Overspeeding incident at Grantham South Junction (RAIB investigation) -- 25/2/25

[edwin_m]

Some recent signal gantries have no built-in access arrangements and are therefore much lighter. With LED signals, maintenance access is rare and if it becomes necessary they will have to take a possession and bring in a RRV.

 

[Railperf]

Controversial opinion incoming...While the reference to higher performing trains is a valid one, there are other power settings we can select other than 'Max'

When the Class 800 fleet was new, a lot of drivers at my TOC correctly stated that the speeds out of London that were not attainable by the former fleet would easily be reached or exceeded with the Class 80x if not careful. I couldn't have agreed more, so my solution was to select approx 30-40% power and just let it run until posted line speeds exceed 95mph. Doesn't bust any speed limits or lose time.

When it comes to departing stations, the power stays in the lowest setting until I can be sure the train is clear of the platform. That first notch of power is still quicker than what the previous fleet could achieve from a stand, so there's no detriment to the timetable and it's smoother for all involved. The over-speeding incidents that have recently occurred on our network seem to have come off the back of drivers going straight to full power in situations that really don't warrant it.

I had an Avanti driver doing just that driving the 1621 Birmingham to Euston - on a service that needs full acceleration and reasonably confident braking to minimise time loss on a schedule it cannot meet reliably. Needless to say we lost more than the usual time on each section. Passengers were not impressed.

I recall someone at LNER telling me that power notch 4 was to be used when departing stations. And a pal who is a driver instructor on 80x at another TOC says driving policy is that full power be used as soon as the platform monitoring cameras switch off around 5mph.

 

[TreacleMiller]

Controversial opinion incoming...While the reference to higher performing trains is a valid one, there are other power settings we can select other than 'Max'

When the Class 800 fleet was new, a lot of drivers at my TOC correctly stated that the speeds out of London that were not attainable by the former fleet would easily be reached or exceeded with the Class 80x if not careful. I couldn't have agreed more, so my solution was to select approx 30-40% power and just let it run until posted line speeds exceed 95mph. Doesn't bust any speed limits or lose time.

When it comes to departing stations, the power stays in the lowest setting until I can be sure the train is clear of the platform. That first notch of power is still quicker than what the previous fleet could achieve from a stand, so there's no detriment to the timetable and it's smoother for all involved. The over-speeding incidents that have recently occurred on our network seem to have come off the back of drivers going straight to full power in situations that really don't warrant it.

Minimum power from Grantham for that set of points in an 80X would see you at our around 45mph. Not really a solution.

 

[Strat-tastic]

Out of interest I simulated this on Train Sim World, using max power just about straight away. I hit the junction at 56 mph.

 

[Railperf]

Seems to me there needs to be another repeater after the station platform and possibly a pair of TPWS grids to ensure compliance. Or else change the switch to one capable of 50-60mph so that a train leaving the station and taking the slow line can switch lines without having to slow down and remain at a slow speed.

The fact that the points are almost half a mile from the station where a driver concentrating on station duties might have forgotten about the diverging aspect - is an additional safety risk that thankfully didn't result in any fatalities.

Any reason why the signal when showing a diverging route isn't a flashing yellow or flashing double yellow?

 

[800001]

Seems to me there needs to be another repeater after the station platform and possibly a pair of TPWS grids to ensure compliance. Or else change the switch to one capable of 50-60mph so that a train leaving the station and taking the slow line can switch lines without having to slow down and remain at a slow speed.

The fact that the points are almost half a mile from the station where a driver concentrating on station duties might have forgotten about the diverging aspect - is an additional safety risk that thankfully didn't result in any fatalities.

Any reason why the signal when showing a diverging route isn't a flashing yellow or flashing double yellow?

Is the signal not visible on the platform at Grantham? So even if stationary the signal is checked by driver before departing? If it is, then surely the route indicator is also visible?

 

[endofthetunnel]

The signal is at the end of the platform.
So a stopping service is basically unaffected by approach released aspects as it’s stopping there anyway and the signal has stepped up to a green (with route indicator) by the time it is ready for departure.

 

[Tomnick]

Any reason why the signal when showing a diverging route isn't a flashing yellow or flashing double yellow?

Because that's not how flashing yellow sequences work. The signal in rear of the junction signal would be the one displaying a flashing (single) yellow, but in any case the differential in permissible speed between the straight route and diverging route is too great in this case to permit flashing yellows to be used. Even if they were, the same situation could arise if the route wasn't set until the train was in the platform.

 

[Meerkat]

As an outsider the suggestion above for a postliminary route indicator seems the simplest - are there any downsides apart from cost?

 

[AJD]

Minimum power from Grantham for that set of points in an 80X would see you at our around 45mph. Not really a solution.

I did this yesterday and hit it around 32mph in a lightly loaded 801. Granted it's still faster than the points speed, but going straight into full power from a stand wasn't/isn't really necessary and ended up making this wayyy worse.

There's definitely a trend where more and more drivers don't respond well to anything other than greens and main/fast lines. The idea of not learning slow lines, lesser used junctions and alternative routes because few trains are booked over them has become increasingly normalised. Personally, this is the stuff I feel we get paid for and while it's true not many trains use the slows, they're really not in the slightest bit difficult to learn. Can't be dealing with laziness when we get paid what we do.

I'm a 15 year driver, so not exactly old school by any means but when I was trained the onus was on the driver to really understand their signals and route. Blame culture has diluted that and, more than ever, it's now the signallers fault for someone having a SPAD as they didn't set the route and you seldom stop at that particular signal. Or it's the layout that's to blame for the recent Peterborough speeding incidents, wheras the layout is actually a very good one if a little time is spent studying it.

Just my 2p worth and no doubt some will disagree, but current trends do make for worrying reading.

 

[Unobrow]

I did this yesterday and hit it around 32mph in a lightly loaded 801. Granted it's still faster than the points speed, but going straight into full power from a stand wasn't/isn't really necessary and ended up making this wayyy worse.

There's definitely a trend where more and more drivers don't respond well to anything other than greens and main/fast lines. The idea of not learning slow lines, lesser used junctions and alternative routes because few trains are booked over them has become increasingly normalised. Personally, this is the stuff I feel we get paid for and while it's true not many trains use the slows, they're really not in the slightest bit difficult to learn. Can't be dealing with laziness when we get paid what we do.

I'm a 15 year driver, so not exactly old school by any means but when I was trained the onus was on the driver to really understand their signals and route. Blame culture has diluted that and, more than ever, it's now the signallers fault for someone having a SPAD as they didn't set the route and you seldom stop at that particular signal. Or it's the layout that's to blame for the recent Peterborough speeding incidents, wheras the layout is actually a very good one if a little time is spent studying it.

Just my 2p worth and no doubt some will disagree, but current trends do make for worrying reading.

Now this, I totally agree with. As a freight driver, we rarely use the fast lines but obviously need to know the same things that have been mentioned here. Obviously there’s less risk to us going this way rather than the fast to slow routes, but it’s the same bottom line. RTC for example, whilst not my thing in the format it’s promoted (I still do it, but the way that suits me), has its big pluses. Constantly talking to/reminding yourself what was last and is coming up can obviated that degree of concentration lapse.

At the end of the day, it’s the drivers responsibility to learn and know the routes they sign. One of our union reps reminds us regularly of this, and for good reason. Especially the more you sign and therefore could drive less regularly.

Now before I’m pounced upon, I’m certainly not holier than thou. I’ve suffered the usual under load and switching off in this job and my previous driving career, but I’ll always admit to that and be honest with myself.

 

[Stossgebet]

How about installing preliminary route indicators with the speed illuminated within the PRI box, appropriate for the speed of the diverging route that is set. It would not take away the possibilty of an overspeed at the points. But it will reduce the risk, by giving the driver an illuminated speed to abide by.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I did this yesterday and hit it around 32mph in a lightly loaded 801. Granted it's still faster than the points speed, but going straight into full power from a stand wasn't/isn't really necessary and ended up making this wayyy worse.

There's definitely a trend where more and more drivers don't respond well to anything other than greens and main/fast lines. The idea of not learning slow lines, lesser used junctions and alternative routes because few trains are booked over them has become increasingly normalised. Personally, this is the stuff I feel we get paid for and while it's true not many trains use the slows, they're really not in the slightest bit difficult to learn. Can't be dealing with laziness when we get paid what we do.

I'm a 15 year driver, so not exactly old school by any means but when I was trained the onus was on the driver to really understand their signals and route. Blame culture has diluted that and, more than ever, it's now the signallers fault for someone having a SPAD as they didn't set the route and you seldom stop at that particular signal. Or it's the layout that's to blame for the recent Peterborough speeding incidents, wheras the layout is actually a very good one if a little time is spent studying it.

Just my 2p worth and no doubt some will disagree, but current trends do make for worrying reading.

Well said and personally I felt the Peterborough RAIB reports didn't get to the heart of the underlying cause and you have given them plenty of pointers here for this investigation.

 

[Annetts key]

In most other industries on anything safety critical you have a 'plant control system' and a 'safety system' The plant control system runs the plant effectivley most of the time, and may make decisions based on human or other machine input. The safety system sits there monitoring critical plant parameters, separately and simply, and takes no information from the plant control system. If any of the critical operating parameters exceed certain thresholds then the safety system shuts the process down safely and independently. In rail terms the 'plant control system' is the driver, but the safety system does not have appeared to developed to the same exent on railways.

The technology was developed many years ago after the collision and crash at Clapham Junction. One of the two pilot systems was fitted to parts of the GWML. It's called ATP (automatic train protection) but is now considered obsolete (although the GWML system is maintained and is operational), so would not be considered for new installations.

ETCS/ERTMS is the current technology. But the roll out of this has been delayed due to various reasons.

ATP was not installed widely across the network because it was considered to be too expensive by the then government. And some in the railway didn't want it. The view of some was that it limited capacity.

Instead, after the joint investigation into safety systems after the Ladbroke Grove and Southall crashes, TPWS was installed. But this is a more limited system and although effective at mitigating or preventing some crashes, it doesn't provide the more comprehensive protection of ATP or ETCS/ERTMS.

 

[anothertyke]

I did this yesterday and hit it around 32mph in a lightly loaded 801. Granted it's still faster than the points speed, but going straight into full power from a stand wasn't/isn't really necessary and ended up making this wayyy worse.

There's definitely a trend where more and more drivers don't respond well to anything other than greens and main/fast lines. The idea of not learning slow lines, lesser used junctions and alternative routes because few trains are booked over them has become increasingly normalised. Personally, this is the stuff I feel we get paid for and while it's true not many trains use the slows, they're really not in the slightest bit difficult to learn. Can't be dealing with laziness when we get paid what we do.

I'm a 15 year driver, so not exactly old school by any means but when I was trained the onus was on the driver to really understand their signals and route. Blame culture has diluted that and, more than ever, it's now the signallers fault for someone having a SPAD as they didn't set the route and you seldom stop at that particular signal. Or it's the layout that's to blame for the recent Peterborough speeding incidents, wheras the layout is actually a very good one if a little time is spent studying it.

Just my 2p worth and no doubt some will disagree, but current trends do make for worrying reading.

I can see all that in relation to the two incidents at Peterboro because AIUI they were confronted with a relatively unusual manoevre and failed to expect the unexpected. In the Grantham case, you have a train which is scheduled to do that every morning if the train behind is on time. So I'm not sure it is about route learning or laziness, more likely to be 'had a blank' and then the question is why. Just my 2p, not a driver.

 

[43066]

I can see all that in relation to the two incidents at Peterboro because AIUI they were confronted with a relatively unusual manoevre and failed to expect the unexpected. In the Grantham case, you have a train which is scheduled to do that every morning if the train behind is on time. So I'm not sure it is about route learning or laziness, more likely to be 'had a blank' and then the question is why. Just my 2p, not a driver.

My impression from the reports was that, although various factors were involved, lack of route knowledge was a major part of the Lumo incident. Of course you’d also generally expect a driver who was unsure to slow down if they received a feather they were unfamiliar with.

In the Grand Central incident the driver apparently hadn’t realised he’d received the feather and thought he was taking the mainline, so that points more to a lack of NTS/situational awareness.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The chronology is important here.

The RAIB put a lot of emphasis on training in the first incident, something that FG were not entirely happy with because they thought the signal layout/spacing was a major factor. It was leading the driver to a false conclusion.

Then came the second incident and it became obvious to all that was a wider issue here. Now we have another (nearby) ECML location where situational awareness with an 80x has been an issue.

 

[Haywain]

Now we have another (nearby) ECML location where situational awareness with an 80x has been an issue.

But this was from a standing start at a station call where the driver should have had the signal in his eye line for a couple of minutes. This was much more likely to have been down to the driver being distracted.

 

[AJD]

The chronology is important here.

The RAIB put a lot of emphasis on training in the first incident, something that FG were not entirely happy with because they thought the signal layout/spacing was a major factor. It was leading the driver to a false conclusion.

Then came the second incident and it became obvious to all that was a wider issue here. Now we have another (nearby) ECML location where situational awareness with an 80x has been an issue.

I remember this being discussed at work. Of course FG weren't entirely happy with the RAIB mentioning their training because it negatively puts them in the spotlight. They argued that their training requirements were met, but if you're only setting 175 handling hours, and think that's adequate, then I'm not surprised the RAIB were critical. As I've mentioned a few times the layout is sound and all it takes is a little study to understand why things are the way they are.

Personally, I feel the mention of the layout gave FG and others involved the excuse to apportion blame elsewhere.

 

[HSTEd]

This has essentially become an argument about procedural vs engineered controls on risk.
Huge numbers of signals are interpreted by drivers every day. No matter how good the training is, eventually mistakes will be made.

We've now apparently encountered a risk that is not well mitigated by existing train protection arrangements

I think there is an argument that the current arrangements are inadequate for trains with the performance that 8xx class units are capable of.

 

[800001]

I remember this being discussed at work. Of course FG weren't entirely happy with the RAIB mentioning their training because it negatively puts them in the spotlight. They argued that their training requirements were met, but if you're only setting 175 handling hours, and think that's adequate, then I'm not surprised the RAIB were critical. As I've mentioned a few times the layout is sound and all it takes is a little study to understand why things are the way they are.

Personally, I feel the mention of the layout gave FG and others involved the excuse to apportion blame elsewhere.

Surely the amount of handling hours needs to be an agreed amount agreed by RAIB?

 

[Bald Rick]

Surely the amount of handling hours needs to be an agreed amount agreed by RAIB?

Not at all. RAIB is an accident investigations body, and has no role in setting standards.

 

[800001]

Not at all. RAIB is an accident investigations body, and has no role in setting standards.

Sorry, I meant ORR, surely they have a minimum amount of hours?

 

[AJD]

Surely the amount of handling hours needs to be an agreed amount agreed by RAIB?

That's a good question. I'm not sure - anyone care to weigh in? When I was a trainee it was 225 hours but that was handling without route learning. The latter was a additional process that took at least a few months.

My current TOC requires a minimum of 300 hours (most do 330-350), but one is required to learn the route as part of it.

This has essentially become an argument about procedural vs engineered controls on risk.
Huge numbers of signals are interpreted by drivers every day. No matter how good the training is, eventually mistakes will be made.

We've now apparently encountered a risk that is not well mitigated by existing train protection arrangements

I think there is an argument that the current arrangements are inadequate for trains with the performance that 8xx class units are capable of.

Yes and I dread to think what could happen when the 897s come into service. Having met members of the TPE planning team, I have been told that they apply the SRTs for the Class 397 to the 802 fleet on the WCML, and that the 802s struggle to keep up. Be interesting to hear from any drivers who sign both traction types.

Granted the 397s lack the additional weight from the batteries and engines that are planned for the 897s, but I've heard those units are technically capable of more than the 80x fleet. Have wondered if the traction motors will be uprated to take into account the additional weight, or whether they'll be a cut and paste of the Class 397.

I guess all will become apparent in a couple of years!

 

[HSTEd]

Yes and I dread to think what could happen when the 897s come into service. Having met members of the TPE planning team, I have been told that they apply the SRTs for the Class 397 to the 802 fleet on the WCML, and that the 802s struggle to keep up. Be interesting to hear from any drivers who sign both traction types.

Granted the 397s lack the additional weight from the batteries and engines that are planned for the 897s, but I've heard those units are technically capable of more than the 80x fleet. Have wondered if the traction motors will be uprated to take into account the additional weight, or whether they'll be a cut and paste of the Class 397.

I guess all will become apparent in a couple of years!

In the longer term, the trend has been towards higher performance in all categories of rolling stock. When battery trains become available, every train will be able to accelerate like one of these high power EMUs.

What position will we be in then?