffers to the south of platform 1 ("The Gullet"). An old post here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...am-to-norwood-jct-in-1974.119593/post-2267785

There was also a spad due to low adhesion in 2005 at Hampton Court Junction (Esher) where, instead of following the rule book, the signaller deliberately allowed a train crossing in front to continue to get it out of the way of the train that couldn't stop. Report here:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...74a43682987ee/070108_R252006_Part_1_Esher.pdf

 

[TheTallOne]

Though on LU there is a requirement to pass station starting signals at 5 mph, which I suspect may have been taken liberally on this occasion.

Hopefully not tripping anything?

I'm not an expert on these things, but is there some kind of trip cock, if you go too fast through such sections, the train triggers it and comes to a halt?

 

[47296lastduff]

This reminds of the incident at Winsford some years ago. A class 142 was running empty to Newton Heath depot, and was put into Winsford loop for a down loco hauled express to pass. Unfortunately it ran out of the loop onto the Down Main, and the driver stopped at the next signal to report the matter. Not surprisingly, the 142 was promptly demolished by the express. It struck me, at the time, that the 142 driver should have gone as fast as he could to get out of the way of the express. His presence on the main should have activated the track circuit, and turned signals to red behind him.

 

[EveningStar]

Correct, though there was no established procedure being followed.

And only the coolness displayed by the controller in handling an unprecedented situation prevented a serious accident. Remember, when I read the report, agreeing with how the report commended the controller.

In a similar style, Freightliner driver in the 1975 'Whisky and Soda' accident at Weaver Junction (https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Weaver1975.pdf) also tried to accelerate out of trouble. Failed, although probably saved their life as being sideswiped by the mass of a class 40 was not going to end well.

 

[Bald Rick]

It struck me, at the time, that the 142 driver should have gone as fast as he could to get out of the way of the express.

The driver wouldnt have known what was coming up behind him.

 

[greatkingrat]

If you've just spadded a signal, your first thought isn't going to be "I better keep going and spad the next signal too, just incase something is coming up behind me".

 

[edwin_m]

I believe a green flag or lamp waved from side to side used to indicate that a train should keep going because there was a runaway following it.