Virgin Train Crash

Out of interest, how would you define out of use in this case? Block or clamped and speed restricted? (Or something else altogether?)

In terminology used by the RAIB (I read all their reports), they distinguish between the "immediate cause" and the "underlying cause(s)"
The "immediate cause" is the last thing to happen that physically caused the incident, in this case the train derailed because the points broke in such a way that there was a narrowing of gauge.
The "underlying cause(s)" is/are what happened leading up to the incident that caused/allowed the immediate cause to happen. In this case this is likely to be failure of maintenance and/or communication, but this has not been firmly established yet.

Partially dissassembled? Sort of.
They had no switch rails and were plain lined.

Its a shame that we went with a long period of time without a major accident. Network Rail's good record has been desicrated by this.

I always said to myself, after Railtrack was ejected from managing the infrastructure, that it would only be a matter of time before something else happened...

I shall be reading the RAIB website with interest over the coming weeks.

Aye, I keep looking at RAIB's reports... also Railways Archive has some older Ministry of Transport reports pdf'd up for viewing... If you can stand the longer loading time, these are well worth a read too...

The BBC has recently posted a story relating to the Cumbrian derailment. Full story here news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6403573.stm

Part of it says:-

Video images of the faulty track in the Cumbria derailment were taken by an inspection train two days before the crash but not viewed at the time. Infrastructure operator Network Rail said its measurement train passed at high speed through Grayrigg on the West Coast Main Line on 21 February. The train's purpose is to alert the firm to defects in the track's metal.
A spokesman said filming took place at the same time but the shots could only be used as "backwards reference". It would probably take someone most of the month to watch one day's-worth of data," he said.
The inspection train's equipment can automatically alert technicians on board to defects in the condition of the track's metal but would not pick up on missing stretcher bars. It travels too fast to allow anyone to visually spot such faults at the same time through the video camera.
The Network Rail spokesman confirmed that the inspection train's video recording showed one of the stretcher bars and some of the bolts were missing. But he said the video is only viewed after an incident.
The train runs at up to 125 mph and any such problems could not be picked up in "real time", he added.

Note that this is the BBC take on the story and not part of the inspector’s report.
The text appears to have some inconsistencies. One sentence says that the video would not pick up on missing stretcher bars while another says that the recording “showed one of the stretcher bars and some of the bolts were missing.”

There is also the question of Network Rail’s alleged response in which an un-named spokesman reputedly claimed that it would take someone most of the month to watch the 18 hours of data that was collected at a speed of up to 125 mph. Why would "one person" have to watch the entire recording? Could the job not be allocated to several people? That would still cost the same, but the job would be completed quicker.
Also, it does not take 18 hours to make one journey down the West Coast main line at full speed which suggests that there are other locations on the recording.
Anyone who uses a computer will know how easy and fast it is to send digital data around the world. Surely it would be possible to automatically split this recording into sections that match the maintenance areas and pass that information on to each one for checking?
It is also easy to automate a large part of the process by using comparative software of a type that has existed for years. By comparing the captured image with what the camera is expecting to see, software can automatically highlight anomalies that can then be checked by a real person. This technology is commonplace in precision manufacturing industries where items are regularly checked at speeds in excess of several thousand a minute; and because it is used so much, the equipment is available off-the-shelf and cost is minimal. With the amount of money that has been spent equipping and operating this train, surely Network Rail should make full use of the resource? Or does the fact that "The inspection train's equipment can automatically alert technicians on board to defects in the condition of the track's metal" mean that this is exact what it is doing? If that is the case, then there are other issues to be looked at.





_{Edited typo}

I'm told that the AVI system used on LU has 10 different camera angles though not all are always operational on a run and the recording is not always realtime in that the fps rate is sometimes limited. The system is also capable of viewing the web of the rail.

Metronet SSL used AVI to catalogue all its track assets such as sleepers, conductor rails etc and it has been used to survey wetbeds in the four foot so I can't see why it can't be used to view junctionwork.

However, all the footage has to be visually checked by a person where video software links all the different camera angles to a particular chainage. Defects still need to be physically inspected and it is more of a supplement to the basic inspection methods.

I haven't looked in today's paper. What was in it?

But the LU AVI video system can be programmed to flag up particular types of rail joint or train stops or analyse rail wear. It can be hooked with data picked up by the TRV runs to examine any irregularities. It normally takes 72 hours for an analysis report so there may be the human element that takes time. Afterall it was reported that the Sperry Landrover trials for rail ultrasonic inspections were giving far more data than could be normally coped with.

Oh right. I saw the one the day after about freight trains carrying nuclear waste material over the same line.