Pendolino derailment at Greyrigg

[ChrisCooper]

Of cource, were the train to have derailed before the points, when it hit them it would have probably have caused them some damage anyway. One of the big jobs of accident investigators is trying to work out which bits were broken by the accident, and which bits were broke causing the accident. Just to add to the idea that the initial derailment was futher down the line, before the crossover, it does fit with the low level of damage and low death toll compared to similar incidents, since it would suggest the train had lost quite a bit of speed by the time it fell of the embankment. One big problem with the likes of Ufton Nervet was that the train hit the points still at considerable speed, and was brought to a stop very quickly, leading to carriages being flung violantly around or compressed together. One big thing that suggest to me that there wasn't a sudden stop is that none of the crumple zones seem to have been particularly damaged, and they are weak points designed to absorb the force of sudden stops, rarther than transmitting it to the passengers. It's important to remember that these modern trains, like modern cars, arn't built like tanks, and able to take big impacts with barely a scratch, they are designed to take damage to protect passengers, whilst still maintaining survival space. Oviously, this is just educated speculation, not facts, but there is so much speculation now that I have the attitude of "if you can't beat them join them" (at least conflicting speculation allows people to see that there are various possibilities, and re-inforces the fact that the truth is far from known, wheras if only one line of speculation is made public, people may see it as more factual than it is).

 

[voyagerdude220]

It's important to remember that these modern trains, like modern cars, arn't built like tanks, and able to take big impacts with barely a scratch, they are designed to take damage to protect passengers, whilst still maintaining survival space.

Very good post Chris Cooper. Just a shame you've made a crucial error

I hate it when the media literally makes things up (which Sky news was), when we don't even know the full facts yet.

I must say however that BBC news was sticking to the known facts, and not telling false allegations. (Isn't there some kind of act against this?) I know of the trade description act, but I obviously don't see this being relevant at all.

Also to note, is next weeks emergency timetable which i've just seen.

The only northbound train being diverted via the S&C, has been wrongly timed in the emergency timetable on the nationalrail website.

It shows it as departing Euston at 19:46, and arriving Carlisle at 23:45.

If the diverted service is the 19:46, which VT confirm it is, it must take at least 90 mins more than normal.

e.g London Euston 19:46
Wigan 22:08
Preston 22:20 22:35 (Is that sufficent time for the 57 to attach?) Carlisle 00:55- 01:15, depending how much slower 57+390s are against Voyagers.

I've say that Carlisle to Preston takes exactly 2 hours 20 mins on a Voyager, and 2 hours 21 mins on a Super Voyager

(The real times for Voyagers are around those stated)

 

[CallySleeper]

I do believe the pantograph coach is the motor coach aswell, although I could be wrong!

The diagram is correct.

 

[leshuttle]

If the diverted service is the 19:46, which VT confirm it is, it must take at least 90 mins more than normal.

As far as I remember it took the best part of 3 hours via the S&C route when I travelled on a diverted Pendolino last May. It’s a pity that this alternative route hasn’t the capacity nor speed, otherwise Virgin could have diverted a great deal more of its trains this way. As it is the bustitution takes about an hour less than staying on the train which is more for the purpose of moving stock around judging by the timetable for tomorrow.

The Cumbrian Coastline & Lancaster-Giggleswick (Settle)/Long Preston for the S&C are some lengthy but doable valid alternatives by Northern Rail if you don't/can't use the bus.

 

[Kris]

welcome to the forum wulfruna, i looked at the pics and thought no train can stop that quick from the crossover, if it had you would have a horrific site, iirc the btp say there is three points of intrest the crossover, the ???, and the ????.

I looked at that and thought the same thing but then I thought about how I'd been brouoght to a halt from 100mph in a little over 1/4 a mile. I was approaching Wallers Ash on the down with a pig and the signal ahead of me around the bend had gone back to red. Therefore the overspeed on the TPWS kicked in and gave me a full brake application. I was amazed how quickly it stopped (The media still say it takes a mile for a train to stop from 100mph - but these are old figures from the days of brake shoes).

Just wondering if the friction against ballast, jacknifing and demolishing several trees may well have halted it in so short a distance?

P.S. They say Desiros are good for stopping at high speed but they're nothing like a 170. Four and a half bar on the brake in full service and they'll stop on a sixpence (a little under 3p to you).

 

[wulfruna]

i looked at the pics and thought no train can stop that quick from the crossover, if it had you would have a horrific site

Yes I was thinking on similar lines. I also agree with you ChrisCooper in that the points would have been damaged if the train was already off before hitting them.

If we are allowed to speculate! Going on the theory if the train hit something before reaching the crossing. Ms Thomson, chief operating officer for the BBC, said on their website

"It did a sort of bump and then one felt it beginning to move slightly and for a minute you thought it would sort of right itself.

"For a minute I thought don't worry this is fine. You knew it was something a bit more serious than normal.

Suggesting there was "sometime" before the train finally came off the rails.

The News and Star report Colin Smith, ASLEF rep, saying

“To stay at the controls for a quarter of a mile is very brave.

That would put the point of impact in the cutting after Docker Hall over bridge, before the viaduct.

The News and Star go on to quote Branson,

The driver Iain Black came around the corner, the line was defective and the train went off the line.

“But he has carried on sitting in his carriage for half a mile running the train on the stone. He could have tried to get back and protect himself but he didn’t and he has ended up quite badly injured.

I don’t know the line, but from the map it appears that you are rounding a blind bend approaching the skewed bridge carrying the A685 across the line. Did the train strike something after this bridge? This is within the distance from crossings, 29 seconds from crash scene travelling at 95mph. Ms Thomson recalls “a minute” of pondering after experiencing the initial jolt. Perhaps too great a distance – ¾ mile, as Kris says, modern stock breaking distances are much shorter than older “conventional stock”.

The location of the cutting at Docker Hall (before Garth Viaduct) is closer – around 1/4 of a mile and that would fit the reports of the driver “sitting in his cab for half a mile running the train on stone”. The line appears to bend slightly on approach to the cutting and appears to be obscured an over bridge. Did the driver see something in the last minute on the line in his searchlights as he passed through the cutting? Four seconds later he would be on the viaduct. Now breaking hard on wet rails and perhaps with the first axel off the rails, the train reaches the first crossing (12 seconds after impact), which causes the train to derail, but at a much slower speed. 50mph? As Chris suggests, this could be the reason why the coaches don’t appear to be badly crumpled?

If the reports are true in that the driver was battling for ¼ to ½ mile with the “train riding on stone”, then that would suggest Lambrigg Crossing is the final reason to why the train left the tracks, and perhaps not the initial cause.

BUT, if the train did suddenly come off on the leading crossover at 95 mph, the driver would of had no time to apply the breaks as the leading car would of left the rails and be plummeting down the embankment 2-3 seconds later (300 feet later at 90mph). Wouldn’t that imply the driver was a sitting duck? Could he of done anything in that time?

 

[Tom]

BUT, if the train did suddenly come off on the leading crossover at 95 mph, the driver would of had no time to apply the breaks as the leading car would of left the rails and be plummeting down the embankment 2-3 seconds later (300 feet later at 90mph). Wouldn’t that imply the driver was a sitting duck? Could he of done anything in that time?

Apparently it is incredibly easy for the driver to escape the train within about 5 seconds.

 

[JJUK]

I would just like to say that one of the staff members was a friend of a friend of mine and i have spoke to her a couple of times as she works for us on a website hobby of ours. but she is recovering very well and is just very badly shaken at the momment but has been said she will be back to normal in a week or two

 

[wulfruna]

Apparently it is incredibly easy for the driver to escape the train within about 5 seconds.

But can you survive falling from a train at 80 mph? Or do you escape by running down the train? I can understand if you were a driver travelling at low speed or stationary and say, see an on coming train approaching. You have 4-5 seconds to assess the problem then 5-6 seconds to bail from the cab. Thus aprox 10 secs from first assessing the situation.

In this case I don't understand why Mr Smith an ASLEF member (who I assume is a driver with experience) is saying To stay at the controls for a quarter of a mile is very brave. And yet the train left the rails only 100 yards after the leading crossing? But there again Mr Smith is quoted in saying
He [Mr Black] did speak but he wasn’t able to tell us what happened So does Mr Smith know if Mr Black was in the cab "battling for 1/4 mile"? Again, if the train came off the leading crossover at 95mph the cab would of hit the ground and flipped round within 5-6 seconds, which is about as long as it would take someone to realise the situation. Too quick for the driver to take any action. If he was battling for 1/4 of a mile to stop the train, then the train hit something further up the line and then came off the rails at the crossover.

94jw163 - I wish your friend of a friend, and everyone who is injured/affected by the crash, a speedy recovery. When you next see her, give her a big (((hug))) from all of us.

 

[JJUK]

94jw163 - I wish your friend of a friend, and everyone who is injured/affected by the crash, a speedy recovery. When you next see her, give her a big (((hug))) from all of us.

will do

 

[Tom]

If it continues for about a quarter of a mile, I could only assume that one of the leading bogies derailed and that the driver took evasive action in order to stop the train, typically throwing the train into full emergency brake, unless the TMS otherwise prevented this... I could only assume that the rheo wouldn't stop the train, and that the air pipe with whatever happened...

This is all speculation though.

 

[wulfruna]

If it continues for about a quarter of a mile, I could only assume that one of the leading bogies derailed and that the driver took evasive action in order to stop the train, typically throwing the train into full emergency brake, unless the TMS otherwise prevented this... I could only assume that the rheo wouldn't stop the train, and that the air pipe with whatever happened...

This is all speculation though.

Tom, this is what I am thinking too. Yes again - all speculation!

 

[Tom B]

It would be interesting to compare the cleanup time with other comparable accidents? From what I've read, lines have been reopened by the next day or couple of days - not 2 weeks.

 

[1D53]

They are certainly checking a large area - I drove on the A684 east of Kendal towards Sedburgh and the road crossing the WCML about a mile or so before the accident. Everything looked fine at this point. Either btp/raib were walking the line and the track itself was littered was stop markers.

 

[CallySleeper]

But all i can say is, if you beleive that dribble about Sabotage, then you must believe in the Tooth Fairy and flippin Father Christmas too?

I believe that sabotage could well be a distinct possibility. Also, for the sake of argument, I also believe in the tooth fairy and father christmas.

Also, Sleeper fans will be pleased to note that they will continue to run via York nightly until the line reopens.

 

[Broken Viking]

Hail All!
Sorry if this seems a little OT, but for what it's worth I thought that I would post it anyway...

I see the old seat belt chestnut has been brought up again by people elsewhere:

They have obviously forgotten about this report:

Airline-style seatbelts on trains could cause more injuries to passengers than they prevent, rail experts have said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4542952.stm

I noticed this being the standard view on Greyhound buses when I was in the U.S. earlier this year. Anyone who uses National Express will know that most/all of their coaches have seat-belts fitted, which I personally use whenever they are available. When I got to the U.S. and rode on a Greyhound for the first time, I mentioned to the driver before departure my concerns at having no seat-belt available, where he cited the common opinion in America that coach passengers are safer without airline-style belts.

From what I know about physics etc, the seat-belts on aircraft are not so much intended to protect passengers from injury in the event of an emergency landing or head-on collision (With an airport vehicle etc.), but rather designed to keep passengers safely in their seats. Commonly, this is during take-off (In the event of a bumpy runway or irregular ascent), landing (Where up to 2G of forward force may be exerted on passengers), and turbulance (Where passengers may experience up to -1.5G of "airtime", as we call it in the rollercoaster enthusiast community)...Although they do contribute to passenger safety in the event of an emergency landing and thus should be worn whenever possible.

Looking at the differences between "airline" and "car" style seat-belts in a normal 60mph collision (Where a forward force of up to 8G may be exerted on objects inside the vehicle) a "car" style belt holds the passenger in their seat at the lap, but also keeps the torso on the back of the seat with the sash portion across the chest.
Conversely, "airline" style lap belts do keep the passenger in their seat, but as there is no torso support the passengers upper body will be thrown forward, leading to the passengers head making contact with any objects (Dashboard or seat back) that are in front of them. Aside from the obvious head and upper body injuries that this can cause, there is also the scope for injuries at the waist caused by the belt "cutting" into the passenger, and possible spinal damage or seperation at the lower back due to the forward force of the unrestrained torso against the restrained waist area.

If seat-belts were fitted onto trains, I would use them there as well...Although for the reasons and explanation that I've outlined above, I think that a three-point belt would be a much better option than a lap-belt.
However, the obvious impracticality of this is that not only would the train be heavily delayed through staff checking that passengers have their seat-belts on before departure, what would be done about standing passengers on busier services? Anyone who's ever used a Sunday afternoon service from Birmingham NS to Euston will know how crowded the train can get most of the time, which sometimes results in First Class being declassified and standees throughout the length of the train.
Back in the 80's, BR had a "no standing" rule in force on their APT services. That may have worked back then (Wasn't the APT a reservations compulsory service?) but it wouldn't work today due to the increased number of passengers using the network in a "walk up" fashion.
Finally, there would be the additional problem of seat belts wearing out quickly in heavy use by passengers, and the associated extra maintenance costs and vehicle downtime involved in installing/replacing seat-belts. hock:

To make a quick-ish summary:
I'm personally not too bothered about having no seat-belt when I'm on board a train, although if they were fitted I would use them. I feel that three-point belts are safer than two-point ones.
However, my tip for increased safety (At least against a head on collision) would be to choose a rear-facing seat. Should the train come to a sharp emergency stop, your body weight (Remember that it would be up to eight times higher than normal) would be pushed back into the seat and the weight would be placed upon your back, which is better designed to widthstand such compression forces than the front.
Personally I prefer to face forward when I'm travelling, but I usually keep one restraining hand on the table or back of the seat in front so that in the event of a collision I can restrain myself. My arm will only widthstand up to 4G of forward force though.
(As an additional side note, this is why the DSA recommend that drivers hold the wheel in the "ten past two" or "quarter to three" positions - This would allow the driver to brace themselves against the wheel in the event of a collision. An especially important tip for drivers of older cars like my own that do not have air-bags fitted.)

Farewell, and pardon my ramblings!
>> Death <<

 

[Mojo]

Anyone who uses National Express will know that most/all of their coaches have seat-belts fitted

ALL NatEx coaches have seatbelts fitted, it is now the law for a Coach passenger to wear one. I even saw the driver belt up with a proper car-style belt on my journey to London last week!

 

[Kris]

Apparently it is incredibly easy for the driver to escape the train within about 5 seconds.

All modern(ish) trains (not our slammers on the Lymmy line) have burst through doors. Locked on the passenger side but a flick of the door handle on the inside and you are out in an instant.

Then .......... then you have to wait several seconds for the door button on the passenger compartment door to work. Disastro Std end would be better - no door. 159's you can prise apart with a thumb (lock automatically when the driver has a key on).

I've always thought - best thing to do would be to run into the coach, if one had time, sit in a rearward facing seat and shout "brace yourselves!"

 

[CallySleeper]

I've always thought - best thing to do would be to run into the coach, if one had time, sit in a rearward facing seat and shout "brace yourselves!"

This probably wouldn't be the best thing to do as it could induce panic.

 

[CallySleeper]

It has been announced today that class 90 locos will be hired to haul mkIII stock following Friday's derailment. It has not yet been announced who will loan the stock. It has also not been announced which services the set will run on. Also, be aware that as VWC train crews do not sign class 90s, it could be some time before the stock comes into passenger service.

 

[Broken Viking]

Hail All!

I've always thought - best thing to do would be to run into the coach, if one had time, sit in a rearward facing seat and shout "brace yourselves!"

This probably wouldn't be the best thing to do as it could induce panic.

I could just imagine the resulting automated announcement if that happened on a Desiro: :toothy10:
Your attention please, this is a passenger announcement. This train is about to enter an unfavourable situation. Please assume a bracing position and hold on tightly. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you for travelling with South West Trains.
P.S. If you are trained in driving this classification of train, please report to the front cab immediateley where the controls are waiting. Thankyou.

Those things have automated announcements for just about everything! hock:

Your attention please, this is a passenger announcement. Please be aware that the pancake vending machine in the sixth carriage is currently out of order. We apologise for any inconvenience caused by this failure. Thank you for travelling with South West Trains.
(This would be sounded after departing every station on the route! :toothy10

Farewell...
>> Death <<

 

[Broken Viking]

Hail again!

It has been announced today that class 90 locos will be hired to haul mkIII stock following Friday's derailment. It has not yet been announced who will loan the stock. It has also not been announced which services the set will run on. Also, be aware that as VWC train crews do not sign class 90s, it could be some time before the stock comes into passenger service.

Hang on a mo, I thought that Virgin had a few HST sets and a couple of Class 87's knocking about to cover Pendolino/Voyager failures such as these, and that drivers were also trained to drive HSTs as well as Pendolinos. hock:

Incidentally, given that they're built by the same company (IIRC) at roughly the same time, aren't Pendolinos and Voyagers identical as far as driver training goes?
(I.E: If you train a driver on a Pendolino, he's also cleared for Voyagers as well.)

Farewell...
>> Death <<

 

[adambro]

It has been announced today...

When you say it has been announced, who is it that announced this?

 

[yorkie]

Hail again! Hang on a mo, I thought that Virgin had a few HST sets

Nope. Virgin CrossCountry lease one HST set from MML.

and a couple of Class 87's knocking about to cover Pendolino/Voyager failures such as these,

Nope. Virgin used to hire an 87 but this is no longer possible due to a lack of OTMR. Instead, a 90 and full rake of Mk3s will be leased to operate the diagram that used to be 87-hauled, including the 1651 EUS-BHM and 1900 BHM-EUS.

qand that drivers were also trained to drive HSTs as well as Pendolinos. hock:

I doubt any drivers still retain knowledge of Pendos and HSTs. Some CrossCountry drivers on the NE-SW corridor retain knowledge of HSTs.

Incidentally, given that they're built by the same company (IIRC)

No they weren't. Bombardier made Voyagers.

at roughly the same time,

I'll give you that!

aren't Pendolinos and Voyagers identical as far as driver training goes?

Not really, no.

(I.E: If you train a driver on a Pendolino, he's also cleared for Voyagers as well.)

Farewell...
>> Death <<

Certainly not, no!

 

[yorkie]

It has been announced today that class 90 locos will be hired to haul mkIII stock following Friday's derailment. It has not yet been announced who will loan the stock. It has also not been announced which services the set will run on. Also, be aware that as VWC train crews do not sign class 90s, it could be some time before the stock comes into passenger service.

Has it? I can't find any announcement.

However, the "gen" is that the 90 will haul the same trains that were 87 hauled a few months ago. I forget the headcodes now, but it's the early morning RUG-EUS, then the 1651 EUS-BHM and 1900 BHM-EUS.

 

[Jordy]

Points said to be 'faulty'

A set of points near the site of the Cumbria train crash site were faulty, an initial report has found.

Investigators have found one of three stretcher bars was not in position, one had nuts and bolts missing and two were fractured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6398057.stm

 

[87015]

Oh dear. I take it thats poor maintenence (or lack of)...
Who's Carnforth PW area contractor then?

 

[neonison]

So is this a precise duplicate of Potter's Bar?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_02_07_grayrigg.pdf

Does the same poor management account for this and the Tebay run-away (different incidents, similar location, but same management?).

 

[Coxster]

Interim report released: http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/interim_reports/070226_I012007_grayrigg.cfm

 

[CosherB]

From the report:

There were 111 passengers and 4 staff on the train.

Only 4 staff? Driver, train manager, and only 2 catering staff for both 1st and second class? In my experience, there are more on-train staff than that on Pendolinos.

Also, 111 passengers sounds not many for a peak time Friday evening departure from Euston.

CC