Are the recent derailments indicative of poor performance from Network Rail?

[357]

Indeed.

With shunter/drivers who will swear back is white and that they definitely checked the blades were thrown and latched in place despite the forward facing CCTV from the train clearly showing they weren't even looking at the points when they threw the handle and you could see the blades bounce and not latch and the diverging gauge being clear to see but they still drove the train over them and it MUST have been a points failure and the trade union will NOT stand for the cause of the derailment being listed in the internal investigation report as shunter/driver error and not following company procedures, despite this being the 3rd time they've put a train in the dirt....

....and breathe.

Never known that to be an issue where I've worked. Kick tests mandatory before going over any points - and shunters have been pulled up for not doing it properly

 

[apinnard]

Indeed.

With shunter/drivers who will swear back is white and that they definitely checked the blades were thrown and latched in place despite the forward facing CCTV from the train clearly showing they weren't even looking at the points when they threw the handle and you could see the blades bounce and not latch and the diverging gauge being clear to see but they still drove the train over them and it MUST have been a points failure and the trade union will NOT stand for the cause of the derailment being listed in the internal investigation report as shunter/driver error and not following company procedures, despite this being the 3rd time they've put a train in the dirt....

....and breathe.

A regular TikToker and now ex driver did just that at Basford Hall a couple of years ago. ISTR it wasn’t his first mess up either.

 

[RUK]

We had our own re-railing gang with a variety of jacks and traversing tables and air bags and generator sets and all the blocks of wood etc.

But a lot of the time you could, because they were invariably low speed and only one or two axles "in the dirt", with judicious use lumps of wood simply drive the derailed axles back on simply reversing back up the direction of derailment.

Does de-railing not damage the wheel-sets and bogies, if not more on the train? I would have thought that those and other potentially-damaged parts on the train would be quite expensive, so not worth re-using old, less-good rail in depots - especially if it prevents trains from leaving and stuffs up the whole service. Or is it a case of Network Rail do the infrastructure, so they save on the cost of new rail, but the TOC are the one who suffer and pay for damage to the trains and the service, so Network Rail don’t care? Hopefully GBR and the re-intrgration of track and train will bring an end to that.

At least there are spare Class 720s, so there won’t be an issue with a shortage of them, as there is with the Class 387s.

 

[Amos390]

Does de-railing not damage the wheel-sets and bogies, if not more on the train? I would have thought that those and other potentially-damaged parts on the train would be quite expensive, so not worth re-using old, less-good rail in depots - especially if it prevents trains from leaving and stuffs up the whole service. Or is it a case of Network Rail do the infrastructure, so they save on the cost of new rail, but the TOC are the one who suffer and pay for damage to the trains and the service, so Network Rail don’t care? Hopefully GBR and the re-intrgration of track and train will bring an end to that.

At least there are spare Class 720s, so there won’t be an issue with a shortage, as there is with the Class 387s.

At this scale it also wouldn’t make sense to re-rail, something like Clapham in the morning would be easy to re-rail with a pair of blocks as it’s just a single bogey set, but with a whole carriage off like is at the moment you’d need a crane to re-rail that, so if you’ve got a crane why not just stick it on a lorry, save the hassle of getting a loco to tow it that has the right couplers and getting the permission from NR to drag a damaged unit a way to a depot (where it might be stuck on a lorry and taken back to a factory somewhere anyways if enough damage is found).

At a smaller scale in depots it makes more sense as one wheel set being partially off is a simple fix that doesn’t require a crane or large fixture, and probably won’t have severely damaged the wheel so track damage won’t really be sustained much.

 

[Annetts key]

Does de-railing not damage the wheel-sets and bogies, if not more on the train? I would have thought that those and other potentially-damaged parts on the train would be quite expensive, so not worth re-using old, less-good rail in depots - especially if it prevents trains from leaving and stuffs up the whole service. Or is it a case of Network Rail do the infrastructure, so they save on the cost of new rail, but the TOC are the one who suffer and pay for damage to the trains and the service, so Network Rail don’t care? Hopefully GBR and the re-intrgration of track and train will bring an end to that.

Slow speed, short distance derailments don't generally cause too much damage as long as the wheels and bogies don't hit anything other than ballast, dirt or cleanly ride over sleepers.

The rails in sidings are not normally the problem. Rather, it's the poor condition wood sleepers or loose or worn rail fixings that cause the rails to move outwards under the weight of the train. Using rails that are no longer suitable for main line use (or branch line use) is okay and it's been the case for as long as there have been railways.

As for the organisation responsible for the infrastructure in sidings, it may be Network Rail, but the sidings may be privately owned, in that case, it's nothing to do with Network Rail. Sidings may be owned by the company that owns the depot, and it may be the TOC or FOC that is responsible for the maintenance.

 

[BayPaul]

I don't think that official advice 'not to speculate until the RAIB has made their report' is very helpful. The RAIB are renowned for being thorough and comprehensive, but not for being fast. At the moment a lot of people will quite reasonably be speculating if these two incidents might both be related to the very high temperatures, and worried that a third similar incident could happen at any time.

The rail industry really needs to get on top of this, especially considering two apparently similar incidents just days apart. For my mind a 'quick and dirty' RAIB statement within the next 48 hours is essential, if the industry wants to reduce speculation and restore confidence. I have carried out many investigations into incidents (marine not rail, but presumably similar), and in each case within a few hours it was obvious what the fundamental facts were, though there was still plenty of investigation to do to get everything in order and sort out the details. I'm sure the investigators on both scenes are already in this position and it should not be impossible to make a suitably caveatted statement on the apparent cause of each incident.

 

[hwl]

I don't think that official advice 'not to speculate until the RAIB has made their report' is very helpful. The RAIB are renowned for being thorough and comprehensive, but not for being fast. At the moment a lot of people will quite reasonably be speculating if these two incidents might both be related to the very high temperatures, and worried that a third similar incident could happen at any time.

The rail industry really needs to get on top of this, especially considering two apparently similar incidents just days apart. For my mind a 'quick and dirty' RAIB statement within the next 48 hours is essential, if the industry wants to reduce speculation and restore confidence. I have carried out many investigations into incidents (marine not rail, but presumably similar), and in each case within a few hours it was obvious what the fundamental facts were, though there was still plenty of investigation to do to get everything in order and sort out the details. I'm sure the investigators on both scenes are already in this position and it should not be impossible to make a suitably caveatted statement on the apparent cause of each incident.

RAIB have said they will issue a ststement early next week.

In this investigation there is substancially more to check than a typical investigation.

Checking for movement (differential shrinkage) in either the embankment and/or wider surrounding land adjacent to a river due to high soil moisture defecit (SMD) requires substancial survey work that will take a while to complete.

 

[MrJeeves]

The rail industry really needs to get on top of this, especially considering two apparently similar incidents just days apart. For my mind a 'quick and dirty' RAIB statement within the next 48 hours is essential, if the industry wants to reduce speculation and restore confidence.

I expect this is exactly what we will get (though maybe in the next 96 hours or so), similar to what was published within a week of the Bedford incident in an attempt to provide some answers in the short-term.

 

[fishwomp]

I don't think that official advice 'not to speculate until the RAIB has made their report' is very helpful.

So, should we speculate now? Should we all be speculators now?

Would that be helpful?

The only organization that can say what happened is RAIB: the "rent a theory" TV (and internet ) pundits just won't do the groundwork, don't have access to evidence or data.

They were pretty quick with the Bedford collision preliminary findings - some said too quick, but IMHO they balanced it right.

They will be under pressure from all sides to do this - to restore confidence and enable Network Rail/operators to take action that will prevent any repeat in the future.

 

[BayPaul]

So, should we speculate now? Should we all be speculators now?

Would that be helpful?

The only organization that can say what happened is RAIB: the "rent a theory" TV (and internet ) pundits just won't do the groundwork, don't have access to evidence or data.

They were pretty quick with the Bedford collision preliminary findings - some said too quick, but IMHO they balanced it right.

They will be under pressure from all sides to do this - to restore confidence and enable Network Rail/operators to take action that will prevent any repeat in the future.

I can't imagine that there are many people who have an interest in the incident who haven't speculated at least in their own heads about potential causes. It is simply human nature.

Equally, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable for media outlets to provide somewhat more informed speculation, for example by interviewing people who consider themselves to be experts. Many of the public are interested in the story and want to know if they are safe on the railway. In the absence of full data, speculation from these experts, based on photos, eyewitness reports, known railway procedures etc is going to be the best available public info.

In this age of instant access to social media theories, the only way for industry to stay on top of the curve is by owning the story, and rapidly presenting good factual information. At present, I don't feel that has been done well, and a vague entreaty not to speculate until the RAIB report 'in due course' and that our rail industry is amongst the safest in the world isn't really reassuring.

As others have mentioned, at Bedford the RAIB produced a decent statement pretty quickly, and hopefully they will also do so here.

 

[saismee]

I can't imagine that there are many people who have an interest in the incident who haven't speculated at least in their own heads about potential causes. It is simply human nature.

And I think its quite likely that a lot of people can make pretty accurate guesses as to the main cause. There will still no doubt be other factors at play, which is what the RAIB will pinpoint.

The problem with posting speculation is that people will misinterpret it as factual. I've already seen people confidently state that it was due to rails buckling, but there's no hard evidence to suggest that the buckled rails weren't just a result of the incident. I have no doubt that the hot and dry weather will be a factor that the RAIB examine closely, but it's very incorrect for people to be stating it as the cause already without evidence.

 

[BayPaul]

And I think its quite likely that a lot of people can make pretty accurate guesses as to the main cause. There will still no doubt be other factors at play, which is what the RAIB will pinpoint.

The problem with posting speculation is that people will misinterpret it as factual. I've already seen people confidently state that it was due to rails buckling, but there's no hard evidence to suggest that the buckled rails weren't just a result of the incident. I have no doubt that the hot and dry weather will be a factor that the RAIB examine closely, but it's very incorrect for people to be stating it as the cause already without evidence.

In a situation with an absence of hard evidence, a good prudent position would be to assume the worst case scenario, until the evidence shows it to be something lesser.
Based on that position, it could be considered sensible for people to avoid using railways in heat waves, because of the risk of catestrophic heat related failures.
If a lack of official information leads to speculation which causes people to take this position, a devil's advocate argument would be 'is that a bad thing?' as it reduces exposure to an unknown risk.

Hence my belief that it is vital for the rail industry to rapidly take control of the story.

 

[sng7]

In a situation with an absence of hard evidence, a good prudent position would be to assume the worst case scenario, until the evidence shows it to be something lesser.
Based on that position, it could be considered sensible for people to avoid using railways in heat waves, because of the risk of catestrophic heat related failures.
If a lack of official information leads to speculation which causes people to take this position, a devil's advocate argument would be 'is that a bad thing?' as it reduces exposure to an unknown risk.

Hence my belief that it is vital for the rail industry to rapidly take control of the story.

I think any position of avoid railways in heatwaves is an overreaction. Even if both of the notable derailments this week are due to heat (which is something we do not know at this point) railways are no doubt still safer than driving (which is most people’s alternative). The events this week have given us 2 serious injuries, which is clearly two too many but for comparison from the 2024 road casualty statistics about 81 people died or were seriously injured on roads in Great Britain every day on average.

 

[Phil R]

No link (sorry, was reading print edition) but usual predictable incident aftermath call for seatbelts on trains, this time in a letter to the Times today.

 

[Signal Head]

And I think its quite likely that a lot of people can make pretty accurate guesses as to the main cause. There will still no doubt be other factors at play, which is what the RAIB will pinpoint.

The problem with posting speculation is that people will misinterpret it as factual. I've already seen people confidently state that it was due to rails buckling, but there's no hard evidence to suggest that the buckled rails weren't just a result of the incident. I have no doubt that the hot and dry weather will be a factor that the RAIB examine closely, but it's very incorrect for people to be stating it as the cause already without evidence.

Derailment damage doesn't tend to produce the type of neat 'wavy' lateral displacement visible in the far distance on some of the images posted here and elsewhere, where the rails remain essentially at gauge and attached to the sleepers.

There are two visible areas where rail fastenings have failed and the rail has been pulled away from the sleepers, cess rail at the rear of the train, and 6' rail underneath the rear bogie of the last upright coach. That looks more like the typical effects of derailment, particularly where concrete sleepers have disintegrated under crushing impact from derailed wheels.

 

[Deepgreen]

So, should we speculate now? Should we all be speculators now?

Would that be helpful?

The only organization that can say what happened is RAIB: the "rent a theory" TV (and internet ) pundits just won't do the groundwork, don't have access to evidence or data.

They were pretty quick with the Bedford collision preliminary findings - some said too quick, but IMHO they balanced it right.

They will be under pressure from all sides to do this - to restore confidence and enable Network Rail/operators to take action that will prevent any repeat in the future.

I saw a quote from a BBC News interview where the rail industry interviewee said it was "too early to speculate" - no; that's the point of speculation - it's never too early!

 

[Horizon22]

I think we should expect the following in the next few weeks:

1. A spate of ESR (Emergency Speed Restrictions) imposed around the network
2. An uptick in train crew reporting rough rides out of an - understandable - abudance of caution.
3. Diversion of some NR P-Way, S&T duties to look at known track issues which could be degrading.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2026 ==

Based on that position, it could be considered sensible for people to avoid using railways in heat waves, because of the risk of catestrophic heat related failures.

Although if that means that individual(s) choosing to drive instead, that does put them in a higher risk situation based on probability.

 

[saismee]

No link (sorry, was reading print edition) but usual predictable incident aftermath call for seatbelts on trains, this time in a letter to the Times today.

I'd love to see how they design those standing seatbelts for the crammed-in XC commuters. Or do they also want to ban standing on trains?

 

[develop331]

No link (sorry, was reading print edition) but usual predictable incident aftermath call for seatbelts on trains, this time in a letter to the Times today.

RAIB and RSSB did conduct experiments into this as shown in multiple investigation reports in the past, every time it's come down to seatbelts having minimal effect (not enough to be worth fitting), or that seatbelts would be less safe (as they would trap the person in a potentially hazardous position). Plus of course all the issues with standing passengers and busy commuter trains which of course would not be able to have seatbelts for everyone...

 

[devon_belle]

burgeration

Google not returning any definitions for this word. Could you enlighten me?

 

[BayPaul]

Although if that means that individual(s) choosing to drive instead, that does put them in a higher risk situation based on probability.

Not necessarily. It has been quoted above that in a typical day 81 people are killed or seriously injured on the roads each day, with around a billion miles driven per day (337 billion per year).
With around 115 million rail passenger miles per day, that equates to an equivalent of 10 killed or seriously injured.

On a normal day, the rail industry is far safer than that, but if the hot weather is leading to a spate of serious incidents, I'm not so certain the situation is quite so clear cut.

So I wouldn't necessarily blame someone for avoiding the railway during this weather, until it is made clear that there isn't an underlying safety issue on extremely hot days.

 

[bramling]

So, should we speculate now? Should we all be speculators now?

Would that be helpful?

The only organization that can say what happened is RAIB: the "rent a theory" TV (and internet ) pundits just won't do the groundwork, don't have access to evidence or data.

They were pretty quick with the Bedford collision preliminary findings - some said too quick, but IMHO they balanced it right.

They will be under pressure from all sides to do this - to restore confidence and enable Network Rail/operators to take action that will prevent any repeat in the future.

I agree there needs to be some leadership on this.

Thankfully the two derailments have proven relatively minor in terms of outcome, however once again the industry got lucky that it wasn’t a lot more serious, for example toppling off a bridge or a second train being involved. The optics of the Lewes derailment aren’t good, people just aren’t used to seeing three carriages of a train strewn on their sides like that, in the same way they aren’t used to seeing trains collide.

Once again the root causes are going to be extremely complex and there is likely to be a lot of work necessary to really get to the bottom of what has gone on, but this doesn’t prevent lead figures from the industry coming out and putting some facts into the public domain.

There will have been a lot of people getting on trains this morning and wondering if their train is going to be the next one to jump off the rails, indeed it crossed my own mind this morning whilst heading north out of King’s Cross at 100mph on a pair of 379s.

Unfortunately all this just feeds into the whole “Britain is falling apart and no one has a grip on anything” feeling.

 

[NeakPed]

Not blanket ESRs, but there is already a fairly lengthy one added between Gidea Park and Shenfield.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2026 ==



It’s a very well educated - and correct - guess. Anglia is struggling with this already seemingly.

I noticed that this morning, off the ferry (Harwich) and hoping for quick dart across London. Failed by 3 minutes, arrived home 60” later than hoped (no delay repay due to staff travel).

More concerned about the number of reports in CCIL (Rail industry Logging system) & the number of ESRs that have been imposed in recent days. This is reminiscent of 20 years ago with Gauge corner cracking.
Network Rail are failing to maintain the infrastructure (and lets not talk about vegetation scrapping the sides of every train).
A disaster waiting to happen.

 

[Bald Rick]

Network Rail are failing to maintain the infrastructure (and lets not talk about vegetation scrapping the sides of every train).

Are you sure about that? It’s quite an allegation.

 

[Deepgreen]

Are you sure about that? It’s quite an allegation.

Quite - if, for example, track undulations are caused by widespread ground drying and shifting (as with the WoE route), what 'maintenance' could be reasonably expected - soaking miles of formation with water repeatedly to keep it intact? I think not.

 

[NeakPed]

Are you sure about that? It’s quite an allegation.

From my observations this summer, 100%. the amount of vegetation that scrapes along the sides of stock is far beyond anything that should be expected. there are green tunnels in some places, that used to be daylight.
I suggest, that if you have access to it, look at CCIL for the last few days. If the Network is being maintained as it should be, then there should be no reason for the number of rough rides/track defects etc reported.
And If it is, ask why drivers are reporting things - they have little confidence in things being fixed.
The rail industry was lucky twice last week. We have another Hatfield on the cards, very, very soon.

 

[saismee]

look at CCIL for the last few days.

What is CCIL please?

 

[NeakPed]

What is CCIL please?

Control Centre Incident Log. The rail industry log. I am making assumptions that ‘Bald Rick’ has access to this.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

From my observations this summer, 100%. the amount of vegetation that scrapes along the sides of stock is far beyond anything that should be expected. there are green tunnels in some places, that used to be daylight.
I suggest, that if you have access to it, look at CCIL for the last few days. If the Network is being maintained as it should be, then there should be no reason for the number of rough rides/track defects etc reported.
And If it is, ask why drivers are reporting things - they have little confidence in things being fixed.
The rail industry was lucky twice last week. We have another Hatfield on the cards, very, very soon.

Track Quality is variable across Sussex and the Arun Valley and Lewes branch were certainly more lively at speed recently compared to the Brighton Line. The latter is a Cat 1 route so has higher frequency of track monitoring train runs and thus early warning of where intervention is required. The two side routes are lower category so maybe on a 13wk cycle. Even foot patrolling has been reduced in frequency so to my mind drivers rough ride reports are the last line of defence and shouldn't be ignored. Im sure RAIB will be raking over all aspects of how the infrastructure is being maintained.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the Network is being maintained as it should be, then there should be no reason for the number of rough rides/track defects etc reported.

You must have missed the hottest and driest summer for decades.