Blackpool North Incident

[andel]

Just in case you weren't aware, there was an incident at Blackpool North this morning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4808044.stm is the new story...

Five people were injured when two trains collided at a railway station early on Wednesday morning.
Police said the train from Manchester Airport, run by Northern Rail, crashed into the back of a stationary carriage on platform four at Blackpool Station.

British Transport Police (BTP) said five of the train's 20 passengers received minor injuries.

BTP and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch are investigating the crash. The station is operating normally.

'Low speed'

The BTP spokesman said: "The collision took place when the Manchester train was travelling at low speed and was braking in order to stop.

"Both trains remained upright and on the running rails. There was no visible damage to either train."

One woman was knocked unconscious, a man injured his arm and three other passengers suffered whiplash. All were taken to Blackpool Victoria Hospital for treatment.

The spokesman said there would be no trains running from platform four while the investigation was carried out.

No running code at the moment....

Andel

 

[Coxster]

Hardly worth the BBC tagging it as a "train collision". They'd probably call a paper cut an injured arm...

 

[Craig]

It looks as though the train ran into the back of another that was sat in the platform, what else would you call it?

I'm not sure of the signalling at Blackpool but surely the previous signal would have shown a calling on aspect, so the driver should have been expecting another train in the platform? Possibly a case of poor rail adhesion?

 

[Ben]

I didnt think they doubled up on Platforms at Blackpool?

 

[AlexS]

Obviously they do! 2 x 142 vs 175 from Manchester. The guard on the 175 broke his arm apparently.

 

[Guinness]

I'm suprised the 142 had no visable damage. Must of been a 1mph Collision.

 

[66526]

Probably got 2 white lights and went in a bit fast. Hardly a major incident...

 

[Tomnick]

I didnt think they doubled up on Platforms at Blackpool?

Maybe not a regular occurance, but there's definitely a calling on arm to permit this sort of move (signal 24 in No. 2 box, I believe - see it on this photo). Not going to speculate on the cause though - just thought I'd get that one in before the comments about 'expecting an empty platform' and all that start .

 

[Andy]

i thought you got wiplash from a seat belt and trains are not fitted with them are they.

 

[AlexS]

Ignore me! It was a 150 vs 142. not sure where I got 175 from.

 

[Dennis]

i thought you got wiplash from a seat belt and trains are not fitted with them are they.

I though whiplash was caused by the very sudden movement of the head in a collision, damaging nerves and muscles in the neck.

It seems very common for collision victims to say they have whiplash just to get time off work and compo - it is quite difficult to actually prove medically if someone does actually have this injury.

 

[andel]

From WNXX where I tend to float:

142007/142061 on 1N71 2249 Manchester Airport-Blackpool North hit 150144/150272<5n55 which was stationary> in platform 4 at BLACKPOOL NORTH station,happened early hours today 15/03/06

 

[Guinness]

From WNXX where I tend to float:

142007/142061 on 1N71 2249 Manchester Airport-Blackpool North

Ah so its true that quite a few of the decent Sprinters headed off to the other side of Pennines since GMPTE didn't pay as much as WYPTE and the NW is stuck with Pacers. Although it was late hours so no body really cares.

 

[Sprog]

[Quote Removed]

So what..worrying..whys that worrying???

**** happens! Seems to happen alot on the railways. Just freak incidents/co-incidences.

And before you start talking about "what if hed been on the mainline doing 70mph" - the DSD/AWS/TPWS would have stopped him................

And MetCam, can i give some advice please.

If this information is sensitive (commercially/legally etc.), why post it on here or anywhere else?

I know things that ive been told by people within the rail industry (freinds etc) - stuff that could get people in trouble or be very commercially sensitive foir a TOC. BUT, my knowledge is exactly that. MINE. I keep my mouth shut and say nothing. Im happy personally knowing what i do.

Im certain the press do look at these forums..............TC, your techinical assistance please...(!!?)

FOR EXAMPLE:

On a recent BBC article about the replacement for HSTs, a discussion thread on RailChat was started. In it, i posted a comment about the picture they had used to accompany the article (the pic, labelled 'Intercity 125' was actually a InterCity Liveried Mk.4 DVT at KX :roll: :roll

I mocked them on this and said how stupid they where.

However, when i checkd the topic later, someone else had commented on the artice and when i clicked the URL ,low and behold.......... Some scrote had changed the picture to a shot of IC liveried HSTs at Paddington (IIRC) hock: hock:

A freak co-incdidence, ooor, had someone from the 'Mail been snooping around RC forum............!??

I recomend the post/topic (including mine ) is edited/deleted please mods.

 

[yorkie]

There is no way this will be covered up, if true!

It simply couldn't be covered up, no way! Even if it could be (which is surely impossible as it would require the driver and guard to lie and surely there'd be witnesses, it sounds very far-fetched to me!!!!), it would do no-one any favours to cover something like this up.
--- edited ---

[On a recent BBC article about the replacement for HSTs, a discussion thread on RailChat was started. In it, i posted a comment about the picture they had used to accompany the article (the pic, labelled 'Intercity 125' was actually a InterCity Liveried Mk.4 DVT at KX :roll: :roll

I mocked them on this and said how stupid they where.

However, when i checkd the topic later, someone else had commented on the artice and when i clicked the URL ,low and behold.......... Some scrote had changed the picture to a shot of IC liveried HSTs at Paddington (IIRC) hock: hock:

A freak co-incdidence, ooor, had someone from the 'Mail been snooping around RC forum............!??

Possibly, but such occurences often crop up on uk.railway and I'd have thought it more likely that someone at the BBC reads the newsgroup. But even more likely than that, I think people e-mail them to correct them.

 

[Met Driver]

Guys, in future can we be a little more careful about what we post, please! Speculating is pointless and leads to all sorts of romours flying around. It's better to await the facts and discuss them afterwards.

In any case as yorkie says, if what was posted is true, there's no way it could be covered up. If it emerged as being true at a later date, those who tried to keep it 'hush' would be in serious trouble.

 

[Sprog]

Glad you lot agree with me

Thanks Seth and Yorkie :thumblef:

 

[Tomnick]

MetCam - I've moved your post out of public view, at least for the time being. Rules or no rules, I'm not too happy at rumours like this being posted on RailUK - it might be little more than an innocent rumour at the moment, but (bearing in mind that we don't know who reads this!) it could quickly develop into something more serious. There's a time and a place for speculating on 'inside' information and rumours, and I don't think this is either the time or the place. As I said, the post hasn't been deleted, and I'll make sure it returns if the admin/mod team see fit, after discussing the contents.

Please don't post this rumour a third time - the fact that Seth deleted it once already, suggests that we're not happy to entertain such 'informed' speculation! Feel free to discuss, of course, once we know some more of the facts...

 

[Sprog]

Im just concerned for the driver in question.

Let the RAIB deal with it. (Rail Accident Investigation Board)

Like i said: press, officials, managers - anyone could be reading this!

It may be a slight case of paranoia on my behalf, but...its better to be safe than sorry.

 

[Tom B]

There is freedom of speech but it is restricted. There's no thought police, no miniluv, but saying unsubstantiated stuff on a public forum is NOT a good idea!