We also have "WILD" devices (wheel impact load detectors- proprietary terms WheelChex or GOTCHA)...... and yes more WORKING devices would be great........
The WILD will pick up a "stuck" wheel quite quickly due to the hammer-blow from wheel flats. The WILDS can even pick up uneven loading of wagons......... and other sensors are available......
The number/mix of WILD and HABD and the siting is important, but what is also really important is Network Rail ensuring that all of those already fitted are all working reliably all the time. Just look at the NOC to see the list of HABD/WILD installations which are off line, usually waiting for components. The list is getting shorter (in part due to the freight sector challenging Network Rail to fix them), but it's still too long.
As well as the WILD/HABDs all working reliably, the data then needs to rapidly get to where it can be actioned quickly. Not all activations are a problem with the wheels/brakes, and the sooner the genuine wheel/brake issues can be identified the better. (It is not realistic to just immediately stop and withdraw everything that activates the detectors "just in case").
Another issue has been the calibration of the WILDs, I am reliably informed that in some areas the calibration had previously relied on the regular passage of HST/Mark 3 stock, so with new trains coming in and replacing that stock, new calibration routines have been required.
There's a whole collaborative project (under RSSB oversight) going on at the moment to look at these things- Condition of Freight Vehicles on the Network- and already some project findings are being implemented. Another programme is the fitment of RFID tags to wagons which allows the WILD or HABD to reliably ping back which wagon is effected when a WILD/HABD is triggered (much more accutate and simpler that counting axles in the train). This is important as (for example) when a train is stopped after a HABD activation, the use of temple sticks to check the axlebox temperature is much more reliable if the Driver gets to the correct wagon within 5-10 minutes of being stopped.
There's also other detection systems being looked at, such as acoustic detection. Thanks in part to pressure from the ORR and RAIB, we finally appear to have moved on from the historical attitude of Network Rail a few years ago in some areas of "if you want acoustic detection you can pay for fitment as you're the one who will benefit from saving delay minutes." (That was a real response by the way when a passenger operator mooted the idea of installing acoustic monitoring to check on axle bearing condition. Like I said, a few years ago.) NR these days are working collaboratively in the CFVN project which also includes all of the freight sector plus ECMs/wagon owners and progress is being made. The project is also looking in detail at causal factors such as human factors in preparation and maintenance of wagons.
I don't think it would help anyone if the crane lifting the wagons out of the river toppled over into it, toppling your crane over during a lift is a really expensive way of examining the underside...... Lifting heavy stuff with big cranes also requires specialist insurance and that is a big driver of good behaviour.
Even in the "good old days" they would face similar issues if they had been lifting the modern heavier wagons (8-wheel bogie wagon vice small 4-wheeled wagon). There's only so many big cranes available in the UK (or world for the VERY big ones) and they take time to set up and rig, as it is they are lucky not to have needed to construct a road into the site. There are some heavy-lift rail cranes about (which have greater capacity than old breakdown cranes) and they are used for recovery when appropriate- that they are not used here would be because they cannot do the work without risk of topple over. I shudder to think how much the big crawler crane cost, usually those big cranes are booked up on jobs months (even years) in advance.
What they might have been more willing to do in the "old days" is cut up the wagons in situ (or even leave it there) spilling the cargo out and polluting the river for years. Personally I see it as positive progress that we no longer deem it OK to pollute our watercourses like that, but as ever views may vary.
So far as the wagon incident causes goes, those of us in the industry who are close to this sort of thing already have a good handle on what it was NOT caused by. It's a credit to the RSSB-led rail freight industry safety groups that there is a level of maturity and a level of (private) preliminary information sharing at early stage following any significant incident so the rest of us can start learning really quickly (those who attend such groups on behalf of their employer will know this; those who don't do not need to know the details of the discussions, and can wait for the RAIB report to be issued).
TPO
Last edited:
