class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Jul 9, 2018 17:13:21 GMT
We all know that LU has in incredible safety record, but I cannot actually ever remember hearing of an LU train hitting another.
When was the last time it happened?
I'm thinking of instances other then a sidewswipe caused by a derailment, and on passenger carrying track, as opposed to depot's and suchlike.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 17:19:23 GMT
It certainly has happened. There was a very serious rear-end collision at Stratford in the 1950s, though I don't know if that was the last one.
|
|
|
Post by coyote on Jul 9, 2018 17:32:23 GMT
Kilburn 1984?
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jul 9, 2018 17:44:22 GMT
We all know that LU has in incredible safety record, but I cannot actually ever remember hearing of an LU train hitting another. When was the last time it happened? I'm thinking of instances other then a sidewswipe caused by a derailment, and on passenger carrying track, as opposed to depot's and suchlike. Check Wikipedia"List of London underground accidents"
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Jul 9, 2018 17:46:42 GMT
We all know that LU has in incredible safety record, but I cannot actually ever remember hearing of an LU train hitting another. When was the last time it happened? I'm thinking of instances other then a sidewswipe caused by a derailment, and on passenger carrying track, as opposed to depot's and suchlike. Check Wikipedia"List of London underground accidents" On the operational network, 2014. In sidings and depots, 2018.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jul 9, 2018 18:13:29 GMT
Check Wikipedia"List of London underground accidents" On the operational network, 2014... Was that the S Stock on the Wimbledon branch?
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Jul 9, 2018 19:08:36 GMT
Si.
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Jul 9, 2018 21:54:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Jul 10, 2018 3:53:56 GMT
It was from excessive speeds causing the fatal accidents, that a Speed Control After Tripping (SCAT) Timer was fitted and now standard on manually driven rolling stock. This 3 minute timer ensures the train cannot travel above 20kph which would significantly reduce the chance of a rear end collision after passing a signal at danger.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jul 10, 2018 21:38:33 GMT
On the operational network, 2014... Was that the S Stock on the Wimbledon branch? Given the discussion on Leyton and Kilburn etc. I thought to point out for anyone unaware, that excess speed and signalling were not implicated in the S stock 2014 incident. This was primarily a matter of track alignment and maintenance of that alignment. Two trains came into light glancing side to side contact and it was subsequently shown by analysis that it could have happened with other trains using the same track area.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jul 11, 2018 7:33:40 GMT
So it looks like 1984 was the last time there was a rear end collision, a year when there were two such incidents. An impressive record considering the number of trains that run on a daily basis.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Jul 11, 2018 7:57:07 GMT
So it looks like 1984 was the last time there was a rear end collision, a year when there were two such incidents. An impressive record considering the number of trains that run on a daily basis. This was what led me to start the thread. Not only are a vast number of trains run, but the number of individual movements (in the sense of stationary to stationary), the density of the stock on the rails, and the complexity of the track usage, make it a pretty amazing record.
|
|
|
Post by notverydeep on Jul 11, 2018 15:36:36 GMT
Two trains came into light glancing side to side contact and it was subsequently shown by analysis that it could have happened with other trains using the same track area. So light that the 'contact', which occurred during the morning was not apparent to either passengers or staff on either train and only came to light that evening, when the slight damage to two trains matched in a way that led to investigating engineers realising that the two units had come into contact at some point.
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Jul 11, 2018 16:03:55 GMT
So it looks like 1984 was the last time there was a rear end collision, a year when there were two such incidents. An impressive record considering the number of trains that run on a daily basis. The two collisions of which you speak.
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jul 12, 2018 9:35:13 GMT
Wasn't there a runaway engineering trolley fairly recently? I thought that hit some other rolling stock.
|
|
|
Post by fish7373 on Jul 12, 2018 16:21:31 GMT
I think the last train crash but one train D78 at Richmond buffer stop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2018 9:45:37 GMT
Wasn't there a runaway engineering trolley fairly recently? I thought that hit some other rolling stock. <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 29.039999999999964px; height: 3.0400000000000063px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_80059274" scrolling="no" width="29.039999999999964" height="3.0400000000000063"></iframe> <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 29.04px; height: 3.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1386px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_69793437" scrolling="no" width="29.039999999999964" height="3.0400000000000063"></iframe> <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 29.04px; height: 3.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 92px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_34002060" scrolling="no" width="29.039999999999964" height="3.0400000000000063"></iframe> <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 29.04px; height: 3.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1386px; top: 92px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_6740625" scrolling="no" width="29.039999999999964" height="3.0400000000000063"></iframe>
If it is what I think it is then you mean the runaway engineering train on the Northern. That was a number of years ago now and it didn't collide in to anything it just came to a stop on one of the chx branch stations. The trains managed to avoid it because they just ran non stop and one train was iiirc diverted via bank to get off the path of the engineering train.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,770
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 13, 2018 10:05:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Aug 13, 2018 11:52:40 GMT
Wasn't there a runaway engineering trolley fairly recently? I thought that hit some other rolling stock. If it is what I think it is then you mean the runaway engineering train on the Northern. That was a number of years ago now and it didn't collide in to anything it just came to a stop on one of the chx branch stations. The trains managed to avoid it because they just ran non stop and one train was iiirc diverted via bank to get off the path of the engineering train.
Yes but thank goodness the trains were not automated... because its very likely that had it been automated the train driver would have been prevented from travelling in 'emergency: flee for your life' mode and the runaway would have impacted the back of the passenger train.
Thankfully train crashes are so very rare - our railways are still incomparably safer than road travel.
Simon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2018 13:55:10 GMT
If it was automated then a stop coded signal would of been transmitted to the train
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 13, 2018 14:01:32 GMT
If it was automated then a stop coded signal would of been transmitted to the train Not much use if the train has no air!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2018 14:15:58 GMT
Fail safe it wouldn’t move
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 13, 2018 14:58:14 GMT
Fail safe it wouldn’t move Today is actually the eighth anniversary of that incident. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c8feae5274a428d00015b/R092011_110615_Highgate.pdfThe brakes on the rail grinder had indeed failed safe, but had then been released manually in order to tow it away northbound (wrong line) back to Highgate sidings. (It was, of course, coupled to a train with working brakes before its own brakes were released). But during towing, the emergency coupling failed and the unbraked train rolled away down the hill towards central London. It must have passed several train stops but, with no working brakes, they had no effect. The runaway started just north of Highgate station, at which time there was a southbound passenger train standing at Archway - (the report doesn't say, but it must have entered service there, using the reversing siding, as the southbound line from Highgate was blocked by the broken down train). By the time it got to Tufnell Park the runaway was 46 seconds behind. The driver of the passenger train was then instructed to run non-stop (and given a clear road!) until further instructions (or presumably Morden, if that came sooner!). By Camden Town the passenger train had gained a little on the runaway (despite slowing to observe the speed restrictions - derailing would have made a bad situation worse) and was diverted to the City branch with just enough time to switch the points to route the runaway towards Charing Cross. At this point the previous Charing Cross branch train had just left Warren Street A set of points near Mornington Crescent were deliberately set against it to slow it down, and this, plus the short uphill section into Warren Street, was enough to bring it to a stand there, where someone was able to get aboard and secure it. (Had the slight rise at Warren Street not been enough to stop it, it is downhill from there almost all the way to Kennington) The question is whether the passenger train could have been driven in automatic mode fast enough to stay ahead of the runaway - if the automatic system had insisted on pausing at each station it would probably have made the difference - the available margin to change the points between the trains at Camden Town was a matter of seconds.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Aug 13, 2018 17:06:56 GMT
Fail safe it wouldn’t move Today is actually the eighth anniversary of that incident. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c8feae5274a428d00015b/R092011_110615_Highgate.pdfThe brakes on the rail grinder had indeed failed safe, but had then been released manually in order to tow it away northbound (wrong line) back to Highgate sidings. (It was, of course, coupled to a train with working brakes before its own brakes were released). But during towing, the emergency coupling failed and the unbraked train rolled away down the hill towards central London. It must have passed several train stops but, with no working brakes, they had no effect. The runaway started just north of Highgate station, at which time there was a southbound passenger train standing at Archway - (the report doesn't say, but it must have entered service there, using the reversing siding, as the southbound line from Highgate was blocked by the broken down train). By the time it got to Tufnell Park the runaway was 46 seconds behind. The driver of the passenger train was then instructed to run non-stop (and given a clear road!) until further instructions (or presumably Morden, if that came sooner!). By Camden Town the passenger train had gained a little on the runaway (despite slowing to observe the speed restrictions - derailing would not have made a bad situation worse) and was diverted to the City branch with just enough time to switch the points to route the runaway towards Charing Cross. At this point the previous Charing Cross branch train had just left Warren Street A set of points near Mornington Crescent were deliberately set against it to slow it down, and this, plus the short uphill section into Warren Street, was enough to bring it to a stand there, where someone was able to get aboard and secure it. (Had the slight rise at Warren Street not been enough to stop it, it is downhill from there almost all the way to Kennington) The question is whether the passenger train could have been driven in automatic mode fast enough to stay ahead of the runaway - if the automatic system had insisted on pausing at each station it would probably have made the difference - the available margin to change the points between the trains at Camden Town was a matter of seconds. What is the drop between Highgate and the lowest point it traversed? It seems odd that a vehicle could go that distance, and, apparently, at speeds fairly close to line operating speeds, purely from gravity - although clearly it did!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,770
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 13, 2018 17:25:18 GMT
There is a gradient profile in the report linked by Norbiton Flyer (figure 2, page 10), the lowest point reached was between 60 and 65 metres lower than the point at which it ran away, which was on a gradient of about 1:60 (paragraph 65), the steepest it encountered.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 13, 2018 19:09:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Aug 15, 2018 16:43:24 GMT
Sorry to be pedantic, and true enough, this is a major reason for modern railways but they existed a long time before steel rails or wheels.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Aug 17, 2018 12:32:35 GMT
59TS ran away from Queen's Park in engineering hours back in the 80s due to an incorrectly fitted rail anchor,was a miracle no maintenance staff were killed,think the train came to rest about three stations down the SB.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,770
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 17, 2018 12:53:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Aug 17, 2018 19:33:26 GMT
59TS ran away from Queen's Park in engineering hours back in the 80s due to an incorrectly fitted rail anchor,was a miracle no maintenance staff were killed,think the train came to rest about three stations down the SB. Was this the one where the P way staff should have been on the track working and were actually skiving and ended up getting the sack for not being killed?
|
|