• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Incident at Penistone 27/08/21

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
3,097
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
17,151
Believe the incident was alongside the Oxspring Renewal site section of line between Penistone Station and Oxspring Viaduct.
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
3,806
Missed this one on rest days. Sounds like someone could be for the high jump.
 

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
17,151
Bit more info at the following link...


ECS Press Release said:
  • SAFETY ALERT NRX21-10 – PASSENGER TRAIN STRIKES OUTRIGGER
    OVERVIEW

    On the 27th August 2021, a portable toilet unit was being collected by a HIAB lorry mounted crane from Oxspring renewal site between Penistone Station and Oxspring Viaduct.
    As part of the activity, the HIAB driver deployedn the outriggers in order to lift the toilet unit.
    At approximately 08:45hrs a passenger train came into contact with the front left outrigger causing superficial damage to the train.
    The train came to a stand and the line was blocked. No injuries occurred as a result of the incident.
    The incident location was attended by the Principal Contractor management, British Transport Police and Route staff.
    The incident is currently under investigation by the Principal Contractor.
    A safety bulletin will be issued once further learning is identified.
Also seen an unsubstantiated social media rumour that the contractor in question possibly didn't think they were working alongside an operational railway line! :rolleyes:
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,471
Location
Glasgow
Also seen an unsubstantiated social media rumour that the contractor in question possibly didn't think they were working alongside an operational railway line! :rolleyes:
Are you rolling your figurative eyes at the rumour or at the contractor?
 

D6975

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
3,045
Location
Bristol
Another person who thinks that the track fairies come out at night to polish the railheads? :D:D:D
 

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
3,745
Location
St Albans
RAIB Safety Digest on this incident now published - see this link - Summary:
This accident demonstrates the importance of:
• organisations which work within the railway boundary following their procedures so that visitors are appropriately managed and supervised when they are lineside, particularly where sites are being set up or shut down, or on other occasions when supervisory staff are less likely to be present
• organisations having a clear understanding of the requirements when work is taking place within the railway boundary that involves road vehicles, so that they can ensure that an appropriate safe system of work, and staff with the required competencies, are in place.

At 08:48 hrs, train reporting number 2B07, the 08:12 hrs Northern service from Huddersfield to Sheffield, was travelling at 20 mph (32 km/h) when it struck the stabiliser leg of a lorry that was parked next to the track. The lorry’s stabiliser legs had been deployed as its crane was being used to lift portable toilet units onto its flatbed. The accident occurred about 0.3 miles (0.5 km) to the south-east of Penistone station, on the section of line between Huddersfield and Barnsley. The train had been accelerating after departing from Penistone station, and had reached 27 mph (43 km/h) when the lorry came into view. The driver saw a person near to the lorry and sounded the train’s horn to give a warning. Although the driver saw the person and lorry, the stabiliser legs were not clearly visible, and the driver continued accelerating. As the train got closer, the driver then noticed one of the stabiliser legs was very close to the track, so he applied the train’s brakes. The train struck the lorry five seconds later. The train crew and 25 passengers on board the train were unhurt by the collision. The lorry’s stabiliser leg was damaged and there was also some damage to the front and side of the train.
After the train came to a stop, the driver made an emergency call to report the accident. The train was later moved to Barnsley, from where the passengers were able to continue their journeys.
 

fishwomp

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
1,271
Location
milton keynes
RAIB Safety Digest on this incident now published - see this link - Summary:
Thanks. So.. in a nutshell, the incident happened, a report was written, and filed with the rest?

There seem to be a number of issues -
".. [CRSA's policy] stated that all visitors must sign in, wear appropriate PPE, be given a visitor’s induction, and always be accompanied by a fully inducted person. The procedure also included a section for visitors required to go on or near the line. It required these visitors to hold the PTS competency or to complete a medical self-assessment and obtain a track visitor permit (TVP). The procedure then required a COSS to validate the visitor’s PTS or TVP, and set up a safe system of work, in accordance with the Rule Book, to meet the needs of the visit. None of this happened when the lorry driver arrived to collect the portable toilet units on 27 August."

Sigh. I'd say we need to investigate near misses as much as we do actual accidents, but this was an accident, a collision. It needs more than a digest IMHO.
 

fishwomp

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
1,271
Location
milton keynes
What would a full report say that the digest doesn't?
Good question. Perhaps you're right, the facts are well known of this incident. It just doesn't read like it is going any further.
I'd like full analysis of why the situation in bold was allowed to occur, not the analysis of what happened on the day. This reads like what happened, not root cause.

Like "five whys": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys

Then you can take action to prevent future occurrence.

The cause on the day was none of the procedures being followed.

That's all it says. No "why?" let alone five "whys"..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top