Lucky escape for track workers Shrewsbury

[fsmr]

Reports of overnight incident involving a track trolley and Manchester service in early hours, no injuries thankfully

Railway workers had to dash to safety when a train hit a maintenance truck on tracks near Shrewsbury today.


http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/...train-hits-maintenance-truck-near-shrewsbury/



Contractors working on the line, close to the village of Hadnall, managed to get out of the way before the impact in the early hours of this morning.

Police were called to the scene near Shrewsbury at 12.25am after the rail trolley was hit by the 22.26 Manchester to Shrewsbury train, which had one passenger on board.

Although the train was badly damaged it remained on the tracks.

No one was injured but men working on the line were understood to have been extremely shaken.

A British Transport Police spokesman said: "British Transport Police were called on Friday following a report that a rail trolley had been struck by a train near Station Road in Hadnall, Shrewsbury.

"BTP officers attended the incident, which was reported at 12.25am, alongside colleagues from West Mercia Police and West Midlands Ambulance service.

"The train involved, the 22.26 Manchester to Shrewsbury service, is understood to have struck the rail trolley which contained engineering equipment that was being used by rail staff working on the tracks in the location.

"One passenger was on board at the time and there are no reports of any injuries to them or the driver of the service, who was treated for shock.

"Three men, who were working on the tracks at the time, managed to move out of the way and were uninjured but have been left extremely shaken.

"The train remained upright but has been badly damaged by the trolley, which was lodged underneath it.

"Officers will now be working to establish the circumstances surrounding the collision.

"The Rail Accident Investigation Branch and Office of Rail Regulation will be informed."

 

[anthony263]

Sounds like a bit of a nasty inccident. ATW wont be too pleased if the damage to teh unit is serious enough to take it out of traffic for a while.

Anyway thoe track workers and everyone on the train were pretty lucky as no doubt this could have been a lot worse.

I think the RAIB are going to be asking some serious questions as will any unions the trackworkers belong to

 

[tsr]

All very lucky for those involved!

Out of interest, can someone remind me if there are any crashworthiness standards for maintenance trolleys such as the one involved in this incident? Whilst the incident was clearly extremely unfortunate & also probably fairly rare, I'd imagine the design of the trolley could help prevent a serious derailment or damage to the leading cab of a colliding train.

 

[merlodlliw]

Sounds like a bit of a nasty inccident. ATW wont be too pleased if the damage to teh unit is serious enough to take it out of traffic for a while.

Anyway thoe track workers and everyone on the train were pretty lucky as no doubt this could have been a lot worse.

I think the RAIB are going to be asking some serious questions as will any unions the trackworkers belong to

It would probably be a 175, one wonders why were the workers allowed on the track at that time without a possession order after the last train.
would it have occurred if the block signal boxes were still in use? we will soon find out.

 

[Smudger105e]

one wonders why were the workers allowed on the track at that time without a possession order after the last train.

Were they there without a possession order?

Could have been any number of reasons that they were there, PICOP error, possession taken in the wrong place, working on the wrong line (up not down for example), miscommunication, where they thought they had possession but did not etc etc.

 

[CalderRail]

would it have occurred if the block signal boxes were still in use? we will soon find out.

"Soon"? About a year if the normal RAIB pace is any indication

 

[edwin_m]

All very lucky for those involved!

Out of interest, can someone remind me if there are any crashworthiness standards for maintenance trolleys such as the one involved in this incident? Whilst the incident was clearly extremely unfortunate & also probably fairly rare, I'd imagine the design of the trolley could help prevent a serious derailment or damage to the leading cab of a colliding train.

No standards and probably impossible to create any which would still allow the trolley or other plant to perform its intended function. I can't think of any recent case of a collision between a service train and the sort of engineering plant which is only supposed to be on the track during a possession, so I don't see this as a major risk issue for the railway.

As Loco Fitter so rightly points out, the train and the trolley should not have been on the same piece of track at the same time, and the investigation will be focusing on how that came to pass.

 

[Bodiddly]

Main thing was, nobody was hurt. It's was actually quite common for an engineering trolley to be placed on a running line in the not too distant past due to poor communications. I'm sure things have been tightened up nowadays, but accidents and incidents will always happen when you have certain factors in place i.e, human input and night working. The reason will become clear when the signalbox tapes are listened back to.
Trains can be fixed, people can't!

 

[fsmr]

Main thing was, nobody was hurt. It's was actually quite common for an engineering trolley to be placed on a running line in the not too distant past due to poor communications. I'm sure things have been tightened up nowadays, but accidents and incidents will always happen when you have certain factors in place i.e, human input and night working. The reason will become clear when the signalbox tapes are listened back to.
Trains can be fixed, people can't!

Well said, the lookout aspect and vigilance of the workers obviously worked in this case

RTT cited the train as cancelled due to a mishap http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y90424/2014/01/16/advanced

 

[Tomnick]

It would probably be a 175, one wonders why were the workers allowed on the track at that time without a possession order after the last train.
would it have occurred if the block signal boxes were still in use? we will soon find out.

One is wondering what a possession order is! In any case, staff are often out on the line without a possession, either working red zone (not with a trolley though) or under a line blockage.

 

[455driver]

If a trolley is involved then there should be a possession in place!

 

[Tomnick]

A line blockage (former T2) should suffice - and is far more practical if the trainset is still in use!

 

[Rich_D3167]

If a trolley is involved then there should be a possession in place!

You don't need to take a T3 possession to place a trolley on the tracks, it can also be done with a Line Blockage. However, it cannot be taken with only signal protection, additional protection such as Detonators, Track Circuit Operating Decive (T-COD), a signalling disconnection, Single Line Token in possession of the COSS/PC etc need to also be in place.

 

[Parallel]

I'd imagine it was a 175 as the reasons for certain 'service updates' between Manchester and Carmarthen are: "Disabled toilets are not available. This is due to a shortage of serviceable train sets." and for 'formation updates', some services between Manchester and Milford Haven are "formed of 2 coaches instead of 3. This is due to a shortage of serviceable train sets" as listed by Journeycheck. I imagine they've tried to do some stock shifting?

 

[edwin_m]

Have the units recovered from Barmouth been re-commissioned yet?

 

[DarloRich]

Love this site sometimes - people narrowly injured or killed - are the units ok? I despair

( some perspective may help!)

 

[Erniescooper]

Have the units recovered from Barmouth been re-commissioned yet?

158831 and 158837 are back in traffic today , 175113 which hit the trolley is still at Shewsbury Abbey Foregate waiting to be skated back to Chester .

 

[PHILIPE]

I'd imagine it was a 175 as the reasons for certain 'service updates' between Manchester and Carmarthen are: "Disabled toilets are not available. This is due to a shortage of serviceable train sets." and for 'formation updates', some services between Manchester and Milford Haven are "formed of 2 coaches instead of 3. This is due to a shortage of serviceable train sets" as listed by Journeycheck. I imagine they've tried to do some stock shifting?

175 availability mat not be helped due to 3 having been trapped in West Wales until earlier this week resulting in a backlog of maintenance.

 

[455driver]

You don't need to take a T3 possession to place a trolley on the tracks, it can also be done with a Line Blockage. However, it cannot be taken with only signal protection, additional protection such as Detonators, Track Circuit Operating Decive (T-COD), a signalling disconnection, Single Line Token in possession of the COSS/PC etc need to also be in place.

I was trying to keep things simple, maybe you should have replied instead of me! :roll:

 

[class303]

Love this site sometimes - people narrowly injured or killed - are the units ok? I despair

( some perspective may help!)

yawn. it was established in post 1 there were no injuries and certainly no deaths.

 

[Rich_D3167]

I was trying to keep things simple, maybe you should have replied instead of me! :roll:

Apologies, but in reality, Possession & Line Blockage are completely different kettles of fish.

 

[Mugby]

I may be wrong but I believe that most trolley wheels are cast aluminium or something similar in order to keep the weight down for manhandling on and off track, in and out of vehicles etc.

Most of the smaller trolleys therefore don't operate the track circuits, if this problem could be overcome somehow, it may go a long way to avoiding this type of shocking incident.

 

[455driver]

Most of the smaller trolleys therefore don't operate the track circuits, if this problem could be overcome somehow, it may go a long way to avoiding this type of shocking incident.

What about in areas that dont use track circuits for train detection?
There are lots of areas that dont have any form of detection and then there are areas which use axle counters etc!

 

[craigybagel]

What about in areas that dont use track circuits for train detection?
There are lots of areas that dont have any form of detection and then there are areas which use axle counters etc!

Including the area where this happened, which is axle counters.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Apologies, but in reality, Possession & Line Blockage are completely different kettles of fish.

Are they really though? A LB with dets (other protection is available but 90% of the time it is dets) is very similar to a T3, and indeed we occasionally have had LBs changed to T3s or vice versa. Off the top of my head the only thing you can't do in a LB that you can in a T3 is have tampers, stoneblowers and other engineering trains.

Although general practice is that Line Blockages are taken between trains and T3s are taken when the line is shut, there is nothing that prohibits either approach being taken. We occasionally have overnight LBs, and T3s that are given up for the passage of trains, although this is generally only on Goods lines where you might only have one or two moves a day and where the T3 is taken for light maintenance, obviously.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I may be wrong but I believe that most trolley wheels are cast aluminium or something similar in order to keep the weight down for manhandling on and off track, in and out of vehicles etc.

Most of the smaller trolleys therefore don't operate the track circuits, if this problem could be overcome somehow, it may go a long way to avoiding this type of shocking incident.

This is undesirable because if they operated track circuits in station complex areas it can throw signals back on lines that aren't under possession or which are unaffected because of a crossover beyond the possesion. The rationale for why certain signals get replaced to danger when TCs occupy is not always obvious, and nor is it always logical, often requiring reading the mind of long since retired signalling designer to explain it. Sometimes this is because layouts get modified over time but to save costs the interlocking remains in 'ghost' mode and so illogical signal reversions can occur.

 

[Tomnick]

Are they really though? A LB with dets (other protection is available but 90% of the time it is dets) is very similar to a T3, and indeed we occasionally have had LBs changed to T3s or vice versa. Off the top of my head the only thing you can't do in a LB that you can in a T3 is have tampers, stoneblowers and other engineering trains.

That's the main difference, really - you can have trains in a possession but not a line blockage. I suppose it follows that the main difference in the provision of protection is that you also need to provide protection at the exit from a possession (which serves to protect the rest of the railway from movements in the possession, as well as protecting the possession from movements legitimately entering in the wrong direction) and - in the form of marker boards - around worksites (again, because of train movements in the possession).

This is undesirable because if they operated track circuits in station complex areas it can throw signals back on lines that aren't under possession or which are unaffected because of a crossover beyond the possesion. The rationale for why certain signals get replaced to danger when TCs occupy is not always obvious, and nor is it always logical, often requiring reading the mind of long since retired signalling designer to explain it. Sometimes this is because layouts get modified over time but to save costs the interlocking remains in 'ghost' mode and so illogical signal reversions can occur.

Not sure I fully agree with this bit though. Although you obviously can't rely on a trolley to operate track circuits (and I can't see much justification for changing that!), they still do intermittently occupy TCs in practice - so the potential for them to replace signals is always there!

 

[0B00]

Were they there without a possession order?

Could have been any number of reasons that they were there, PICOP error, possession taken in the wrong place, working on the wrong line (up not down for example), miscommunication, where they thought they had possession but did not etc etc.

I believe a possession was booked from 2359 after the passage of this train.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Not sure I fully agree with this bit though. Although you obviously can't rely on a trolley to operate track circuits (and I can't see much justification for changing that!), they still do intermittently occupy TCs in practice - so the potential for them to replace signals is always there!

Then aren't you agreeing with me? Ideally I do not want trolleys operating TCs as they cause said signal reversions. Some trolleys have plastic or fibre wheels to prevent this, the ones that don't can be placed on pads once on site.

 

[Tomnick]

Yes, I suppose we can agree that we don't really want them operating TCs . My point was that I wouldn't really want a trolley in a position where it might cause a signal to revert to danger, pads or no pads!

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

You don't get much choice in the matter! If P-Way need the trolley in that place you'll need to find a way of getting it there. The normal way of achieving this is to negotiate a time to push the trolley into position on the T3 protected line between running trains on the open line. Once in position, they will place it on pads and you continue to run trains until they are ready to come off and then repeat the process.

This is nearly always on overnight possessions where there are decent gaps between services. If it really can't be achieved to get the trolley into position then this should have brought up in the planning meetings prior to the night and either another way found to get the materials etc to site, or the job postponed until an all lines T3 is taken.