Paddington derailment 16/06/16

[SWT_USER]

Platform usage? The Greenfords are an easy cut to free up some space...

I thought everything was back in use now following the derailment? It usually shares platform 12 with he Heathrow Connect and that is running with no problems despite overhead wire problems..

 

[hassaanhc]

I thought everything was back in use now following the derailment? It usually shares platform 12 with he Heathrow Connect and that is running with no problems despite overhead wire problems..

Maybe because doing so saves a 2-car unit and prevents other services from being short formed and/or cancelled?

My Heathrow Connect service earlier (1224 arrival from Heathrow Terminal 4) did use P12 as usual.

 

[SWT_USER]

Maybe because doing so saves a 2-car unit and prevents other services from being short formed and/or cancelled?

My Heathrow Connect service earlier (1224 arrival from Heathrow Terminal 4) did use P12 as usual.

Possibly but if it is a unit shortage GWR are being a bit naughty by blaming it on an overhead wire problem. I suspect this will become much more frequent now that the bay at West Ealing is operational as the Greenford service is always treated as an inconvenience and the first thing to be binned along with Heathrow Connect.

 

[_ollie_]

Possibly but if it is a unit shortage GWR are being a bit naughty by blaming it on an overhead wire problem. I suspect this will become much more frequent now that the bay at West Ealing is operational as the Greenford service is always treated as an inconvenience and the first thing to be binned along with Heathrow Connect.

It's a capacity issue in that electric traction can't use lines 1 and 2. Network Rail plan to work on this overnight tonight - should this work go well, a full service will resume tomorrow.

 

[Domh245]

Generally drivers can't drive after a spad unless it is to get passengers to the next station for detraining

I'm not sure that the post you've replied to was meant to be taken very seriously!

 

[Signal Head]

I just love the wibble you sometimes read on here.

If it's wibble you're after, spend some time in the uk.railway newsgroup (Usenet or Google Groups).
There's been some first class wibbling in there over the years, from some really top notch 'all you have to do is...' merchants.

 

[Siemens Staines]

Possibly but if it is a unit shortage GWR are being a bit naughty by blaming it on an overhead wire problem. I suspect this will become much more frequent now that the bay at West Ealing is operational as the Greenford service is always treated as an inconvenience and the first thing to be binned along with Heathrow Connect.

Perhaps they are being economical with the actualité in that 165124 is out of service after its altercation with an overhead wire structure...

As posted on other threads on this forum, prior to the incident on Thursday, GWR were already down a 2 car 165 with the Marlow branch covered by 166216 formed as a 2 car that day. In turn this must mean they were down a 166 so I imagine this re-formation is only temporary?

 

[455driver]

Perhaps they are being economical with the actualité in that 165124 is out of service after its altercation with an overhead wire structure...

As posted on other threads on this forum, prior to the incident on Thursday, GWR were already down a 2 car 165 with the Marlow branch covered by 166216 formed as a 2 car that day. In turn this must mean they were down a 166 so I imagine this re-formation is only temporary?

Are you seriously suggesting that GWR have removed a centre coach from a 166 so it can replace a 2 coach 165?

The centre coach has been removed because it is broke and the unit has,been put into the 2 coach diagrams.

 

[Siemens Staines]

Are you seriously suggesting that GWR have removed a centre coach from a 166 so it can replace a 2 coach 165?

The centre coach has been removed because it is broke and the unit has,been put into the 2 coach diagrams.

No that wasn't what I was suggesting. My apologies if you thought that I was. I was just saying that one 2 car diagram was being covered by a 166. Once that goes back to a 3 car, which I imagine GWR would like to happen as soon as is practical, and the loss of 165124 for a period of time while it is repaired, then the 2 car fleet may be a bit stretched.

I do not know how many 2 car diagrams there are for the 20 units, but from casual observations in the Thames Valley I would have thought 17 (maybe more?), so the loss of one unit for a period of time may have knock on effects.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Help is in sight - electric operation to Hayes from September with spanking new 387's.

 

[FGW_DID]

166216 was reformed as a 3 car unit on Thu/Fri. 166217 is now a temp twin as the middle car had a problem with one of its wheelsets.

Normally there are 19 2 cars required for service, which means 1 can be stopped for maintenance purposes.

Obviously with 165124 out of action 'UFN' having a temp twin is quite handy.

 

[SWT_USER]

Help is in sight - electric operation to Hayes from September with spanking new 387's.

... stopping everywhere but Hanwell :cry:

 

[Rich McLean]

No that wasn't what I was suggesting. My apologies if you thought that I was. I was just saying that one 2 car diagram was being covered by a 166. Once that goes back to a 3 car, which I imagine GWR would like to happen as soon as is practical, and the loss of 165124 for a period of time while it is repaired, then the 2 car fleet may be a bit stretched.

I do not know how many 2 car diagrams there are for the 20 units, but from casual observations in the Thames Valley I would have thought 17 (maybe more?), so the loss of one unit for a period of time may have knock on effects.

Just because its running as a 2 car, does not mean there is a 2 car 165 set down (well there is now). However before the incident, they were a 3 car 166 down, which became a 2 car. This 2 car 166 is then pooled with the remaining 2 car 165s for diagram allocation purposes, but it's never as straight forward as that.

At the moment, GWR have 1 x 166 away for overhaul, 1 x 166 re-formed as a 2 car and added to the 165 pool, and a 165 down due to damage.

So apart from scheduled maintenance, by reforming a set, GWR are only 2 x 3 car sets down which would otherwise be available on a daily basis. I should add that they are a 166 down anyway longer term, and this is factored in, so in net effect, they are a 3 car set down, where last week, they were just 1 carriage down.

Depending on availability, various different diagrams are short formed in order to provide the best use of available stock at the appropriate times and in the right places.

For example, 6 car sets becoming 5 cars, and 5 car sets becoming 4 or 3 cars etc etc. Even one set out can cause many more knock on short forms.

Those who work with stock allocation maybe able to explain further

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How many of their 165s do Chiltern use? Is there any chance that GWR could borrow one from Chiltern?

 

[SWT_USER]

How many of their 165s do Chiltern use? Is there any chance that GWR could borrow one from Chiltern?

Has happened before in the recent past on a short term basis.

 

[fgwrich]

Just because its running as a 2 car, does not mean there is a 2 car 165 set down (well there is now). However before the incident, they were a 3 car 166 down, which became a 2 car. This 2 car 166 is then pooled with the remaining 2 car 165s for diagram allocation purposes, but it's never as straight forward as that.

At the moment, GWR have 1 x 166 away for overhaul, 1 x 166 re-formed as a 2 car and added to the 165 pool, and a 165 down due to damage.

So apart from scheduled maintenance, by reforming a set, GWR are only 2 x 3 car sets down which would otherwise be available on a daily basis. I should add that they are a 166 down anyway longer term, and this is factored in, so in net effect, they are a 3 car set down, where last week, they were just 1 carriage down.

Depending on availability, various different diagrams are short formed in order to provide the best use of available stock at the appropriate times and in the right places.

For example, 6 car sets becoming 5 cars, and 5 car sets becoming 4 or 3 cars etc etc. Even one set out can cause many more knock on short forms.

Those who work with stock allocation maybe able to explain further

How many of their 165s do Chiltern use? Is there any chance that GWR could borrow one from Chiltern?

Don't forget that GWR are also down a Class 150/0 - Which in turn requires a Turbo to run one of the Basingstoke Diagrams, which in turn takes a Turbo back away from the Thames Valley. The pressure should be reduced a little with (if at all!) 001 returns.

There has been several suggestions in the past that FGW were to borrow a Chiltern 165 - The rumor mill suggested a 165/0 to run one of the RDG-Bas diagrams while one or both of the 150/0s were away in the west or at Lougborough. The other suggestion, and possibly more realistic would be / see a Chiltern 165 work the Greenford - West Ealing shuttle, freeing a GW Turbo for the LTV.

 

[455driver]

No that wasn't what I was suggesting. My apologies if you thought that I was.

That makes sense so apologies all round, it did read that way but your other posts have tended to be quite sensible (unlike some other posters I wont mention ) so I was quite surprised at that, now I understand what you mean and it does show the problems of putting what is in our head into a post so it reads the way we want it to mean.

 

[JN114]

So if 3H52 was not going to form part of 1H52, then given the derailment happened very close to the departure time of 1H52 (based upon the time the stranded emus stopped having timing updates) this appears to have been close to a far more serious collision because the 3 car on 1H52 would surely have hit the partially demolished OLE gantry had 1H52 departed?

According to CCF, 1H52 had the road when the GSM-R Emergency call came in. I don't know what stage of the dispatch process they were at with it, but we were scarily close to a much more serious incident.

***

The issues with reinstating the damaged OHLE, and subsequent block to electric traction of line 1 & 2, are principally down to the presence of crossrail tunnelling directly underneath the derailment site. This prevents new piling being done to put in a new mast foundation (the original is damaged), and so an alternative solution is being devised.

The Greenford service is curtailed to West Ealing to give a little breathing space in the Paddington throat with the reduction in routes available for electric traction. It was a choice between these or the connects.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Has happened before in the recent past on a short term basis.

Albeit not since Oxford Parkway opened - I'm led to believe the Chiltern fleet is now stretched far too thinly to contemplate a recurrence of the arrangements back in 2013(?) when the 150s were on their Devon summer holiday.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't forget that GWR are also down a Class 150/0 - Which in turn requires a Turbo to run one of the Basingstoke Diagrams, which in turn takes a Turbo back away from the Thames Valley. The pressure should be reduced a little with (if at all!) 001 returns.

There has been several suggestions in the past that FGW were to borrow a Chiltern 165 - The rumor mill suggested a 165/0 to run one of the RDG-Bas diagrams while one or both of the 150/0s were away in the west or at Lougborough. The other suggestion, and possibly more realistic would be / see a Chiltern 165 work the Greenford - West Ealing shuttle, freeing a GW Turbo for the LTV.

With 166217 as a temporary twin, the "working" shortage is only 1x 3/166 and 1x 3/150. There are no restrictions on where it can be allocated, although its slightly reduced capacity over a standard 2/165 will be borne in mind when choosing a diagram for it, if there's a choice available.

The total turbo fleet requirement on a weekday is 51 diagrams - 19 2xx (2/165), 14 3xx (3/165) and 18 4xx (3/166) diagrams. In theory that's 6 spare (1x 2/165, 2x 3/165 and 3x 3/166) units to play with, although between exams, repairs and refurbishments its actually much tighter than it sounds.

Some 2 car diagrams can be long-formed (the Henley and the Windsor are good for this!), and with the reduced number of 2 cars available going forward I expect we'll see more of that in the coming months.

 

[edwin_m]

According to CCF, 1H52 had the road when the GSM-R Emergency call came in. I don't know what stage of the dispatch process they were at with it, but we were scarily close to a much more serious incident.

Hopefully the driver of the departing train would have seen the incident happening ahead and stopped in time, but I guess it's possible the gantry would have come down very close in front. Was it low enough to risk an insulator through the windscreen or even the front end colliding with the structure?

The issues with reinstating the damaged OHLE, and subsequent block to electric traction of line 1 & 2, are principally down to the presence of crossrail tunnelling directly underneath the derailment site. This prevents new piling being done to put in a new mast foundation (the original is damaged), and so an alternative solution is being devised.

Thanks for this. Just shows if you dig deep enough (or don't in this case!) there is usually an answer.

 

[DarloRich]

The issues with reinstating the damaged OHLE, and subsequent block to electric traction of line 1 & 2, are principally down to the presence of crossrail tunnelling directly underneath the derailment site. This prevents new piling being done to put in a new mast foundation (the original is damaged), and so an alternative solution is being devised.

but just chuck quick drying cement into the hole.....................

 

[Johnuk123]

I think somebody has already said it but if the Chinese or Japanese had suffered such a minor incident as this one is and it's very minor in the scheme of things it would have been fixed ages ago.

 

[matt_world2004]

I think somebody has already said it but if the Chinese or Japanese had suffered such a minor incident as this one is and it's very minor in the scheme of things it would have been fixed ages ago.

Chinese do not generally have a great safety record, when it comes to domestic construction projects iirc.

 

[jetblast787]

Safety digest released for this incident. Unsure however if a full report will be published?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-digest/derailment-at-paddington-16-june-2016

 

[2000]

Safety digest released for this incident. Unsure however if a full report will be published?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-digest/derailment-at-paddington-16-june-2016

From https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/paddington-safety-digest

The purpose of our safety digest is to share important safety messages quickly.

These are published when we have decided not to undertake a full investigation for any of the following reasons:

-the safety learning has already been covered by a previous recommendation or will be addressed by an ongoing investigation
-the safety learning mainly relates to compliance with existing rules, procedures or standards
-the safety learning has a narrow application.

 

[Tooktook]

Interesting read. The mention of Ramadan intrigues me. I know in the stated facts it is reported that fasting cannot be confirmed as a contributory factor. However I do find the possible effects interesting. I fully respect all religions etc But I do work with a young guy who fasted recently and it was a really hot period. He said it was a real struggle and put an application in to change all his shifts to earlies to avoid any fatigue etc

 

[theironroad]

Well sunrise was at 0443 on 16 June and this incident occurred at 1812, so the if the fast was strictly observed, the driver had nothing to eat or drink for over 13 hours. That's bound to effect concentration levels.

Quite why he didn't think the GPS applied to his train I don't know as in the picture 6004 clearly shows a arrow. As a PQ driver, with limited use of the siding it probably would have been an idea to consult his maps, I still use maps after 10 years for irregular moves.

However, I'm not impressed with the response of the TVSC managers who say that it's not possible to strictly adhere to instructions because they're too busy at Paddington. Clearly the instructions were there for a reason and should be adhered to, if that means an increase in signallers is needed then hire them, don't pick and choose which instructions you think should be applied. The operational railway is a safety critical environment and rules and regulations are there for a good reason.

Finally, after Ladbroke grove, Thames trains's (fgw/gwr predecessor) whole route learning methodology was called into question regarding Paddington and it was supposedly overhauled. I hope this incident isn't a sign that those reforms are slipping.

 

[Taunton]

the signaller is required to reach a clear understanding with the driver before the movement starts. Managers at TVSC said that strict compliance with this instruction is not possible at Paddington, because the station is very busy

I can just imagine what an old-time Inspecting Officer of rail accidents would have made of such a comment :roll: It is surely relevant that where a driver has been told one thing by radio (that they would later be cleared into the platform) and then set a route for something different (only as far as the second position light) a subsequent clear understanding of the change of plan is just what this instruction is all about.

The parallels with the understanding of recently trained drivers to the Ladbroke Grove accident are also uncomfortably close.

 

[bramling]

Well sunrise was at 0443 on 16 June and this incident occurred at 1812, so the if the fast was strictly observed, the driver had nothing to eat or drink for over 13 hours. That's bound to effect concentration levels.

Quite why he didn't think the GPS applied to his train I don't know as in the picture 6004 clearly shows a arrow. As a PQ driver, with limited use of the siding it probably would have been an idea to consult his maps, I still use maps after 10 years for irregular moves.

However, I'm not impressed with the response of the TVSC managers who say that it's not possible to strictly adhere to instructions because they're too busy at Paddington. Clearly the instructions were there for a reason and should be adhered to, if that means an increase in signallers is needed then hire them, don't pick and choose which instructions you think should be applied. The operational railway is a safety critical environment and rules and regulations are there for a good reason.

Yes and no, in my view.

At the end of the day, the signal is there for a reason -- and *if* there's an issue either with sighting or disregard then that should be addressed with a technical solution.

Either improve the signal sighting, or add a control arrangement so the preceding signal won't clear until it has cleared.

 

[QueensCurve]

Quite why he didn't think the GPS applied to his train I don't know as in the picture 6004 clearly shows a arrow. As a PQ driver, with limited use of the siding it probably would have been an idea to consult his maps, I still use maps after 10 years for irregular moves.

As a non-driver I was wondering whether or not qualified drivers on low speed moves look beyond the signal to the actual setting of the switch blades. I'm sure I would.

 

[No Fault Found]

Interesting read. The mention of Ramadan intrigues me. I know in the stated facts it is reported that fasting cannot be confirmed as a contributory factor. However I do find the possible effects interesting. I fully respect all religions etc But I do work with a young guy who fasted recently and it was a really hot period. He said it was a real struggle and put an application in to change all his shifts to earlies to avoid any fatigue etc

Immediately after the incident, the driver said he was lacking concentration due to fasting and that was the reason it happened.