What would happen if a driver was given a wrong route?

[stephen rp]

There was an accident in the Manchester area on the DC electrified lines where a signalman discovered that it was possible to defeat a timeout on some points by using a table knife or a Bardic lamp or some other handy metal object to bridge a set of contacts which were exposed when the slider for a signal on the route was pulled out, and so speed up operations. Until one night when he sped them up a little too much and ended up bringing them to a complete stop. ISTR the report being unwarrantedly hesitant over the idea of shrouding the contacts so they were no longer exposed, because on some patterns of frame it was difficult, while I was thinking the design was faulty for exposing them in any case simply because they might get bridged accidentally (which I think might possibly have been how the vuln was discovered in the first place).

Yes this was the accident at Audenshaw Junction (then controlled from the power frame in Stockport Junction (Guide Bridge) Box, on the evening of 20 May 1970. It was caused by the signalman interfering with the interlocking behind the frame.

That was a fatal accident. I was in the Manchester Division press office the next day. A reporter phoned to say that a railwayman on the train said he heard the points opening under the train. I said they were safety devices to prevent that, but indeed the signalman was shorting the track circuit locking the points (no physical bar), and had been doing it often so as not to wait for the TC to clear before switching the points for the next train. This time one bogie went straight on, the rear bogie went the other, and the coach went sideways into a bridge. The signalman went to prison for manslaughter.

 

[Pinza-C55]

There have been at least two occasions in the past three months where HSTs have been wrong routed into platforms 5/6 at Newcastle, where Mark 3s are prohibited. On the first occasion (which I was onboard) it went unnoticed, but the second time someone reported it, causing the train to be delayed until someone had been out to examine the clearances between the train and the platform. The train eventually proceeded about 45 minutes late. On both occasions the HSTs were substituting for Voyagers (which are cleared for P5/6), so what is likely to have happened is the signaller hadn't been aware of the HST substitution.

I would be interested to hear if there has ever been an incident of a national rail train being wrong routed at Pelaw Metro Junction onto Nexus owned infrastructure and what the procedure would be to recover a train that accepted such a wrong route. Likewise what would the recovery procedure be for if a Metro driver accepted a wrong route either at Pelaw Metro Junction or Sunderland and continued onto the unelectrified line?

A National Rail train wrongly routed onto Nexus tracks at Pelaw would be diesel so it wouldn't need to be "recovered" in the usual sense. I would imagine a manager would need to act as a pilot then the train be driven out.

 

[voyagerdude220]

Apologies for the bump:

Today's 1V64 13:06 Edinburgh to Plymouth delayed at Newcastle by 10 minutes- apparently routed into the incorrect platform which wasn't suitable for the HST forming the service- I think this has happened once or twice recently. (Train usually formed of 2xVoyagers)

 

[Sean Emmett]

I wasn't on it, but apparently the Clan Line trip to Worcester couple of weeks ago was routed wrong road at Wolvercote Jn and had to reverse to take the correct route.

 

[rower40]

Apologies for the bump:

Today's 1V64 13:06 Edinburgh to Plymouth delayed at Newcastle by 10 minutes- apparently routed into the incorrect platform which wasn't suitable for the HST forming the service- I think this has happened once or twice recently. (Train usually formed of 2xVoyagers)

That one would be 50/50 between the driver and the Timetable Planners. Both should know that HSTs cannot use platforms 5/6 at Newcastle. Neither the signaller nor ARS (as working at Newcastle IECC) knows (without looking it up) what rolling stock is forming 1V64, so it could be that ARS set the route according to the timetable it was given.

OpenTrainTimes shows that day's 1V64 as being HST, and booked to use Newcastle platform 6. LNE Sectional Appendix (albeit an old one from August 2019) shows Mk3s as being prohibited from Newcastle platforms 5 through 12.

 

[DanNCL]

Apologies for the bump:

Today's 1V64 13:06 Edinburgh to Plymouth delayed at Newcastle by 10 minutes- apparently routed into the incorrect platform which wasn't suitable for the HST forming the service- I think this has happened once or twice recently. (Train usually formed of 2xVoyagers)

That one would be 50/50 between the driver and the Timetable Planners. Both should know that HSTs cannot use platforms 5/6 at Newcastle. Neither the signaller nor ARS (as working at Newcastle IECC) knows (without looking it up) what rolling stock is forming 1V64, so it could be that ARS set the route according to the timetable it was given.

OpenTrainTimes shows that day's 1V64 as being HST, and booked to use Newcastle platform 6. LNE Sectional Appendix (albeit an old one from August 2019) shows Mk3s as being prohibited from Newcastle platforms 5 through 12.

That’s at least the third time it’s happened in the last 4 months. As on all three occasions it’s been proven that there are no clearance issues that prevent HSTs from using P5/P6, they should be getting on with sorting out the paperwork to clear them for P5/P6.

 

[Falcon1200]

That one would be 50/50 between the driver and the Timetable Planners.

As the train is booked Voyagers the HST substitution was presumably an on-the-day change and should have been communicated between the TOC and NR Controllers, and the Signallers.

 

[ComUtoR]

As on all three occasions it’s been proven that there are no clearance issues that prevent HSTs from using P5/P6,

Apologies but how was it 'proven' ? I don't know what class a HST is listed in the sectional appendix as 'HST' means something totally different for me. It could be a case where the loco part is cleared but the coaches aren't ? I noticed in the Sectional Appendix that Mk3s are listed separate and there are different flavours of Mk3 listed for clearance.

they should be getting on with sorting out the paperwork to clear them for P5/P6.

It's not as easy as 'paperwork' there would be a specific reason for the route restriction that would need to be rectified first, then checked and verified before any 'paperwork' is issued.

 

[trebor79]

Apologies but how was it 'proven' ?

Presumably because there was no contact between train and platform edge?

 

[ComUtoR]

Presumably because there was no contact between train and platform edge?

If it had a route restriction then it shouldn't have been there unless specifically authorised to check the gauging (which I doubt). Route restrictions can also be limited by speed or other factors. creeping past at 20mph is different to blasting through at 50mph.

I suspect the loco has different clearance to the coaches so the HST may be cleared but the Mk3s aren't. Which is kinda what I'm understanding from rowers post.

 

[MadMac]

There was an incident around 10 years ago when a Cross Country voyager set working a Saturday evening Glasgow Central to Edinburgh service took the wrong route by some distance. Service was booked via Mount Florida for route retention purposes, then from Cathcart North Jn towards Newton where it joins the West Coast Main Line. Train was wrongly routed towards Cathcart, with the route set beyond towards Neilston.

Not only did the driver proceed through Cathcart, but continued onto the Neilston branch (Through Cathcart West Jn) and onto Muirend, where the driver finally noticed something was up. At no time would any Cross Country driver have any reason to take such a route and would definitely have been unfamiliar with their surroundings. The line speed in the area varies between 20 and 50mph (which is well after the site of the wrong routing) so being unable to stop in time wouldn't be an issue - indeed the junction signal then was very well sighted in advance. The train had to work wrong line back to Cathcart North Jn to take the correct route towards Newton. Definitely strikes me as the most bizarre acceptance of wrong routing I've come across.

I was on an East Kilbride one evening which got routed to the Cathcart Circle at Muirhouse North. Both routes were straight greens, so driver got no warning until too late. Train couldn’t back up due to the Pollokshields Ground Frame not having Facing Point Locks, but couldn’t go forward due to no crew route knowledge. Fortunately, a Traction Inspector travelled on the service, so invited me to join him and we managed to conduct the train round the Circle, on to the line to Terminus Junction where it reversed.

Also, ’Peaks’ were banned from Glasgow Central around 1980 due to a derailment attributed to the three wheeled bogies. One did subsequently make it there: the Signalman at Barrhead was aware of the restriction and spotted it, called the box at Central and let them know what was on the way. They routed it in to one of the straighter platforms to get round the issue.

 

[DanNCL]

Apologies but how was it 'proven' ? I don't know what class a HST is listed in the sectional appendix as 'HST' means something totally different for me. It could be a case where the loco part is cleared but the coaches aren't ? I noticed in the Sectional Appendix that Mk3s are listed separate and there are different flavours of Mk3 listed for clearance.

The fact that that's now three occasions in the space of a few months where a HST has used said platforms that they're supposedly barred from without any issues other than paperwork.

Presumably because there was no contact between train and platform edge?

Spot on. If there was any clearance issues these would have been discovered on the first occasion that a Mark 3 was routed there when the train would inevitably have come into contact with something it shouldn't have.

If it had a route restriction then it shouldn't have been there unless specifically authorised to check the gauging (which I doubt). Route restrictions can also be limited by speed or other factors. creeping past at 20mph is different to blasting through at 50mph.

I suspect the loco has different clearance to the coaches so the HST may be cleared but the Mk3s aren't. Which is kinda what I'm understanding from rowers post.

In this case it will most likely be down to P5/P6 at Newcastle being added only in the late 80s/early 90s, and with at the time only local services using Pacers and Sprinters expected to use those platforms the need to send a Mark 3 (or Mark 4 as they have the same restrictions for those platforms) there was simply not envisaged and therefore the paperwork was not done. It’s in many ways just like the paperwork to route clear (say) a 377 to run between Edinburgh and Glasgow hasn’t been done, doesn’t necessarily mean there would actually be anything physically preventing it, simply that the paperwork wasn’t done as there had not been considered any reason to want to send that stock via that route.

 

[ComUtoR]

The fact that that's now three occasions in the space of a few months where a HST has used said platforms that they're supposedly barred from without any issues other than paperwork.

Again, apologies if I have this wrong but a Class 43 (HST ?) is only prohibited from 9-12 at Newcastle so P5/6 isn't a problem.

Spot on. If there was any clearance issues these would have been discovered on the first occasion that a Mark 3 was routed there when the train would inevitably have come into contact with something it shouldn't have.

This is incorrect. Clearance issues come in various disguises. We run trains through some platforms that have very specific restrictions.

It’s in many ways just like the paperwork to route clear (say) a 377 to run between Edinburgh and Glasgow hasn’t been done, doesn’t necessarily mean there would actually be anything physically preventing it,

It really does matter and requires specific verification and clearance checks. Out of interest I checked if a 377 is cleared for Newcastle and it isn't.

simply that the paperwork wasn’t done as there had not been considered any reason to want to send that stock via that route.

You have mentioned paperwork a few times. Which paperwork are you referring to and how easy/difficult is it to change ?

Cheers in advance

 

[zwk500]

In this case it will most likely be down to P5/P6 at Newcastle being added only in the late 80s/early 90s, and with at the time only local services using Pacers and Sprinters expected to use those platforms the need to send a Mark 3 (or Mark 4 as they have the same restrictions for those platforms) there was simply not envisaged and therefore the paperwork was not done.

Of course, to the person actually doing the paperwork, and getting many hundreds of requests for lines up and down their patch for every type of train people can think of, avoiding unnecessary clearances meant they could get the bits that needed doing out on time.
It's all very to bemoan it as just 'a paperwork issue', but somebody does have to sit down and check that it is all good to go, and that there's not some lurking nasty. Just because it fitted on the day doesn't necessarily mean it'll fit the next time, and operators tend not to take the 'try and see' option with passenger stock. Although granted 3 times is starting to show a pattern.

 

[ComUtoR]

Although granted 3 times is starting to show a pattern.

3 times someone has broken the route restriction to take Mk3 coaches through the platform is pretty shocking.

Just because it fitted on the day doesn't necessarily mean it'll fit the next time, and operators tend not to take the 'try and see' option with passenger stock.

All it would take is for one to go through too fast, with deflated suspension, or even as an OPPOS and then **crunch**

 

[DanNCL]

I took a photo of the first occassion in the last 4 months that a HST formation has found its way into P5/6 at Newcastle. On that occasion nobody seemed to bat an eyelid at it, certainly wasn't anybody in hi-vis jackets taking a look at clearances, and the set proceeded on in regular passenger service at the booked departure time.
Voyager and HST by DanNCL, on Flickr

Again, apologies if I have this wrong but a Class 43 (HST ?) is only prohibited from 9-12 at Newcastle so P5/6 isn't a problem.

In this case HST refers to the full formation commonly referred to as a HST, which is two class 43s top and tail on a formation of Mark 3 coaches.

It really does matter and requires specific verification and clearance checks. Out of interest I checked if a 377 is cleared for Newcastle and it isn't.

They're not cleared for Newcastle as there's zero reason for a 377 to run up to Newcastle, I just used that as an example of the lack of route clearance being as nobody has ever considered it worthwhile getting them route cleared rather than because someone had done the investigation work and found potential issues.

Off topic but I was suprised at some of the EMU classes that are cleared for Newcastle, would certainly be interested to know what the reasoning behind clearing 313s that far north (albeit with some restrictions) was, but that's a topic for another thread!

You have mentioned paperwork a few times. Which paperwork are you referring to and how easy/difficult is it to change ?

Paperwork/computer work/whatever the formalties are, forgive the laymans terms but it really shouldn't be that difficult to get something route cleared into a platform that it has operated into on multiple occasions without any issues. If it is really too difficult then there's something majorly wrong with the procedures as it really shouldn't be that difficult.

Of course, to the person actually doing the paperwork, and getting many hundreds of requests for lines up and down their patch for every type of train people can think of, avoiding unnecessary clearances meant they could get the bits that needed doing out on time.
It's all very to bemoan it as just 'a paperwork issue', but somebody does have to sit down and check that it is all good to go, and that there's not some lurking nasty. Just because it fitted on the day doesn't necessarily mean it'll fit the next time, and operators tend not to take the 'try and see' option with passenger stock. Although granted 3 times is starting to show a pattern.

Indeed and in the majority of cases where stock hasn't been route cleared for such a reason I would agree that it is indeed correct. However with CrossCountry increasingly allocating HSTs to services booked to use these platforms (granted it's not a daily occurance but it's been happening more and more lately), it would make sense for the formatlities to get the Mark 3s cleared for P5/P6 at Newcastle done, as there is a case for it to be done.

3 times someone has broken the route restriction to take Mk3 coaches through the platform is pretty shocking.

And that's just in the last 4 months!

All it would take is for one to go through too fast, with deflated suspension, or even as an OPPOS and then **crunch**

Considering the 20 mph limit for all stock through those platforms speed is less likely to be an issue for clearances, though nonetheless still a very valid point to raise.

 

[ComUtoR]

In this case HST refers to the full formation commonly referred to as a HST, which is two class 43s top and tail on a formation of Mark 3 coaches.

From what I'm reading this isn't the case. The 43s and the Mk3s look to have very specific clearance requirements. I'm looking at this from a technical perspective. There are overlapping clearance prohibitions. For me this just looks like the set was cleared and wasn't breaking it's route restrictions. It's pretty serious if they are broken

Paperwork/computer work/whatever the formalties are, forgive the laymans terms but it really shouldn't be that difficult to get something route cleared into a platform that it has operated into on multiple occasions without any issues. If it is really too difficult then there's something majorly wrong with the procedures as it really shouldn't be that difficult.

The issue is that it shouldn't be operating on those platforms. If anything went wrong there would be a major enquiry.

I'm not sure why you think it's so easy to change the clearance. It can be a bit of a nightmare tbh with lots of hoops to jump through.

Conidering the 20 mph limit for all stock through those platforms speed is less likely to be an issue for clearances, though nonetheless still a very valid point to raise.

On my patch I have been acutely aware of the issues with route clearance. With two new units introduced onto my patch both with very specific clearance requirments it's important to recognise the difficulties with multi traction locations and where you can and can't go.

I'd be very surprised that the route restrictions have been ignored so often without any investigation or fallout. Something just isn't right.

They're not cleared for Newcastle as there's zero reason for a 377 to run up to Newcastle, I just used that as an example of the lack of route clearance being as nobody has ever considered it worthwhile getting them route cleared rather than because someone had done the investigation work and found potential issues.

Because of the way in which route clearance works you can clear/fail any unit if you so desire. The work is undertaken at pretty regular intervals and is mostly data driven. The fact that the information is there shows that the investigation work has already been done.

I'm still learning about route clearance and some other professionals here could give a better insight but I have learned it's pretty complex.

Nice photo btw, cheers for sharing.

 

[zwk500]

Paperwork/computer work/whatever the formalties are, forgive the laymans terms but it really shouldn't be that difficult to get something route cleared into a platform that it has operated into on multiple occasions without any issues. If it is really too difficult then there's something majorly wrong with the procedures as it really shouldn't be that difficult.

All electronic these days, but still 'paperwork' as such. The document you are really referring to is the Sectional Appendix. It is quite difficult to get new clearances into it because then the routes are obliged to maintain the tracks to keep the trains clear through it. This is for good reason - if it was easy to put in, it'd also be easy to take out, which could lead to all sorts of awkward situations. This is recognised to not be sufficiently flexible for the railway to meet the needs of its end customers so there is also a process for clearing trains on a temporary basis (up to 12 months). This can be much quicker depending on urgency.

It's not just about physically fitting through structures, the train needs to be able to fit within weight limits, interact safely with signalling systems and other aspects of the infrastructure.

Considering the 20 mph limit for all stock through those platforms speed is less likely to be an issue for clearances, though nonetheless still a very valid point to raise.

You can be going 3mph, if the platform occupies the space the train is attempting to, it's going to be an issue. Lower speed only helps keep the dynamic profile smaller, the static profile still needs to be completely clear.

 

[Highlandspring]

All electronic these days, but still 'paperwork' as such. The document you are really referring to is the Sectional Appendix.

Well you need an NRAP Certificate of Compatibility for starters before you get into the Sectional Appendix (plenty of stock runs around parts of the network on an NRAP CoC without being shown as cleared in the Sectional Appendix).

 

[skyhigh]

You can be going 3mph, if the platform occupies the space the train is attempting to, it's going to be an issue. Lower speed only helps keep the dynamic profile smaller, the static profile still needs to be completely clear.

100%. If a train is going to be cleared for a certain platform, they need to work out what conditions will make the train unsuitable (e.g. deflated suspension). Also taken into account are things like signal sighting, platform stepping distances and more besides. Just because a train has gone in and out a platform a couple of times without whacking something doesn't mean it's therefore suitable for use.

As an example, when 195s were new in they were cleared on certain routes, but not cleared to stop at certain stations on those routes (e.g. Cottingley, Mirfield platform 2). They clearly fitted through the platforms fine, but they still required testing to allow clearance to stop there.