Derailment at Wimbledon 6/11/17

[theageofthetra]

I don’t think there is any evidence of any sort of argument. Someone seemingly placed incorrect signage on the ground (the internal diagrams show the position of the boundary) and local track patrollers took those signs/post to be the boundary owing to incorrect track patrol diagrams, and thus did not patrol the area in the middle.

Shades of that time Railtrack allegedly lost a signal box.

 

[Muzer]

I feel like a better, standardised boundary marker is probably in order. To be honest I'm surprised we don't already have one (I guess we do for the Channel Tunnel and HS1, but not sure it's really anywhere else). And I'm surprised that this wasn't suggested by RAIB.

Is it just me or does anyone else find their new habit of putting out digests rather lacking?

 

[MotCO]

Are there any other areas where Network Rail and other operators have a boundary point. Will these also be checked for a common understanding?

 

[Chris M]

I feel like a better, standardised boundary marker is probably in order. To be honest I'm surprised we don't already have one (I guess we do for the Channel Tunnel and HS1, but not sure it's really anywhere else). And I'm surprised that this wasn't suggested by RAIB.

Is it just me or does anyone else find their new habit of putting out digests rather lacking?

The digests are just a new name for the bulletins they published from the start.
The criteria for a full investigation (when there is no statuary requirement for one) is "new safety learnings" - i.e. there is a need for new recommendations. In this case I would imagine that there isn't as everything that could be said has probably been done - i.e.

• LU and NR should review every boundary they have with other infrastructure owners to ensure that it is the same in every place it is referred to, particularly including track maintenance.

A section "actions that have already been taken that would otherwise have led to recommendations" section would be good thought.

Are there any other areas where Network Rail and other operators have a boundary point. Will these also be checked for a common understanding?

Many exist - there are at least five other LU/NR boundaries: District line Richmond branch, Bakerloo line north of Queen's Park, Central line west of West Ruislip, and two between the Met and Chiltern. NR also have boundaries with many different private siding owners, the MoD, Tyne and Wear Metro, HS1, Manchester Metrolink, several heritage railways and rail-connected museums. Presumably also Sheffield Trams given the tram-train trail.
The only one I know of though that doesn't involve NR is Northern Ireland Railways/Iarnród Éireann, but as that is also an international boundary I expect that to be well demarcated.

As for whether other common understandings be checked, if I was Network Rail I'd be writing to each other operator I had a boundary with and inviting them to an on-the-ground meeting with track maintenance managers (and hopefully workers) of both organisations to ensure that the understandings are indeed common. I don't work in the industry though so don't know whether this is what has been done.

 

[Dstock7080]

Many exist - there are at least five other LU/NR boundaries: District line Richmond branch, Bakerloo line north of Queen's Park, Central line west of West Ruislip, and two between the Met and Chiltern.

+ Barking NR/LU

 

[Dr_Paul]

Fresh air or otherwise, a few short workings in the morning peak would probably go down rather well at the likes of Putney Bridge or Fulham Broadway!

The former possibility has been well and truly stymied by the removal of the bay platform (with its remarkable buffer stop).

 

[Muzer]

The former possibility has been well and truly stymied by the removal of the bay platform (with its remarkable buffer stop).

Presumably it could be put back. The reason it would have been removed would have been the introduction of the S Stock. Shorter trains would still fit would it be reinstated.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Presumably it could be put back. The reason it would have been removed would have been the introduction of the S Stock. Shorter trains would still fit would it be reinstated.

There is also the matter of the supports underneath requiring a lot of work if they are to carry trains again; their condition was often mentioned as one of the reasons for switching the platform faces around.


Edited to correct typo ( even though it is now preserved for posterity in the reply below! )

 

[Ianno87]

There is also the matter of the supports underneath requiring a lot of work if they are to carry trains again; their condition was often mentioned as one of thye reasons for switching the platform faces around.

And the fact that demand through to Wimbledon all day means that short workings (and consequent uneven passenger loadings) cause more of an operational headache than they solve. Plenty of space for the 'inner' passengers on the S7s.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Many exist - there are at least five other LU/NR boundaries: District line Richmond branch, Bakerloo line north of Queen's Park, Central line west of West Ruislip, and two between the Met and Chiltern. NR also have boundaries with many different private siding owners, the MoD, Tyne and Wear Metro, HS1, Manchester Metrolink, several heritage railways and rail-connected museums. Presumably also Sheffield Trams given the tram-train trail.
The only one I know of though that doesn't involve NR is Northern Ireland Railways/Iarnród Éireann, but as that is also an international boundary I expect that to be well demarcated.

OT, but surely there must be at least one between NR and Midland Metro? Anyone know?

 

[Muzer]

OT, but surely there must be at least one between NR and Midland Metro? Anyone know?

Perhaps surprising, perhaps not, but I don't think there are any. Certainly not now, but even when it terminated at Snow Hill I don't think there was a junction.

One that hasn't been mentioned is the boundary between Network Rail and BAA in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport Jn

 

[rebmcr]

One that hasn't been mentioned is the boundary between Network Rail and BAA in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport Jn

It's not a maintenance boundary though, only an ownership boundary. NR perform inspections on all parts of the Paddington-Heathrow route.

 

[snowball]

Are there any other areas where Network Rail and other operators have a boundary point. Will these also be checked for a common understanding?

There's a horiontal maintenance boundary between Network Rail and Metrolink in the Altrincham / Navigation Road area: two parallel tracks, one part of the national network, one part of Metrolink. Both tracks maintained by NR (who also operate and maintain the signalling), but the overhead wire on the Metrolink track is maintained by Metrolink.

 

[Chris M]

There is a similar arrangement of parallel NR and tram tracks in Nottingham and at Birkbeck on Tramlink. I've always assumed that each maintain their own track there, but I don't actually know.

 

[Bromley boy]

There is a similar arrangement of parallel NR and tram tracks in Nottingham and at Birkbeck on Tramlink. I've always assumed that each maintain their own track there, but I don't actually know.

Birkbeck is definitely split between tramlink (TFL?) and Network Rail, with a fence between the two stations making it inconvenient to interchange from Tramlink to national rail (albeit highly unlikely anyone would do that given the trains and the trams both start from/terminate at Beckenham junction!)

I’m not sure what the arrangements are at Elmers End, and Wimbledon for that matter, where Tramlink uses a platform at a NR rail station and a cross platform interchange is possible with NR services.

 

[XDM]

The distance between the two rails had spread to a whopping 5cm. Hence the derailment.
Surely the guys who maintain within 15 foot of the defective section from LUL on one side & NR on the other would have seen it. It is their job, they are experts at spotting defects. 5 cm too wide would have been noticed by a child. Surely week after week & month after month they did not just ignore it & say nothing, apart from "its nothing to do with me guv."
We should be told.

 

[Domh245]

I don't know, 5cm at standard gauge is 3.5% - you might spot it but I'd wager that short of getting the measuring tape out (or equivalent) you probably wouldn't, especially in the dark if it's not something that you are actively looking at.

 

[edwin_m]

There is a similar arrangement of parallel NR and tram tracks in Nottingham and at Birkbeck on Tramlink. I've always assumed that each maintain their own track there, but I don't actually know.

I'm pretty sure they each maintain their own tracks. Birkbeck-Beckenham is unfenced away from the stops, so each organisation's maintenance staff need both track safety competencies. Nottingham is segregated by fences over the whole length of adjacent running, though it has its own responsibility nightmare in the level crossings. As well as Altrincham, Metrolink has unfenced running close to Network Rail at Dean Lane (waste terminal branch), Rochdale and near Cornbrook.

I don't know, 5cm at standard gauge is 3.5% - you might spot it but I'd wager that short of getting the measuring tape out (or equivalent) you probably wouldn't, especially in the dark if it's not something that you are actively looking at.

The report mentions that the point of derailment was about 25m from where the LU maintainers thought their boundary was. As they were not trained in Network Rail safety procedures they would not only not have had any reason to go that far, they would have believed they were actually forbidden to do so. The same applies in reverse to the Network Rail maintainers, but the derailment was even further from where they thought their limit of responsibility was.

The report also mentions that the maximum acceptable gauge is 1460mm, so it was only 25mm wider than that. I think you'd be more likely to see a problem by evidence of movement in the fixings than by judging the gauge by eye.

 

[Chris M]

Even on track that they do patrol regularly, I suspect few track workers will be able to detect even 5cm gauge widening from 25m away - particularly if, as is likely in this case, the track gradually widens over a good few metres rather than suddenly.

 

[theageofthetra]

I'm pretty sure they each maintain their own tracks. Birkbeck-Beckenham is unfenced away from the stops, so each organisation's maintenance staff need both track safety competencies. Nottingham is segregated by fences over the whole length of adjacent running, though it has its own responsibility nightmare in the level crossings. As well as Altrincham, Metrolink has unfenced running close to Network Rail at Dean Lane (waste terminal branch), Rochdale and near Cornbrook.

The report mentions that the point of derailment was about 25m from where the LU maintainers thought their boundary was. As they were not trained in Network Rail safety procedures they would not only not have had any reason to go that far, they would have believed they were actually forbidden to do so. The same applies in reverse to the Network Rail maintainers, but the derailment was even further from where they thought their limit of responsibility was.

The report also mentions that the maximum acceptable gauge is 1460mm, so it was only 25mm wider than that. I think you'd be more likely to see a problem by evidence of movement in the fixings than by judging the gauge by eye.

Have any of the senior managers who signed this off been put on an action plan?

 

[AngusH]

I had the (perhaps slightly silly) idea that perhaps all demarcation points should require the responsible supervisors to formally meet up at the demarcation point once a year, shake hands over the boundary line, both sign a form to indicate they have met and then have a pint at a nearby pub .

Thus proving the correct location, or at least some approximation and making sure that both parties know each other.

The beer would be a legitmate business expense and would, of course, be consumed only after all work had been completed for the day.

 

[Domh245]

I had the (perhaps slightly silly) idea that perhaps all demarcation points should require the responsible supervisors to formally meet up at the demarcation point once a year, shake hands over the boundary line, both sign a form to indicate they have met and then have a pint at a nearby pub .

Thus proving the correct location, or at least some approximation and making sure that both parties know each other.

The beer would be a legitmate business expense and would, of course, be consumed only after all work had been completed for the day.

You aren't one of the "responsible surveyors" are you, with an idea like that?

 

[Chris M]

Have any of the senior managers who signed this off been put on an action plan?

Signed what off?
Also, the RAIB report doesn't make it clear how long the maintenance boundaries have been underlapping, but ownership of the line south of Putney was formally transferred on 1 April 1994 and details would obviously have been worked out prior to then. However, even if it was 1994 how many senior managers who were in post then do you think will still be working on the railways (in any role) 24 years later?
Even if the boundaries were reviewed in preparation for PPP on the tube that would be no later than 2002 - or 16 years ago - and wouldn't have impacted the mainline side of things. If the latter were reviewed when Railtrack became Network Rail that was also 2002. You generally don't get to become a senior manager without being, well, senior and 16 years is an incredibly long time to be in any post these days. Assuming you do find someone still employed in a similar senior managerial role this long afterwards, what sort of action plan do you think would be appropriate and relevant?