AWC Derailment at Shap Summit 03/11/25

[GRALISTAIR]

I am sure with all the data etc, improvements will be made and we will get better at this. I am not concerned .

 

[AndrewE]

I am sure with all the data etc, improvements will be made and we will get better at this. I am not concerned .

I am. it's a pretty poor do if a specialist firm supplies, installs and runs something like this in 2025 and it fails at the first challenge.

It reminds me of Railtrack who initially bragged that they would only have 23 employees, all accountants. With today's (i.e. 2 century's accumulated) knowledge there is no excuse for such a poor design.

 

[AngusH]

I think this line is pretty important:

"However, it had not been formally entered into operational use, so was not sending alerts to the Network Rail control centre."

Essentially it sounds like the monitoring system hadn't reached operational status,so even if it worked perfectly it would have made no difference to this incident.

 

[Bald Rick]

I am. it's a pretty poor do if a specialist firm supplies, installs and runs something like this in 2025 and it fails at the first challenge.

Except it hasn‘t “fallen at the first challenge”.

Systems such as these have been successfully providing warnings of ground movement for years.

 

[Straus]

I think a key point of RAIBs release has been overlooked. It states that the system was not yet in comission, so there may well have been reservations about it's performance from the NR side.

 

[Carlisle]

I think a key point of RAIBs release has been overlooked. It states that the system was not yet in comission,

Echoes of new rail siting in the fourfoot at Hatfield .

 

[Annetts key]

I think a key point of RAIBs release has been overlooked. It states that the system was not yet in comission, so there may well have been reservations about it's performance from the NR side.

If the system was not in use, then the traditional method of inspection at the required intervals should have been in operation. Of course, how often inspections were done does depend on what risk level Network Rail had assigned to it.

As there are other operational sites elsewhere across the network, that does raise the further question of why it was not operational.

 

[Killingworth]

If the system was not in use, then the traditional method of inspection at the required intervals should have been in operation. Of course, how often inspections were done does depend on what risk level Network Rail had assigned to it.

As there are other operational sites elsewhere across the network, that does raise the further question of why it was not operational.

Surely it has to be fully operational to be effectve. It seems to have been working but not connected in a way to deliver prompt readings to the appropriate section.

 

[AndrewE]

Except it hasn‘t “fallen at the first challenge”.
Systems such as these have been successfully providing warnings of ground movement for years.

... but this one didn't!

 

[themiller]

... but this one didn't!

Until it’s commissioned, it can’t be regarded as a reliable asset. In fact, it may not even belong to Network Rail as the commissioning process will prove it can meet certain challenges, been installed to design, be loaded with the correct software and meets its intent. Only then will it be integrated into the NR assets.

 

[AndrewE]

Until it’s commissioned, it can’t be regarded as a reliable asset. In fact, it may not even belong to Network Rail as the commissioning process will prove it can meet certain challenges, been installed to design, be loaded with the correct software and meets its intent. Only then will it be integrated into the NR assets.

I think they have been there quite a long time now, I wonder when they will actually become operational? And whether this applies to all the other sets of sensors in the area too?

 

[james_the_xv]

Until it’s commissioned, it can’t be regarded as a reliable asset. In fact, it may not even belong to Network Rail as the commissioning process will prove it can meet certain challenges, been installed to design, be loaded with the correct software and meets its intent. Only then will it be integrated into the NR assets.

Quite, this would be a notably bigger issue if the sensor assets were commissioned and in use. I'd imagine the full RAIB report will explore the commissioning process and how those assets specifically were developed/commissioned.

 

[Mag_seven]

I think its now best if we now wait for the full RAIB report before we comment any further.

thanks all