Class 158/159 recovery following Salisbury collision

[Baxenden Bank]

As long as the cable and fittings are rated for this load then everything will be hunky-dory. I suspect that the recovery experts can do simple arithmetic...

An interesting suggestion.

I am aware of three locomotives being dropped whilst being loaded/unloaded from ships. I too suspect the loading experts can do simple arithmetic... however arithmetic means nothing is there is a non visible flaw in the chain / wire / sling. Unless you test to full strain before each use, you cannot be sure.

Incidents are:
Newport Docks UK,
Owendo Gabon and,
the most recent was (I think) a loco heading for Zimbabwe* - sling broke when raised high, loco did a three-quarter roll and landed with quite a thump back on the road trailer!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you never stand under a lifted load - or within whipping distance of a train carriage being roughly dragged out of a tunnel using brute force.

* Correction: the loco was being loaded in India, headed for Mozambique. Video clip on Twitter here

A 3,000 hp BLW, Varanasi produced locomotive (No. 333) broke free of its crane and crashed to the ground, reportedly at Mundra port in Gujarat. The locomotive was being exported to Mozambique in Africa. More details awaited.

 

[Llanigraham]

The item being used to "tug" the unit free was not a rope or a wire cable, it was a "KINETIC Recovery Rope" which behaves very differently to either of the first two mentioned. It is now what is recommended for all motorsport recoveries, for which I am a Safety Officer.

 

[Dan G]

NR have uploaded a picture of the front carriage of the 159 after being dragged from the tunnel, and I have to say, it looks in surprisingly good condition, cab area excepted. There's not even a single smashed window in the passenger area on the side that went into the 158, and while there is some damage to the underfloor, it looks like some of that may have happened while dragging it through the ballast.

From that picture alone, I wouldn't be surprised to see it repaired and put back into use - sure the cab will need rebuilding, but that's been done in the past several times. I suppose the question is how much of a problem loosing a unit will cause?

https://twitter.com/NetworkRailWssx/status/1457316243850121221

Anyone know how the last two vehicles were removed from the tunnel?

 

[Shuttle]

I also wondered about the people standing close during the drag, but assumed someone would have risk assessed the life out of it. I work in ag, and I've seen recovery chains snap when trying to pull bogged tractors out. Straight through the cab window and narrowly missed the driver. That recoil action is no joke.

 

[swt_passenger]

Anyone know how the last two vehicles were removed from the tunnel?

They were pulled out of the tunnel with the class 59, until a Kirow rail crane could lift and carry them along the track towards the London Rd bridge. Then the road crane lifted them out of the cutting. AFAICT the same basic method was used for all five carriages. There is photo evidence linked in this thread of most of these stages, but not for all the individual carriages. If you follow the Twitter link in post #98 there’s 3 pictures, the last carriage having been pulled out, then the Kirow crane preparing it to move along the tracks, and finally on the back of road transport.

They are using a Kinetic Recovery Rope, which is designed to stretch and then shrink, thereby providing additional "pull". They are also safer if they get overloaded and break. Very common in many recovery situations nowadays.

Exactly as you also explained on Friday when the video was first linked. No chains were harmed in the making of this video, yet for some reason people have twice assumed they were…

 

[Dan G]

They were pulled out of the tunnel with the class 59, until a Kirow rail crane could lift and carry them along the track towards the London Rd bridge. Then the road crane lifted them out of the cutting. AFAICT the same basic method was used for all five carriages. There is photo evidence linked in this thread of most of these stages, but not for all the individual carriages. If you follow the Twitter link in post #98 there’s 3 pictures, the last carriage having been pulled out, then the Kirow crane preparing it to move along the tracks, and finally on the back of road transport.

Thanks. Given that the 59 couldn't do it last Thursday, do you know what changed?

 

[swt_passenger]

Thanks. Given that the 59 couldn't do it last Thursday, do you know what changed?

It did eventually do it though. I think it’s possible to read too much into one video of an early unsuccessful attempt. There was a video of it moving somewhere and they weren’t doing anything obviously different.

I doubt they’ll ever bother explaining what the full sequence of events was.

 

[Dan G]

Cheers

 

[hwl]

Thanks. Given that the 59 couldn't do it last Thursday, do you know what changed?

Coupling bars got torched so pulling one vehicle at a time out rather than whole units and possibly the other unit too.

 

[Apedlar12]

Hi, does anyone know if there is any new info regarding the situation with 159102?

I know that 158762 is now back in traffic and 158763 has been written off sadly but haven't heard much about the 159...

Thanks.

 

[Towers]

Hi, does anyone know if there is any new info regarding the situation with 159102?

I know that 158762 is now back in traffic and 158763 has been written off sadly but haven't heard much about the 159...

Thanks.

I would think it very highly unlikely that 102 will be re-entering traffic, sadly. The collision end suffered severe damage and is unlikely to be worth repairing, even if that was a technical possibility. With both ends of 763 destroyed, even cobbling together some sort of hybrid is off the table.

I would imagine 102's centre car is likely to find a home somewhere, in one of SWR's 158s would seem logical, so there may be some 'excitement' (of sorts!) if/when that happens as it'll give fleet a headache over what to do with numbering, and I'd imagine the surviving driving car will end up either retained as a spare or stripped for bits (or both!) at Salisbury.

 

[USRailFan]

Hi, does anyone know if there is any new info regarding the situation with 159102?

I know that 158762 is now back in traffic and 158763 has been written off sadly but haven't heard much about the 159...

Thanks.

Didn't they have to cut apart much of the 159 on-site to get it away from the accident site?

 

[swt_passenger]

Didn't they have to cut apart much of the 159 on-site to get it away from the accident site?

I don’t believe so, although the leading cab was intentionally damaged to rescue the driver. Other than that the three cars were craned out separately but pretty much intact. Someone explained the intermediate couplings were cut, rather than dismantled.

 

[hwl]

Someone explained the intermediate couplings were cut, rather than dismantled.

Yes far safer to do with a very long Oxy-Acetrylene torch as the people can then all be out of harms way in case any thing moves...

 

[fgwrich]

Regarding 159102, I do still wonder if the spare bodyshell at either Derby or Long Marston could make a comeback. We know the cab was intentionally sacrificed to rescue the driver, but a lot of the rest of the coach looked surprisingly intact. As both happen to be owned by Porterbrook, it could theoretically be possible for them to make a good unit from the two.

Then again, it comes back to the usual cravats of time, money, is it required at SWR with a reduced timetable etc.

 

[D365]

Will SWR/GWR be able to get by until the Wales 158s are available?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Will SWR/GWR be able to get by until the Wales 158s are available?

As the hourly Waterloo Exeter and hourly Waterloo Yeovil (alternating via Frome or Gillingham) is now a two hourly Salisbury Exeter and hourly Waterloo Salisbury - and the planned permanent timetable not much better - I should certainly think they’ll manage without 102.

 

[fgwrich]

Will SWR/GWR be able to get by until the Wales 158s are available?

As the hourly Waterloo Exeter and hourly Waterloo Yeovil (alternating via Frome or Gillingham) is now a two hourly Salisbury Exeter and hourly Waterloo Salisbury - and the planned permanent timetable not much better - I should certainly think they’ll manage without 102.

That wont be forever though, so I can see them needing a 3 car unit of sorts. GWR will remain stretched unless they can sort out the HST reliability, and hurry the 769 program up to release a Turbo replacement.

 

[RPI]

The less damaged driving car from 102 could go to GWR to make up another 158/9?

 

[Xavi]

As the hourly Waterloo Exeter and hourly Waterloo Yeovil (alternating via Frome or Gillingham) is now a two hourly Salisbury Exeter and hourly Waterloo Salisbury - and the planned permanent timetable not much better - I should certainly think they’ll manage without 102.

The permanent timetable is hourly London Exeter. 102 can be spared though.

 

[fgwrich]

The less damaged driving car from 102 could go to GWR to make up another 158/9?

I did wonder how the leading end of 763 fared in the tunnel, though we haven't really seen any photos of it and Angel may have decided to write the entire unit off. If it was in a repairable condition, either 102 could make swap to GW or vice versa, though that would involve a fair amount of lessor swapping as I believe 763 is Angel while 102 is Porterbrook.

I'd be surprised if GW created another /9 to be honest - I thought they were a bit of a pain compared to the standard 2 cars. Of course all this is heavily wandering into speculation territory and should probably generate it's own thread?

 

[43096]

I did wonder how the leading end of 763 fared in the tunnel, though we haven't really seen any photos of it and Angel may have decided to write the entire unit off. If it was in a repairable condition, either 102 could make swap to GW or vice versa, though that would involve a fair amount of lessor swapping as I believe 763 is Angel while 102 is Porterbrook.

I'd be surprised if GW created another /9 to be honest - I thought they were a bit of a pain compared to the standard 2 cars. Of course all this is heavily wandering into speculation territory and should probably generate it's own thread?

Both sets are Porterbrook owned.

 

[158747]

The leading end of 158763 was undamaged in the collision, although unfortunately it had serious damage to the rear vestibule / toilet area of the leading vehicle.

 

[swt_passenger]

I did wonder how the leading end of 763 fared in the tunnel, though we haven't really seen any photos of it and Angel may have decided to write the entire unit off. If it was in a repairable condition, either 102 could make swap to GW or vice versa, though that would involve a fair amount of lessor swapping as I believe 763 is Angel while 102 is Porterbrook.

I'd be surprised if GW created another /9 to be honest - I thought they were a bit of a pain compared to the standard 2 cars. Of course all this is heavily wandering into speculation territory and should probably generate it's own thread?

There‘s a front end picture in post #978 in the original collision thread here:

Collision and derailment near Salisbury (Fisherton Tunnel) 31/10/21

I hate to prick the bubble of this tree bashing festival but if you look at the photo posted a few posts earlier Link https://www.flickr.com/photos/96859208@N07/10873585803 you can see from the photo that by the time the SWR train had passed under the road bridge and entered the now tree...

www.railforums.co.uk

I suspect as well as the rear vestibule damage mentioned by @158747 the right hand side won’t be looking too good…

 

[northernbelle]

I think it's highly unlikely that 158763 will be repaired - although it'd be nice if it did as they're good trains. The damage sustained was considerable and I believe various parts of it have already been earmarked for use as spare parts. The loss of a 2-car 158 can easily be mitigated through the use of other fleets and with 158s due to become available from other franchises, I can't see how a rebuild would be seen as value for money.

As for 159102, although the rear two cars looked relatively unscathed I suppose it'll depend on whatever unseen damage has been sustained. Having finished serving Bristol, I can't see that losing one unit from the fleet will have much, if any, impact on SWR at all.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think it's highly unlikely that 158763 will be repaired - although it'd be nice if it did as they're good trains. The damage sustained was considerable and I believe various parts of it have already been earmarked for use as spare parts. The loss of a 2-car 158 can easily be mitigated through the use of other fleets and with 158s due to become available from other franchises, I can't see how a rebuild would be seen as value for money.

As for 159102, although the rear two cars looked relatively unscathed I suppose it'll depend on whatever unseen damage has been sustained. Having finished serving Bristol, I can't see that losing one unit from the fleet will have much, if any, impact on SWR at all.

158763 was written off virtually immediately after removal to Long Marston, according to GWR insiders posting in another forum in early November.

 

[43096]

158763 was written off virtually immediately after removal to Long Marston, according to GWR insiders posting in another forum in early November.

It’s not up to GWR though: it’s the insurers and the owner who decide.

 

[Anonymous10]

It’s not up to GWR though: it’s the insurers and the owner who decide.

gwr may have been informed though and this got passed down the ranks

 

[Tynwald]

Class 158 do not crash well. What might seem limited damage will be very difficult to repair.

 

[swt_passenger]

It’s not up to GWR though: it’s the insurers and the owner who decide.

The report in WNXX was that 158763 was now in the hands of GWR’s insurers, rather than Porterbrook, the implication being the insurers had paid up.