Doncaster derailment

[Johnny_w]

They might be "wide to gauge" type trap points...in fact they more than likely are.

Isn't this a discussion forum for the purpose of discussing stuff?

anyways, for my own titillation and education could someone explain what a "Wide to guage" Trap point is and what it does?

Cheers,

JW

 

[GB]

These are wide to gauge trap points..

Normal trap points derail a train to the side which is no good if there are running lines or obstructions either side. So wide to gauge trap points derail a train as straight as possible. Normal position is wide (as shown), then to gauge when route set.

 

[Oswyntail]

These are wide to gauge trap points..

Normal trap points derail a train to the side which is no good if there are running lines or obstructions either side. So wide to gauge trap points derail a train as straight as possible. Normal position is wide (as shown), then to gauge when route set.

Thanks - that makes sense. I am now educated!

 

[DarloRich]

I have quoted the original post in full. Now, in my limited knowledge, I cannot see whether it is speculating about driver error. What I would appreciate is a reply that says a) what the original post means, or implies, b) what other explanations might be possible, and c) a reasonable discussion of any issues that might arise out of this, whether affecting the driver, the design of the bogies, the trackwork, signalling or anything else. This is a discussion board, and people, like me, learn a lot from it. That is why speculation is of use.
It is also, IMHO, excessively paranoid to censor any discussion because someone might have made an error. If an error has been made, then there may well be consequences. I very much doubt anyone would take the ramblings on this board as evidence of anything:roll:

Whilst speculation is fine it does need to be tempered with an understanding that many things of this nature are almost "sub judice"

As an aside - perhaps we could know the nature of your work which could then be discussed and speculated upon by armchair experts.

 

[Oswyntail]

Whilst speculation is fine it does need to be tempered with an understanding that many things of this nature are almost "sub judice"

In some matters one can understand this. But if, as seems to be hinted in the background, any disciplinary action against a member of staff is taken on the basis of what is written here, any decent union would have the company by the short and curlies.

As an aside - perhaps we could know the nature of your work which could then be discussed and speculated upon by armchair experts.

What I do, or do not do, is utterly irrelevant here (Of course, on another board, where my activities were, for a time, relevant to all the members, I was quite happy to have them discussed). This is a Railway Discussion Forum. Surely this implies that members are free to discuss any railway matters until the moderators disagree and put an end to it.

 

[ac6000cw]

Nothing, just sick of reading the same old, misinformed bullshoite from the usual numpties!

Clear enough for ya! :roll:

Reading and contributing to a discussion thread is entirely a voluntary activity, so you don't have to put up with it if it annoys you....

Speculation about the causes of accidents on the railways is nothing new - it's inevitable when railway activities are conducted in full view of the public, and Victorian-era newspapers were familiar with the concept (as anyone who's read the 'Red for Danger' book would know).

 

[Legzr1]

Here's a novel idea:

Bookmark this thread then discuss the subject after people who know what they're doing have carried out a full investigation.

Put yourself in the position of the driver for one moment please - you've derailed at a very busy junction with trains passing on either side and then you discover the incident being discussed by people who haven't really got a clue what they're talking about.

Be honest - how would you feel?

 

[Muzer]

Depends on how it was worded - something like "it's probably driver error" would be very rude and I would be rather irritated. On the other hand, something like "one possibility is driver error, because this signal is notorious for multiple SPADs" (ie making clear it's a possibility and not a near-certainty that it's a driver error, and giving a good reason why you think it's a possibility) would be less inflammatory IMHO and I'd be more likely to be happy with such a discussion. But I'm not a driver.

 

[Starmill]

Perhaps a bit too much speculation considering if true a driver career may be on the line. Wait for official reports before making assumptions?

On here! hock:
Good luck with that one!

What else is going to go in these threads? Should they just be immediately locked to prevent 'speculation'? A source of this nature is by definition uninformed.

Why?
Some of us have got better things to do* than keep correcting the same old conjecture every time a train has an earth fault.

* such as read the disputes section!

Who's that, prey? Nobody is forcing you to read this.

 

[DarloRich]

What I do, or do not do, is utterly irrelevant here (Of course, on another board, where my activities were, for a time, relevant to all the members, I was quite happy to have them discussed). This is a Railway Discussion Forum. Surely this implies that members are free to discuss any railway matters until the moderators disagree and put an end to it.

Whilst I don’t disagree I think some of the angst comes from the fact that you could, if you so wished, cast aspersions almost with impunity. The driver/guard/signal man etc is in a public and visible role. It is easy for them to become the target of unfounded or misguided criticism while the “accuser” is anonymous. They can hardly criticise the filing/accountancy/cooking/taxi driving etc of the poster.

I suggest my main point is that speculation is fine (and perhaps natural) but it should be tempered with some understanding that there is a process to be undertaken to ascertain the facts and apportion fault. Finally, I have seen cases where what is essentially unfounded title tattle HAS formed the basis of disciplinary matters. While most of the time that has been easy to dismiss it does nothing to reduce the stress and worry the person involved feels.

Ultimately, perhaps, we should walk a mile in another’s shoes!

 

[meridian2]

Here's a novel idea:

Bookmark this thread then discuss the subject after people who know what they're doing have carried out a full investigation.

Put yourself in the position of the driver for one moment please - you've derailed at a very busy junction with trains passing on either side and then you discover the incident being discussed by people who haven't really got a clue what they're talking about.

Be honest - how would you feel?

I would feel that it was something to be expected, speculation that is, but moreover I wouldn't put myself in the position of being exposed to said speculation in the first place

I'm with Oswyntail. Trying to curtail speculation on an internet forum is like trying to stop the world going round. It is inevitable, and whether it's from 'people who don't know what they're talking about' is subjective depending on whether or not you agree with what's being said. So long as it isn't provocative or inflammatory, then there really is very little point moaning about it.

 

[Legzr1]

I would feel that it was something to be expected, speculation that is, but moreover I wouldn't put myself in the position of being exposed to said speculation in the first place

I'm with Oswyntail. Trying to curtail speculation on an internet forum is like trying to stop the world going round. It is inevitable, and whether it's from 'people who don't know what they're talking about' is subjective depending on whether or not you agree with what's being said. So long as it isn't provocative or inflammatory, then there really is very little point moaning about it.

Obviously you're the perfect example of the perfect human, without fault and incapable of misjudgement.

Yes, you are 'with Oswyntail' - a member who feels in a position to speculate whilst asking what catch points are.:roll:

My opinion of you two may be subjective but the clues are there.

The difference between us is that I don't feel a need to continue my 'speculation'.

 

[meridian2]

Thanks for not bothering to address any of my points in my counter-argument. :roll:
There really is little point debating with someone who feels that any kind of speculation is damaging and disruptive. 'I'm out' as the Dragons would say.

 

[ac6000cw]

Yes, you are 'with Oswyntail' - a member who feels in a position to speculate whilst asking what catch points are.:roll:

Oswyntail didn't ask what catch points are - that was someone else and the question was specifically about the 'wide to gauge' variety. Oswyntail did respond by thanking the person who answered the question - the polite thing to do.

As far as I can see (from what has been said in this thread from people who at least imply they have 'inside knowledge' of the area in question) there is a long-standing potential safety hazard there - due to signal sighting (or site-ing ?) problems - which NR needs to address. Surely public pressure would/should help that along ?

(We didn't get legislation to enforce 'lock, block and brake' in Victorian times due to railway company requests - it was public pressure that made it happen).

 

[chorleyjeff]

Whilst speculation is fine it does need to be tempered with an understanding that many things of this nature are almost "sub judice"

As an aside - perhaps we could know the nature of your work which could then be discussed and speculated upon by armchair experts.

What is almost sub judice? Surely it is or is not sub judice.
Rather like there is no such thing as nearly unique.
And it seems to me speculation is the life blood of forums like this. Otherwise why not just repeat "official" press releases?

 

[A-driver]

I would feel that it was something to be expected, speculation that is, but moreover I wouldn't put myself in the position of being exposed to said speculation in the first place

I'm with Oswyntail. Trying to curtail speculation on an internet forum is like trying to stop the world going round. It is inevitable, and whether it's from 'people who don't know what they're talking about' is subjective depending on whether or not you agree with what's being said. So long as it isn't provocative or inflammatory, then there really is very little point moaning about it.

What on earth do you mean by that?! You say that you wouldn't put yourself in the position of being exposed to speculation in the first place? Can you explain what you mean please as the way I read it you are making yourself out to be a completely arrogant and ignorant fool. I may have read it wrong though and apologise if that is the case but it does seem like a stupid comment proving how little you understand the topic you are attempting to talk about...please expand.

 

[Oswyntail]

...Yes, you are 'with Oswyntail' - a member who feels in a position to speculate whilst asking what catch points are.:roll:...'.

I did not actually speculate about anything, simply objected to censorship.

 

[Legzr1]

'I'm out' as the Dragons would say.

Probably a wise decision based on that paragraph.

I did not actually speculate about anything, simply objected to censorship.

Well done, you get it.

However, your 'simple objection to censorship' shows you agree with speculation does it not?
You tag it 'censorship', I'll call it common sense and decency - wait until details of the investigation are published then fill your boots.

Is that too much to ask for?

Oswyntail did respond by thanking the person who answered the question - the polite thing to do.

Well, yes - my mistake (I'm human and these things happen - perhaps a lesson for some of the perfect specimens on this thread?).

Os also posted that he'd become 'educated' (ergo didn't know what they were before being pointed* out) and continues to argue 'for' speculation so my point stands.

Surely public pressure would/should help that along ?

No.

Speculation and conjecture helps no one.

Things have moved on a little since your Victorian example - there's a lot more accountability and quite a few more professional bodies out there who happen to be experts in their field - all things will be looked at, steps taken and recommendations made.

If you think the opinions of someone unaware of the function of certain types of catchpoints is valid in that discussion then feel free to think that way - you're perfectly entitled to be wrong



*sorry...

 

[meridian2]

What on earth do you mean by that?! You say that you wouldn't put yourself in the position of being exposed to speculation in the first place? Can you explain what you mean please as the way I read it you are making yourself out to be a completely arrogant and ignorant fool. I may have read it wrong though and apologise if that is the case but it does seem like a stupid comment proving how little you understand the topic you are attempting to talk about...please expand.

I said 'I'm out' but I'll respond to your query.

Legzr1 remarked:

"Put yourself in the position of the driver for one moment please - you've derailed at a very busy junction with trains passing on either side and then you discover the incident being discussed by people who haven't really got a clue what they're talking about.

Be honest - how would you feel?"

Now he asked for honesty and I gave an honest response, yet you decry it as 'ignorant and arrogant'. My response was thus:

'I would feel that it was something to be expected, speculation that is, but moreover I wouldn't put myself in the position of being exposed to said speculation in the first place'

Meaning that this has the potential to be quite a traumatic incident, especially for the driver, and the last thing he/she needs is to log onto the internet and read speculative discussions etc about the incident. Now I admit I was talking about how I would've handled the situation, but Legzr1 seems to think that this driver would react badly to seeing such speculative discussions. In effect, we have speculation about speculation, and yet, amidst all the clamouring for a crackdown on speculation, we have somebody who, themselves, is speculating about the emotions of the driver.
It is illogical to assume that the driver would log onto the internet and head for the nearest discussion board, where ignorance is rife, and that is why I formed the answer that I did.
It is also brazenly naive not to expect speculation. So I ask you A-driver, who is the more ignorant? The person for giving an honest answer or the person trying to stop the speculation mill from turning?

 

[plastictaffy]

Why does almost everything on here end up in some sort of argument?? Someone speculated on what might have happened. Big deal. Those who know the railway and how it works should really learn that the railway runs on Rumour, Speculation, cups of tea and overtime. That's how it works. We're all entitled to an opinion - that's exactly what forums are for, is it not??

Going back to the point in question - yes, it may be driver error. On the other hand it could be a fantastically maintained piece of NR's infrastructure. If the driver has dropped a clanger, then he could lose his job - depending on whether it's a first offence, whether he'd done something else wrong that day, whether he was within his working hours, when he last had a drink, what medication he may be on - the list is endless. If he did lose his job, and happened to be a member of this site, he'd be well impressed to read all of you acting as judge and jury, I'm sure.
It could, (and I did say could) be signaller error. He may have been authorised to pass a signal at danger due to a failure, but the signaller hasn't checked which way the points are. There are a million and one reasons why what happened happened.

 

[Muzer]

So, two options:

We expect a qualified driver with an 'internet presence' to avoid the internet for fear of reading ignorant speculation from ignorant posters or I ask members to simply refrain from speculation until the enquiry is finished?

The latter seems reasonable, decent and simple.

I suspect you support the former.

As I said, you made a wise choice then decided to change.

A shame as I think you'd probably have something decent to say once the facts were made public

Er, you do realise that the entire internet - indeed, even the entire forum - isn't concerned with this incident. The person does not have to avoid the entire internet if they do not wish to read discussion about their incident. Just threads that look relevant to the incident.

 

[Stompehh]

No one is allowed to speculate about the MH370 flight because the pilot/manufacturer/airline/mechanic/etc might be wrongly implicated.

 

[A-driver]

Personally I don't have an issue with speculation. However my issue on threads like these is that within the first few posts someone has to jump in and suggest it was driver error. Of course it may have been and that is dead obvious. Equally it could be one of a hundred other things but no one pointed any of those out...

Plus let's add that even if this was driver error there will be far more to it than the driver making a mistake.

Just seems posters here are all too quick to start throwing blame onto staff and it has become very tiresome. Blaming the driver was pointless as there are numerous other possibilities as well.

 

[KA4C]

Just wondering how many jobs are faced with internet experts getting excited over the slightest thing and indulging in internet speculation as to whether you might be at fault or not?

Don't happen to my mate, an airline pilot (unless he kills people)

No wonder drivers get tired of some enthusiasts sometimes

 

[ECML180]

I really don't see the issue with speculating/discussing something as long as it is not delivered as fact when it is just someone's 'best guess' at what happened. I saw a bus nearly run into a car at a junction today, me and the other people in our car spent the next few minutes of our journey discussing this why this occurred. Should we have waited for the police to investigate and release a report? Likewise is it wrong for a couple of people on the platform to be suggesting why the train is late...in case it was someone's fault? Sounds like normal human conversation to me!

 

[Legzr1]

No wonder drivers get tired of some enthusiasts sometimes

Fair point, well made.


Personally, I'll wait for official confirmation (we've already received the NR spad notice).


Experts, the floor is yours :roll:

 

[ac6000cw]

Well, yes - my mistake (I'm human and these things happen - perhaps a lesson for some of the perfect specimens on this thread?).

Os also posted that he'd become 'educated' (ergo didn't know what they were before being pointed* out) and continues to argue 'for' speculation so my point stands.


No.

Speculation and conjecture helps no one.

Things have moved on a little since your Victorian example - there's a lot more accountability and quite a few more professional bodies out there who happen to be experts in their field - all things will be looked at, steps taken and recommendations made.

If you think the opinions of someone unaware of the function of certain types of catchpoints is valid in that discussion then feel free to think that way - you're perfectly entitled to be wrong



*sorry...

I don't think I've read such an arrogant and patronising post on a forum for some time....

I'll happily admit that despite being an interested observer of the railway scene for over 40 years (especially the engineering and technology that underpins it), I never knew that 'wide to gauge' was the correct name for that design of catch points - so, like Oswyntail I actually learned something useful from this thread. It's things like that make the Internet such a powerful educational tool - sure, you have to filter and sanity check the content sometimes, but isn't that just part of life anyway ?

I design electronic systems for a living, and if I sat in customer meetings and responded to questions about how my designs work with 'Don't worry, I know better than you, it'll all be OK' I'd probably be shown the door pretty quickly - and I'd deserve it. I also contribute to a major open-source software project, where (by definition) all of your work is on full worldwide public view - it's about the most powerful form of 'peer review' I know of. It can be embarrassing at times when you've got it wrong, but it's also a powerful incentive to get it right next time....and others can learn from your mistakes.

Speculation and conjecture are a vital part of progress e.g. no one is perfect, so sometimes things I've designed behave in unexpected ways. Often the available 'facts' are quite limited, so speculating on the causes and then testing those ideas against the facts might be the only way work out what has gone wrong inside (especially if the problem can't be easily reproduced).

By the way, the Victorians had their 'professional bodies' too - the Railway Inspectorate of the time made some very hard-hitting recommendations and comments about the lack of basic safety equipment on some lines, but some of the biggest railway companies of the day had an arrogant 'we know better, why do we need to change ?' attitude to that. Eventually Parliament responded to public pressure and decided things had to change. ('Red for Danger' is still in print, and probably ought to be required reading for anyone involved in safety-critical activities, railway or otherwise).

Tony

 

[dysonsphere]

By the why the first post said the loco had derailed on trap points and I didnt know what "wide to gauge" meant either. The only other comment was that the location had a history of misreading of signals. I saw no mention of blame anywhere.

 

[IanXC]

I think everyone has now had a chance to air their views on discussions of these types of topic, so can we please stay "on topic" moving forward. Comments which are of a speculative nature must be appropriate, and couched in the appropriate language.

As per the forum rules, if any content causes you concern, please alert us to it, by reporting (

) it.