Incident near Harling Road 10/4

[RPM]

The 168/3 that got damaged by a tree seemed to get a new front quickly enough.

The 168/3 didn't need a new front, just a repair. It was the 168/1 that hit the same tree that required a new front end, and that's still not back in service.

 

[Marklund]

The pictures on the itv.com report mentioned later appear to show the MSL pedestals are covered with blue bags; i.e. not in commission. Also looks like one of the new pedestals has received a mighty clout from the debris which has knocked it off it's.....

Comment on another site suggests that the MSL kit has previously been in use but has been taken OOU due to unspecified 'issues'. From the limited pictures it look like one of the ABB Ebigate xxx (can't recall the type) bits of kit which have had their Product Cert. suspended by NR which ties in with the comment. Not that any of this should have any bearing on this incident if the instruction on the signage has been followed to the letter.

Thankfully, in time all will have an opportunity to recount their tale.

Yes, hopefully everyone will recover well.
As for the Ebigate cover, there is a proper out of use cover for them. There is no light emitted, or buttons able to be pressed with it fitted.

I hope that the system wasn't still being used, despite the bin bag over it.

 

[najaB]

I hope that the system wasn't still being used, despite the bin bag over it.

Surely if it was being used, then they wouldn't be able to get a green light so would have to call the signal box?

 

[Marklund]

Surely if it was being used, then they wouldn't be able to get a green light so would have to call the signal box?

If it has been disconnected, then yes.
That's why I'm hoping it's not just been bagged over.

 

[moggie]

Yes, hopefully everyone will recover well.
As for the Ebigate cover, there is a proper out of use cover for them. There is no light emitted, or buttons able to be pressed with it fitted.

I hope that the system wasn't still being used, despite the bin bag over it.

It would be standard practice to electrically isolate all buttons and illuminations on any equipment OOU which the public might be tempted to try and operate. As this is a User Worked Crossing the designated user will be made aware by NR - or should have been.

Maybe a factor, probably not. Time will tell.

 

[najaB]

If it has been disconnected, then yes.
That's why I'm hoping it's not just been bagged over.

But even if it's been bagged over and not disconnected it would be showing a red light and it wouldn't be possible to get a green, no?

 

[BestWestern]

But even if it's been bagged over and not disconnected it would be showing a red light and it wouldn't be possible to get a green, no?

If it was out of use I'd expect it would show no indication at all?

 

[Cliveblackpool]

If it was out of use I'd expect it would show no indication at all?

That sounds logical.
I believe the correct procedure, lights or no lights, for drivers of slow moving vehicles to phone the signalman, who may have requested a return call when the crossing was clear, especially with a trailer.

 

[90sWereBetter]

The 170 is now sitting alongside some DVTs at Crown Point with the cab completely covered in tarpaulins.

 

[najaB]

If it was out of use I'd expect it would show no indication at all?

That is what I would expect as well, but Marklund was wondering if it had just been bagged over. The point I was making is that, were that the case, the red light would have been on rather than the green. Unless it is possible to fail-dangerous rather than fail-safe in which case there's a bigger problem...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If it had been bagged over, would the bag have had "Out of use" printed on it?

 

[tsr]

That is what I would expect as well, but Marklund was wondering if it had just been bagged over. The point I was making is that, were that the case, the red light would have been on rather than the green. Unless it is possible to fail-dangerous rather than fail-safe in which case there's a bigger problem...

Maybe a problem with a failsafe aspect (no pun intended) of the system led to it being taken OOU? I don't know - but just a suggestion amongst all the others.

If it had been bagged over, would the bag have had "Out of use" printed on it?

I'm pretty sure the bags in the images are semi-transparent blue bags with no text. Whether these were used to preserve evidence rather than being involved with the equipment at the time of the incident, I cannot say. The standard for covering railway signals which are OOU is to use a black, opaque bag over the signal head, with a white cross permissible. I'm not sure what, if any, guidance applies to coverings on experimental signals for road/pedestrian crossing signals.

 

[w0033944]

I'm pretty sure the bags in the images are semi-transparent blue bags with no text. Whether these were used to preserve evidence rather than being involved with the equipment at the time of the incident, I cannot say. The standard for covering railway signals which are OOU is to use a black, opaque bag over the signal head, with a white cross permissible. I'm not sure what, if any, guidance applies to coverings on experimental signals for road/pedestrian crossing signals.

I'd have thought that any member of the public with a modicum of common sense would realise that such an item is out of use if covered by a bag?

 

[Marklund]

That is what I would expect as well, but Marklund was wondering if it had just been bagged over. The point I was making is that, were that the case, the red light would have been on rather than the green. Unless it is possible to fail-dangerous rather than fail-safe in which case there's a bigger problem...

As I understand it, (I never had the training, but have seen the Ebigate in a training environment, and bagged out of use in the field), it doesn't show the user an indication until the button is pressed in the "On Demand" mode.

My concern was if it were only bagged, and not disconnected, the user may have become used to pressing the button and seeing the clear indication while on this occasion they've been caught out and taken too long to cross for some reason before the train came.

The 2003 accident at Pools Crossing where a farm labourer who spoke and read little English shows that there is an issue with crossing users who speak/read no or little English, and there are many overseas workers in the farming world.

That's why I'm hoping it's not just been bagged.

 

[dquebec]

I have been told that neither the tractor driver or the train driver were at fault.
You can use the process of elimination to come to your own conclusion.

I am 100% confident that RAIB will support what I have been told.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I'm pretty sure the bags in the images are semi-transparent blue bags with no text. Whether these were used to preserve evidence rather than being involved with the equipment at the time of the incident, I cannot say. The standard for covering railway signals which are OOU is to use a black, opaque bag over the signal head, with a white cross permissible. I'm not sure what, if any, guidance applies to coverings on experimental signals for road/pedestrian crossing signals.

I don't know if supplier variables come into play, but the new miniature crossing light box pedestals should/normally come with a proper 'Out Of Use' vinyl cover (can't remember the precise wording - it might be 'Not In Service' instead) which is very definitely 'light tight'.

 

[AndyPJG]

The 170 is now sitting alongside some DVTs at Crown Point with the cab completely covered in tarpaulins.

Looks like it needs a new engine as well:-

railmagazine.com turbostar-hits-tractor-on-breckland-line-crossing

A tractor driver was airlifted to hospital on April 10 after an Abellio Greater Anglia Class 170 hit his vehicle on a User Worked Crossing (UWC).

The accident happened between Harling Road and Thetford. There were reportedly six passengers who suffered minor injuries when the 1203 Norwich-Cambridge hit the tractor on the UWC.

The Class 170 was damaged, with its brake cylinders and engine sump ripped off.

Trains on the Breckland Line were suspended following the accident.

 

[grumblingalong]

If anyone fancies a closer look 204 is in the side roads at crown point visible from trains arriving ex London over trowse bridge.

 

[TheEdge]

If anyone fancies a closer look 204 is in the side roads at crown point visible from trains arriving ex London over trowse bridge.

I'm good, I've probably seen all the smashed up 170 I ever need!

 

[scott118]

I'm good, I've probably seen all the smashed up 170 I ever need!

what a guy ! Officially heroic..

 

[dk1]

what a guy ! Officially heroic..

Always my hero. AMTs on me on our next duet

 

[scott118]

Always my hero. AMTs on me on our next duet

dude - is it wise to load him up with so much sugar, before you guys, set off?

 

[dk1]

dude - is it wise to load him up with so much sugar, before you guys, set off?

Perhaps I'll do it on the way back

 

[grumblingalong]

what a guy ! Officially heroic..

Wasn't as bad as you all made out.....some of the scuds are worse than that....

 

[QueensCurve]

The 170 has stood up to that smash very well considering the speed and what it hit.

I take it the speed of trains in North Norfolk is more exciting than it is in West Cumbria?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

is not in the main Mail story. It is a reader's comment. It clearly states "train driver".

<Shrill>The train journey was terrifying..there was nobody at the wheel...the children were PETRIFIED!<shrill>

 

[LAX54]

I have been told that neither the tractor driver or the train driver were at fault.
You can use the process of elimination to come to your own conclusion.

I am 100% confident that RAIB will support what I have been told.

mmmm.. there are different stories going around about that ! as for red and green lights, it does not matter with such a vehicle, even if there is a Green light showing, he is required to call the signalbox to get permission to cross.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I have been told that neither the tractor driver or the train driver were at fault.
You can use the process of elimination to come to your own conclusion.

I am 100% confident that RAIB will support what I have been told.

Your faith in RAIB is touching. This is the same cowboy organisation that manages to slip in completely irrelevant phrases like "nautical twilight" when what they really mean to say is it was dark, to try and sound more intelligent than they really are.

Their report into the derailment Godmersham was a near complete work of nonsense, the recommendations in particular were the work of simpletons with scant basic knowledge of electricity, and their initial finger pointing concerning Lamington was subsequently found to be almost totally incorrect.

 

[bnm]

Their report into the derailment Godmersham was a near complete work of nonsense, the recommendations in particular were the work of simpletons with scant basic knowledge of electricity, and their initial finger pointing concerning Lamington was subsequently found to be almost totally incorrect.

Okay I'll bite. Do please enlighten us with what actually happened and what recommendations should have been made.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Okay I'll bite. Do please enlighten us with what actually happened and what recommendations should have been made.

There are threads on both incidents which explain all, but to quickly cover

Godmersham - derailment which resulted in the GSM-R radio in the leading cab tripping its MCB. RAIB think it's appropriate for a driver to spend time trying to get the radio working instead of immediately heading to the rear cab to use the GSM-R radio there, or as the driver did in this case, heading for the nearest SPT to report the derailment.

They also don't take into account that the MCB could have tripped correctly and trying to reset the radio could risk an electric shock or present a fire risk if the wiring or radio set has become damaged.

Lamington - NR permanent way team accused of not noticing the severe dips on the viaduct, it later became apparent that the severe dips weren't there to be spotted and were actually caused by the first train to pass over the viaduct at speed after the ESR was lifted. The team appear to have done little or nothing wrong, and it's quite possible the way events transpired, a more serious incident was averted, not made more likely.

 

[SPADTrap]

There are threads on both incidents which explain all, but to quickly cover

Godmersham - derailment which resulted in the GSM-R radio in the leading cab tripping its MCB. RAIB think it's appropriate for a driver to spend time trying to get the radio working instead of immediately heading to the rear cab to use the GSM-R radio there, or as the driver did in this case, heading for the nearest SPT to report the derailment.

They also don't take into account that the MCB could have tripped correctly and trying to reset the radio could risk an electric shock or present a fire risk if the wiring or radio set has become damaged.

Lamington - NR permanent way team accused of not noticing the severe dips on the viaduct, it later became apparent that the severe dips weren't there to be spotted and were actually caused by the first train to pass over the viaduct at speed after the ESR was lifted. The team appear to have done little or nothing wrong, and it's quite possible the way events transpired, a more serious incident was averted, not made more likely.

I'd go one further and say that if the GSM-R tripped and was inop in my leading cab I'd not be going back to try another one potentially 4 coaches away, I'd be starting emergency protection and all that is required from that and hope to pass an SPT or lineside phone and liven my mobile while doing so. What would RAIB say if something ploughed into the derailment whilst the driver piddled around trying to liven up a rear cab GSM-R? That isn't in the rule book.