GCR Derailment

[Autocar Publicity]

We don't know the full facts, but I'm wondering why the points were not clamped? Depending why the signal was passed at danger, with (presumably) a manual interlocking system, I would have suspected a problem with the mechanism and - better safe than sorry - said let's clamp them, just in case.

And I don't know if it's misleading from the film, but the consist seemed to take off rather quickly to negotiate a junction there may be a problem with, if I'd been driving, I'd have taken it a lot slower. Yes, I'd probably still have come off, but with fewer axles and less force.

As far as the non-appearance of the bobby's concerned, perhaps they were sending a section blocked signal down the line? Yes, the main line may not have been physically fouled but you don't want to take chances until you've had chance to evaluate the situation.

[Andy W]

I think how a train was authorised to pass a signal at danger with an open set of traps in front of it will be at the centre of the railways enquiry. If it was a passenger train it would be very public and very embarrassing for the individuals involved as it would be an RAIB enquiry, not a GCR one.

My (limited) experience of being up front when you are authorised to go by a signal at danger is that once the driver has got the o.k. from the bobby he tells you, you go quiet and everyone in the cab looks out very, very carefully as you proceed to the next signal.

It certainly isn't preservations greatest operational moments but I've seen the results of quite a few operational foul ups on BR too. Any system that relies on human intervention has occasional issues and on this occasion, thankfully, the traps did their job.

[52A]

This is a disgraceful incident with no excuse on either side. The loco should not have passed 'red' in any circumstances. What if something similar had happened with a passenger working?

Should not have passed a red in any circumstances!!! If I had a pound for every time I had passed a red, or authorised drivers to pass reds, I would be a very rich man! It is part of running a railway and is perfectly safe, if all concerned do their jobs properly.

[richard]

Moderatorial note: When new people join an existing thread, they should read the thread up to that point - this should avoid duplicate postings which may have been already debunked or answered already. This isn't the first time it has happened, so this is more of a general comment.

[Mickey]

Deleted

[sandwhich]

There will of course be an enquiry, lets hope that lessons are learned. Visitors must have wondered if they were imagining it all.

[Bryan]

From comments on other forums there will be no RAIB inquiry as it does not meet the criteria required.

[Mickey]

Deleted

[Bryan]

I would expect so and if required notification sent to RAIB, ORR, HSE etc
They will all come under the same legislation as Network Rail.

[Mickey]

Deleted

[Bryan]

This is someones effort at working through the Guidelines for Incident reporting to the RAIB


Well, looking at schedule 1:
1. An accident resulting in the death of a person or the serious injury of two or more persons. It didn't
2. An accident on a level crossing involving rolling stock, resulting in the death of a person or serious injury to a person. It didn't
3. A collision between rolling stock on a running line which causes damage or blocks a running line that was open to railway traffic at the time of the collision. It wasn't and didn't
4. A derailment of rolling stock on a running line that was open to railway traffic at the time of the derailment, or which blocks a running line that was open to railway traffic at the time of the derailment. It wasn't on a running line nor was it blocking it
5. A collision of rolling stock with an arrestor mechanism or buffer stop, other than in a siding, that causes damage to the rolling stock. It wasn't
6. An accident involving the release or combustion of dangerous goods being carried on rolling stock that necessitates the evacuation of the area. It wasn't
7. An accident or incident that is likely to result in suspension of a railway service for a period in excess of 6 hours. Services were running shortly after
8. An accident that causes extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment. It wasn't. Extensive damage is defined as over £2m euros.
9. An accident or incident which under slightly different conditions might have led to a death, serious injury or extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment. Subjective, but I'd say it wasn't.

Certainly not reportable under Sched 1.

[Mickey]

Deleted

[1H was 2E]

Whilst deferring to the greater and more up to date knowledge of those currently working for Network Rail (it's 41 years since I left the accidents section at DM Euston) why doesn't a signalled loop count as a running line? I thought this was the section where GC claim to have 4 tracks but maybe I'm mistaken.
I'm not sure either about wagons running off and back on at sidings. What certainly happened on the Midland south of Bedford (a switchback route) is that the rear of a train would roll back (for various reasons) and a wagon towards the rear would run back through a catch, and when forward movement was resumed the wagon would run derailed until rerailed at the next trailing points. Both DCE and DME (Wagons) were very concerned about this. This treatment breaks wagon spring leaves. For the devastating results of that see the accident reports for Milton Malsor 1967 and Roade 1969 (available in Railway Archive).

[Andy W]

It wasn't on a signalled loop - the move took place in a siding connected to one of the two running lines.

[sandwhich]

The information as regards reporting incidents to RAIB was interesting so it seems it will be an internal investigation.

Yes in years gone by, no names no packdrill, many yard derailments were soon dealt with, how should we say, very quietly and no questions asked. different world now.