Chancery Lane unit

released back into service on 2nd April, 2005.

Has been about, had it a few times.

hhhmmm, not the funniest joke I have read this week.

its still being investigated after all this time?! who by? HMRI or whatever its called now, or is it now an internal company matter? not looking for details, just curious as to why its taken so long...

It must be about costs somewhere along the way- otherwise there would be sufficient repairmen?

Also, if the cost of repairing the unit had been greater than the cost of making do with one fewer units then it would not have been repaired. I presume though that the cost of making do would be very high.

And let's not forget the fact that GWT preferred to have a train running with AWS isolated at 125mph than do a 15 minute shunt at Swansea and risk a fine for the associated delay.

I don't think the signaller can be blamed, after all how was he to know the approaching HST had no AWS? I would put the blame much higher up the food chain.

Sorry ya' didn't like my joke but I was just having a bitta fun with ya's...

Anyway thanks for the infro T/Op92

I know we're drifting wildly off-topic here (but that's par for the course on this forum! ;D), at the time of the Southall crash, I seem to remember that it was no actually against the rules to run with AWS isolated. IIRC my old rulebook training, was during falling snow, if you had the AWS isolated, you had to run at 45mph maximum (I think).

Every re-write and addition to the rule book is because of an accident or incident. You tend to find that there's always more than one contributary factor.

The defence counsel at the trial of FGW stated the HST was not turned because:

"1. It was not required by the rules;
2. It was never suggested by Railtrack or the Railway Inspectorate;
3. It was not the practice of TOC's to do so and
4. AWS isolation [as I mentioned earlier] is a category B failure, not a category A, therefore permissible fior the train to continue in service."

However, this failure was also combined with the driver, Larry Harrison, bending down to pack his bag for arrival into Paddington therefore presumably not seeing the yellow or double-yellow signals. This itself was also complicated by the fact that the signaller had routed a frieght train in front of the HST.
But, yet another complication was the fact the train was fitted with working ATP but neither driver of the train that day were trained in how to use it, therefore it was switched off.

As I said, any accident on the railway is usually a combination of factors (some human, others not) which brings about changes in rule book wordings.

I apologise again for going off at a tangent, but I remember the Southall crash very well as I was training for Thames at the time and followed the subsequent enquiries with great interest.

You are of course right, Tomnick in today's climate (almost back on thread!!!).

But to suggest to an old-time railwayman that a class 1 express should be not just held but STOPPED to allow a class 6(I think) freight to cross its path would cause said railwayman to turn in his grave!!!

I was reading somewhere the other day that there are significantly more passenger trains operaing than there were in the hey-day of British Rail, but the trains are much shorter than they were back then.
This means there is much more pressure on paths than there ever was before.

I believe so. Making them Class 9 gives them priority so that a 5 minute deley at Birmingham doesn't translate into a three hour delay in Scotland.

edit: At least in theory...

from a message on an email discussion group posted by someoen who works at Bristol Temple Meads -