Train Reporting Number 1T08 not to be used in Scotland following rule change in 2022

[DaveHarries]

Evening all,

Rather far ahead I know but I had my attention drawn on Facebook earlier to the fact that Network Rail have said in their Timetable Planning Rules (TPR) for Scotland that, come 2022, an additional entry in the rules - which can be downloaded at https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-operators/operational-rules/ - states that 1T08 is not to be used as a train reporting number anywhere on the Scotland route with effect from (I presume) May. Members might recall that 1T08 was the reporting number of the train that derailed at Stonehaven on 12th August 2020 and I guess that, unless this is to do with superstition, Network Rail Scotland may have done this out of respect for those who deceased.

As my Facebook friend put it, "Top marks to Network Rail Scotland".

HTIOI,
Dave

 

[30907]

Thanks, and excellent

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting. I knew that airlines don't re-use flight numbers of flights that come to grief, but I didn't know it was usual railway practice to do this - is it, or is this a respectful one-off?

 

[Ianno87]

I'm not aware of this having been done before.

 

[Gloster]

I am afraid that what comes to mind for me is the word ‘snowflake’, although I might be using that wrongly as my familiarity with neologisms has yawning gaps (witness the speed I abandoned last Thursday’s Guardian cryptic crossword). People seem to say ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’, and then get upset at the slightest thing. The next thing we will have is that every time somebody dies on a train, the coach will be withdrawn in case somebody gets upset, and then it will be every coach of the same type in case somebody thinks it is the same one, and then...

We are a long way from The Diver, the Wheatley 4-4-0 that fell with the Tay Bridge and was put back into service. Yes, I know that it didn’t cross the new Tay Bridge until 1908, but still. Plenty of other pieces of rolling-stock have returned to service after deaths, without any special arrangements.

 

[bengley]

As a driver myself I do think this is daft and unnecessary.

 

[geoffk]

In the 1980s, a psychic predicted that a locomotive numbered 47216 would be involved in a fatal accident. As a result, this loco was renumbered 47299 and, in that guise and hauling a freight train, it was involved in a collision with a passenger train in which one person was killed. A BR source described it as "an amazing coincidence".

 

[Hadders]

I see this as respect rather than any 'snowflake' issue. GNER (as was) renumbered 91023 which was involved in the Hatfield and Great Heck incidents.

 

[Ianno87]

There will, of course, still be several other 1T08s running around the rest of the network anyway.

 

[43096]

I see this as respect rather than any 'snowflake' issue. GNER (as was) renumbered 91023 which was involved in the Hatfield and Great Heck incidents.

If you can provide an explanation of how not using the headcode is “respect” I’d be astonished. It’s an identifier of a service, nothing else.

 

[bramling]

I see this as respect rather than any 'snowflake' issue. GNER (as was) renumbered 91023 which was involved in the Hatfield and Great Heck incidents.

I can see the issue with 91023 as that was involved in two accidents, which was something the wider media did pick up on at the time as well.

I have to say this seems a little daft to me, but if it helps desensitise a sensitive issue then I can see why it might be done.

 

[Ianno87]

I can see the issue with 91023 as that was involved in two accidents, which was something the wider media did pick up on at the time as well.

I have to say this seems a little daft to me, but if it helps desensitise a sensitive issue then I can see why it might be done.

I guess also that 91023 was going to be re-numbered *anyway*, so might as well have become 91132 rather than 91123 for all the difference it makes.

 

[Mothball]

Whilst i wouldn't say it was necessary, its a nice gesture, nothing more. I wouldn't say its to please the "snowflakes" as it hardly requires any effort or cost to discontinue the number and will mostly go unnoticed, Sure it may seem pointless to some but I'm sure the gesture will be appreciated, even if only slightly by the colleagues/friends of the deceased who may have had to work train 1T08 in the future.

 

[Merle Haggard]

A sensitivity is not new.
Some time ago, a recall that a planned TV screening of The Railway Children was cancelled at the last moment, the reason given was that it was an anniversary of the Paddington train crash.
By contrast, travelling home after work a day or so after that crash, on an MML HST from St. Pancras the steward, as was usual at the time, came through the first class handing out free copies of the Evening Standard. The paper carried, in huge black letters covering half the front page, the headline HORROR IN COACH H. I fancy a few passengers nervously checked to see the coach letter; they needn't have worried. MML HST coach letters, apart from the Sheffield Pullman set, jumped from G to J.

 

[Ianno87]

Seems like a simple, low-cost gesture that I wouldn't even have noticed if it wasn't for this thread.

But by far the greatest tribute to the deceased (and their loved ones) would be to, in time, learn the relevant lessons so such an accident doesn't happen again.

 

[Mag_seven]

unless this is to do with superstition

I hope not - superstition has no rational place in the running of anything.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I hope not - superstition has no rational place in the running of anything.

I'd agree.

They even tried it once with 47 299 and it didn't make any difference did it?

 

[godfreycomplex]

I am afraid that what comes to mind for me is the word ‘snowflake’, although I might be using that wrongly as my familiarity with neologisms has yawning gaps (witness the speed I abandoned last Thursday’s Guardian cryptic crossword). People seem to say ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’, and then get upset at the slightest thing. The next thing we will have is that every time somebody dies on a train, the coach will be withdrawn in case somebody gets upset, and then it will be every coach of the same type in case somebody thinks it is the same one, and then...

We are a long way from The Diver, the Wheatley 4-4-0 that fell with the Tay Bridge and was put back into service. Yes, I know that it didn’t cross the new Tay Bridge until 1908, but still. Plenty of other pieces of rolling-stock have returned to service after deaths, without any special arrangements.

I am afraid that what comes to mind for me is the word ‘snowflake’, although I might be using that wrongly as my familiarity with neologisms has yawning gaps (witness the speed I abandoned last Thursday’s Guardian cryptic crossword). People seem to say ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’, and then get upset at the slightest thing. The next thing we will have is that every time somebody dies on a train, the coach will be withdrawn in case somebody gets upset, and then it will be every coach of the same type in case somebody thinks it is the same one, and then...

We are a long way from The Diver, the Wheatley 4-4-0 that fell with the Tay Bridge and was put back into service. Yes, I know that it didn’t cross the new Tay Bridge until 1908, but still. Plenty of other pieces of rolling-stock have returned to service after deaths, without any special arrangements.

It’s really not that at all

Imagine if you’re the signaller covering that location and get an emergency call from that particular train. That could be a major psychological trigger if that signaller is traumatised from the previous incident (which has a high statistical likelihood of being the case). Anyone with an elementary knowledge of psychiatrics will know (and even if they don’t any compassionate person will work out) that psychological triggers are to be avoided at all costs, it’s a matter of serious mental illness not to be dismissed by some nasty hateful platitudes from the Daily Heil

This is a small, reasonable step to substantially reduce the risk of such triggers. There are many headcodes that aren’t used, one more doesn’t hurt. From an operational perspective it’s a non event and 99.9% of passengers would be none the wiser.

 

[43096]

So, if 43030 were to be repaired and returned to service, should they renumber it?

 

[StephenHunter]

So, if 43030 were to be repaired and returned to service, should they renumber it?

It'll be scrapped once the investigation is finished, I believe.

 

[43096]

It'll be scrapped once the investigation is finished, I believe.

What's your source for that?

 

[StephenHunter]

I haven't got a specific one, but that's what's happened to other HST power cars that were the main vehicle involved in other crashes. Doubt anyone would want to drive it again.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

This is like how they renamed 91123 to 91132. I never did understand that - surely nothing other than superstition

 

[Darandio]

I haven't got a specific one, but that's what's happened to other HST power cars that were the main vehicle involved in other crashes. Doubt anyone would want to drive it again.

43030 was at the rear and remained upright. Similar incidents suggest they normally aren't scrapped for this reason.

 

[StephenHunter]

Sorry, I was thinking of the other power car. I don't think that happened with the other power car in previous crashes.

 

[DB]

Sorry, I was thinking of the other power car. I don't think that happened with the other power car in previous crashes.

The front power car was so badly damaged that it is inevitable that it will be scrapped. The same applied to those at the front in two of the other three major HST crashes/derailments. 43019, at the front at Ufton Nervett, was damaged but might have been repairable. However, there was a stored HST at the time and it was decided to reactivate that instead - and 43019, along with all of the set apart from the rear power car, was scrapped.

In none of the three previous incidents was the rear power car scrapped. In the case of 43030, it might well depend on how much non-obvious damage it has: given that there are stored power cars, if there is any significant damaage it might be cheaper to replace it with one of those.

 

[tbtc]

The next thing we will have is that every time somebody dies on a train, the coach will be withdrawn in case somebody gets upset, and then it will be every coach of the same type in case somebody thinks it is the same one, and then...

I could be wrong, but I think I remember that the RMT put out a press release in which they complained that carriages from the 390 derailed at Greyrigg were still being used by Virgin (obviously not the carriage that the fatality happened in), which seemed a little OTT.

It's difficult to find a line/balance between respectful and mawkish (given that different people will have different sensitivities) - I've no problem with what is being done here but it's interesting to compare to other head codes used by services that crashed (especially given that there's only a finite number of head codes possible, and you want to use a fairly wide range of them to avoid immediately reusing one). I'm not sure that someone triggered by seeing a code being used again would an ideal candidate for a stressful job on the railway, but we live in a world where football clubs often "retire" the number of a particular shirt so "retiring" a head code doesn't seem unreasonable - I'm more interested in whether this was the norm on other cases or is something being done for the first time.

 

[godfreycomplex]

I'm not sure that someone triggered by seeing a code being used again would an ideal candidate for a stressful job on the railway.

There’s several safety critical railway staff carrying out their duties with complex PTSD and other traumatic psychological issues, some acquired inside work, some outside. There is no evidence that this is unsafe or particularly prevents all people with these conditions doing all jobs, provided triggers are minimised whenever practical

 

[DB]

I could be wrong, but I think I remember that the RMT put out a press release in which they complained that carriages from the 390 derailed at Greyrigg were still being used by Virgin (obviously not the carriage that the fatality happened in), which seemed a little OTT.

It's difficult to find a line/balance between respectful and mawkish (given that different people will have different sensitivities) - I've no problem with what is being done here but it's interesting to compare to other head codes used by services that crashed (especially given that there's only a finite number of head codes possible, and you want to use a fairly wide range of them to avoid immediately reusing one). I'm not sure that someone triggered by seeing a code being used again would an ideal candidate for a stressful job on the railway, but we live in a world where football clubs often "retire" the number of a particular shirt so "retiring" a head code doesn't seem unreasonable - I'm more interested in whether this was the norm on other cases or is something being done for the first time.

The two carriages being used by Virgin were at their training centre in Crewe, and were subsequently listed for preservation. Incidentally, anyone know whether they are still there? They did actually belong to Virgin as they bought them from the insurers.

Another couple of carriages from that Pendolino are at the fire brigade training place near Moreton in Marsh.Don't know whether any others still survive. The leading driiving car was certainly scrapped.

 

[D1537]

This is like how they renamed 91123 to 91132. I never did understand that - surely nothing other than superstition

Not accident related, but allegedly superstition related, there's also the strange tale of how a locomotive was never numbered 47666.

When the long-range Class 47s were being converted, they were originally numbered from 47650 upwards, and three others (47551-553) were also fitted with extra fuel tanks. The original intention, as 20 locomotives were needed, was therefore to complete the series with 47666. Indeed, if you look in the Platform 5 book for the relevant year (1986, I think) the proposed series does indeed go up to 666, with empty brackets for the enthusiast to fill in the numbers of the locomotives being converted.

47125 was scheduled to become 47666, but at the last minute - with 125 already at Crewe - there was a change of mind. Supposedly an instruction (with no explanation) came to not convert 125 and instead to convert an existing 47/4 to long range instead. 47591, which was in Crewe for an overhaul anyway, got the extra fuel tanks. 125 got its overhaul, but stayed a 47/0 and came out in Railfreight colours. And then when you add on the fact that the 37/5 renumbering program (which started at 37699 and was numbered downwards) was allegedly ended at 37667 when it should have gone to 37665... who knows?

Random coincidence - this was the second time 47125 had not become a 47/4 - it was scheduled to become 47548 in 1974, but the conversion was cancelled for unclear reasons, leaving the number 47548, uniquely, unused in the 47/4 series.