Buffer stop collision in Richmond, Sydney injures 16

Something which cannot happen on the underground, all terminal platforms are protected with tripcock/trainstop arrangements to ensure trains do not do mere then 10mph in these platforms.

It didn't stop a D stock train mounting the buffers at Richmond one day in c1990.

Any reason why not? The line was BR owned but that didn't stop trainstops being fitted elsewhere.

Pretty amazing that it didn't break after hitting the buffers at that speed.

As has been mentioned in these pages before, 'Moorgate protection' signalling and traction current resistors were fitted to the Tube lines terminal stations soon after the disaster, the Surface lines however waited much longer and never had the traction current restrictions installed.
BR stations such as Richmond and Wimbledon waited even longer.
Still to this day, Olympia is protected by one single 15mph trainstop.

I would guess that, plus the less severe consequences of an over-run at those locations, plus the need to co-ordinate with BR's signalling system, were all factors.

Are the 313s fitted with tripcocks, or is Moorgate the only deep level terminus on London never to have been fitted with "Moorgate Control"?

(The second Morpeth derailment occured because "Morpeth Control", which has an AWS ramp installed on the approach to an abrupt drop in line speed, had only been installed in the northbound approach to the 14-chain (285m) radius right-angle bend after the original derailment occured fifteen years earlier - the stepwise drops in the other direction didn't meet the criteria as none of them individually involved a 33% drop in speed. )

Thank you for the clarification

I think the traction current restrictors (resistors) were used as site specific design warranted. If the agreed degree of protection could be provided simply by speed controlled trainstops, that's what was done. I was briefly involved with testing a resistor scheme in maybe 1977/8 at Ealing Broadway with R stock and CO/CP stock. Maybe it wasn't retained, I don't recall. Certainly not one we had to address with the coming of S stock.
For those unfamiliar, the idea was that the approach had speed controlled trainstops and the final approach to the stopping position had the traction current supply limited so the train could just maintain enough power to run auxiliaries and to keep moving but not to accelerate substantially towards the buffers.
For departure, the current limiting resistor was switched out when the signal cleared.
The scheme doesn't work properly with modern traction equipments.

Does your last comment indicate that the higher entry speeds is a feature that isn't going to be used?

This speed is surely implausible given the (lack of) damage to the front end shown in the news articles? Clearly still nasty - run into a wall at 8 mph and you will injure yourself...

I took it to mean that we will no longer have trains creeping into terminal stations.

My comment was a gentle dig about Chris using 'break' instead of 'brake' - only made because of the serendipitous double entendre.

As I'm 100% sure he knows the difference, I suspect that this is an example of a phenomenon caused by our brain's ability to 'multi-thread' whereby the bit that knows the differences between homonyms passes off a segment of prose to the bit that is very good at typing but clueless about semantic niceties.

Wikipedia says the line was electrified as far as Riverstone in 1975, and electrification was extended the last six stops to Richmond in 1991. Between those dates a dmu shuttle ran between Riverstone and Richmond, using the 1920s-vintage "Tin Hares" until 1984.

very little!
perhaps a rotten sleeper strewn across the track, just before the fixed buffers (made-up of more wooden sleepers) at the concourse end.