Another incident at the Great Central

[oldravendale]

A report on RMWeb indicates that the accident occurred during a propelling move... the Cl.37 was adding the TPO to other stock.

Confusion reigns! On line the report is of a light engine, driverless from Quorn. If the RM web report is, in fact, correct, the 37 must have been travelling at a hell of a lick to cause the damage to loco and rolling stock. I assume the suggestion is that the train ran in to the stock which it was supposed to be joining. What was the damage to this?The damage suggests that the loco hit the TPO though.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Brian

 

[mth]

the 37 must have been travelling at a hell of a lick to cause the damage to loco and rolling stock.

Might not be the case.
The damage might have been coursed by the coach riding over the 37's buffers. I have seen worse damage to stock done at low speed.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Brian

yes

 

[ZiderHead]

Out of interest, supposing your scenario to be the case, what speed could the loco reach on tickover and on level track (or nearly so).

I reckon the 12CSVT could produce ~100kW of its rated 1,300kW at the governed idle (150rpm?), which doesn't sound like much for a 100t loco, but applied continuously over a 2 mile stretch of level track unbraked …

edit: Are the traction power circuits even engaged at notch 0? I would have assumed not.

 

[alcazar]

What a shame, for all concerned.

I do hope it doesn't all go bad for them, the GCR is my favourite preserved line.

 

[OzzyO]

. I think the class 37 is only monocoque to the rear cab bulkhead, maybe partially to the windscreen base but the bonnet I think is primarily light weight construction, unlike class 47 etc where there are substantial crash pillars in the cab area, though they are sloped from the buffer beam and end up just decapitating the driver. I'll try and dig out some photos later of class 37 and 47 body shells to exlain. The point is, once the coach over rode there was little substantial structure to stop further damage.

As a driver I think I know what I'd like in front of me.




I think I know what cab I'd rather be in. 10' or 2' ?

OzzyO.

 

[ZiderHead]

Is this a traditional DC generator loco or one of the more modern AC generators, if the latter then I wouldn't expect any excitation to be present in idle but a DC set up generally gives constant power.

I believe 37198 is an unrebuilt 37/0 so would have the original EE DC generator. The 1980s rebuilt classes were fitted with new Brush alternators.

 

[oldravendale]

I remain very sad about the whole incident. Not surprisingly it's my favourite heritage line too and in the early days was one of the crew which helped to start the re-opening. I still hold membership No5 which must make me the oldest surviving member - or at least one of the earliest to still survive.

Thanks for the discussion, guys. I've been educated about the possibilities and I think we've demonstrated to ourselves that it's very difficult to make assumptions. I will be watching for further details as they emerge.

Brian

 

[oldravendale]

Here's the official statement by the GCR about the incident. No mention of the loco running unmanned from Quorn, and as it had been involved in shunting (which I accept may be a careful choice of words) this now looks more unlikely.

A recent incident
An incident occurred at Loughborough on Monday 12th May at 12.30 pm during which some carriages and a diesel locomotive were damaged.
The locomotive (which had been involved in shunting) was number 37198. The railway wasn’t open to the public at the time and there were no injuries of any kind.
We’ve begun an internal enquiry and the Railway Accident Investigation Branch were informed. While enquiries are carried out there will be no further comment. There will be no effect on our passenger train timetable.

I'll be watching RAIB reports keenly for the results of the investigation.

Brian

 

[ZiderHead]

Thanks for posting that, even if it is rather vague …

I was quite surprised that the RAIB didn't have a look at the 2MT SPAD incident last year, considering it was on a trap point protecting a passenger line.

 

[mickoo]

An update, RAIB report is now released.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RAIB_Loughborough2014.pdf

 

[Osgood]

A very thorough report indeed.

I have little knowledge of modern locomotives like the Class 37 - however as a (railway-trained) mechanical engineer, I feel compelled to offer this view (in terms of engineering design and operator acceptance): that any locomotive's handbrake can be considered unreliable is completely beyond my comprehension.

Operators of Class 37s do tell more!!

 

[mickoo]

As far as I know, the majority of locos have two mechanical hand brakes, one for each bogie, each controlled by their own respective handbrake wheel at each end.
Off the top of my head, I cannot recall any heritage locos that have one handbrake wheel that does both bogies, but some locos only have one handbraked bogie, class 20 being one of them, maybe 15, 16 and 17? I've a nagging that more modern 'digital' locos like class 66 and 70 have an electronic parking brake which does activate 'both' bogies as will more modern US locos.

In the US, analogue single cab locos have an additional handbrake for the rear bogie, usually outside under the radiator section on the walkway.

 

[OzzyO]

The 37s have a hand brake that works on one wheel set (middle) from each cab ASFAIK these brakes work well enough to keep the loco in place not like the 40s and 55s(?).
Having read the report I know what I think, but I can't say it.

OzzyO.

 

[marsa69]

I wonder what the punishment will be?

 

[iploffy]

all wheel operated handbrakes work on the local bogie only, to leave the handbrake off and rely on nothing more than a small piece of wood (a Scotch) is nothing short of criminal. the Driver should have had a severe reprimand at the very least. Amateurs doing real railway work. something like this happens every so often.

 

[OzzyO]

Amateurs doing real railway work. something like this happens every so often.

The driver was (is?) a full time employee of the GCR and had (has) been since the mid 1980s (see para 26).

Track-worker A was (is) a full time employee of the GCR and had (has) been since 2012 (see para 28).

So both of them full time railway men. In the report it uses the word was in relation to both men, so the punishment may have been a bit more than a reprimand.

OzzyO.

 

[Osgood]

The report makes reference to a number (was it 7 in last 12 months?) of 'chock' incidents with similar circumstances, all occurring on the main line network.

I guess it is inevitable that as the operational practices of the preservation lines become more like those of the mainline operators, so the risks of unintended incidents occurring will become more aligned too.

I think we are very lucky in this country to be able to have so many heritage lines running - I hope this incident and others do not cause a knee-jerk reaction out of proportion to the incidence of such events on the main lines.

 

[Scale7JB]

...amateurs doing real railway work.

I think that might be a little on the harsh side, as without amateurs we wouldn't have much in the way of preservation.

I think it's just general negligence. The worrying thing is that this happened with full time staff, it's actually worse than had it been done by a volunteer. They should have known better.

JB.

 

[iploffy]

Well I have never read anywhere in the old BR rule book or the new BR rule book of any clause where the main loco handbrake is not used and a lump of wood for want of a better description is used as a reasonable substitute. That guys is a fact. No trying to hide behind preserved banners. I have worked for the Real railway for the last 27 years, no-one is being harsh at all, if their rule book states forget the locomotive handbrake use a lump of wood, the rule book is wrong and so are the people who use it, for not questioning it. I cant speak for the privatised railways because there is so much fragmentation with training issues, I think they call that progress, I know what I would call it, but from my own company we would never leave anything unsecured either in a siding or on the main line.

Yes I totally agree with the fact that so much has been preserved and if it wasn't for the preserved railways.............

but its about time that they were all called in and a rule book imposed on them with no exceptions, you are dealing with peoples lives on a daily basis.

Isn't the GCR the railway that runs at 60MPH under exceptional operating procedures if it is this makes it worse as they should have tighter restrictive operational practices not slacker.

Oh and a further thing the coach wasn't even coupled correctly to the locomotive i.e. no continuous brake or brake van on the other end,a complete no, no.

The driver was also the PICOP person in charge of the possession another no.no

According to the RAIB report he was also acting as the guard as well, do i need to say it again no,no.

How is pointing out a catalogue of errors including a super human person who can be in 3 places at the same time be judged as harsh, come on how long is it going to be before someone gets hurt again.

 

[Scale7JB]

Completely agree with everything you say..

I would hope that a similar situation would never occur on our railway. Luckily as no one was hurt, lessons can be taken from this, including bucking up people's ideas on safety. It's all to easy to start taking things for granted..

JB.