Runaway train could have been disaster 13

August 13th, 2010 Christian Says

Usually, I am one to play down incidents on the railways,  since the media so often does the opposite.  But the story of the runaway rail grinding train on the Northern Line did not get the attention it deserved.

 This was a remarkable incident which begs a lot of question. Briefly, the train, which had failed, was hooked up to an empty passenger train to get it out of the system  when it came loose and hurtled down the Northern Line from Archway to Warren St, a distance of more than 4 miles which it covered in just 13 minutes, suggesting   it must have reached around 35 mph at least.

There are numerous questions – why did the train not fail safe? That implies the train was not braked but that seems odd in this health and safety obsessed age. Then why did the tripcocks not stop it? Or was it not fitted with those.

TfL said rather strangely that its line controllers monitored the situation and chose to allow it to run through,while ensuring that all other trains were out of the way. Clearly the line controllers are the heroes of the story because of the way they acted so quickly to ensure other trains were rerouted, but does this suggest that the train could have been stopped? Or does it mean that they chose not to derail it by using points against it? That would, of course have caused major damage.

Sure, the media covered the story, but rather underplayed it. A runaway train in the Tube is a real potential disaster of great magnitude and LU were lucky today, and also fortunate that it has such good staff.



  • Leytonstoner

    35Mph? More like 18Mph, methinks!

  • James D

    Acceleration, Leytonstoner. It started and finished at 0mph. So it’s a good guesstimate of maximum speed to double distance over time — that gives what it would be if it accelerated and decelerated evenly and symmetrically.

    But there are two things that I particularly admire about the choice of the Charing Cross Branch:
    1) it is the straight-ahead move at Camden Town, and therefore less likely to cause derailment of a train moving at higher-than-expected speeds than the diverging move; and:
    2) in the worst case scenario, if it had reached Kennington, it would have looped back where it was coming from — they avoided disrupting the line all the way down to Morden.

    So definitely there’s a lot of praise due to the controllers.

  • John

    I thought the original statements were that the engineering train was being taken, wrong road (i.e. nortbound in the soundbound tunnel) back to East Finchley when the incident happened. If the train’s going wrong road, then the tripcocks would be isolated or it’d be tripping at every signal back up to East Finchley.

    So once it runs away, we still no have no tripcock. How’s it going to be stopped at a red signal without one?

    That said, it’s still a remarkable incident – just because it didn’t cause any injuries. LU wouldn’t be so lucky if were to happen again, so it’ll be interesting to read the RAIB report.

  • Anoop

    It seems as if a disaster was narrowly averted. The fragments information we have been given so far are rather confusing, so I will wait for the RAIB report before making any conclusions.

  • http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk Christian Wolmar

    Very helpful, John. That does explain the tripcock. My point about lack of coverage remains and what has emerged so far from LUL is very thin. Any further thoughts welcome as I shall be writing about this for Rail and possibly elsewhere.

  • Matt

    You’re original question still stands, Christian: Where’s the fail safe if you have to isolate the trip cock? Normally there would be a back up in case the coupling broke, or was it ” well the line must be clear in rear as we’ve just come wrong road?”.

    It sounds like the proverbial disaster waiting to happen. .

    And everyone seems to be rushing to congratulate the controllers: “Clearly the line controllers are the heroes of the story”. I was always taught never to jump to conclusions – good or bad, when investigating an incident. And especially as you say “what has emerged so far from LUL is very thin”.

    Until the full story is told, we won’t know

  • Matt

    Your original question still stands, Christian: Where’s the fail safe if you have to isolate the trip cock? Normally there would be a back up in case the coupling broke, or was it ” well the line must be clear in rear as we’ve just come wrong road?”.

    It sounds like the proverbial disaster waiting to happen. .

    And everyone seems to be rushing to congratulate the controllers: “Clearly the line controllers are the heroes of the story”. I was always taught never to jump to conclusions – good or bad, when investigating an incident. And especially as you say “what has emerged so far from LUL is very thin”.

    Until the full story is told, we won’t know

  • Ian Docwra

    A major story indeed, but, the use of the word ‘hurtled’ is falling into the same trap as the gutter press – an emotive and vague term bound to heighten the impact of the story. Why not simpy ‘travelled, at estimated speeds of up to xxxmph’?

  • Vaughan

    Missed the story in the press, and only saw it here following a link from a certain football related site. Fascinating and concerning at the same time – no wonder TfL have been so tight lipped.
    Just a small point – you write: ‘This was a remarkable incident which begs a lot of question.’ No it doesn’t, although it might raise some questions. If in doubt have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
    You Rs!

  • Greg Tingey

    The professionalism of the operating and control staff was impressive indeed.
    It comes as a sharp contrast to the arrogant, bullying, loudmouthed posturings of platform and announcing staff, doesn’t it?

    At least we now know why the tripcocks didn’t work … but … NO (proper) “hooks” or attachment points for chains or couplings?
    And this was passed for use?
    What collection of idiots allowed that one through? Doesn’t LUL have something like the old-BR Group Standards?

  • Greg Tingey

    Update
    The RAIB have issed a preliminary report,
    here:
    http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/current_investigations_register/100813_Highgate_runaway.cfm

    Yet, it appears that the staff on the rail-grinder had to jump off whilst it was in motion, because there was no way of (re) applying the brakes.
    So, it would appear that the old-style handwheel for “parking” and emergency use is unfashionable, then?

  • Chris

    That RAIB preliminary report is very interesting. I particularly like the thumbnail picture of the train, on which you can see a bullseye which will say in the middle “THIS TRAIN MUST NOT BE MOVED”. Pity they only realised that after the event!

    The old-fashioned handwheel is certainly very unfashionable, and very old-fashioned! Parking brakes on most stocks are automatically spring applied now, precisely because so many handwheels failed, or crews failed to wind them completely – something which itself caused a runaway on the Bakerloo many years ago.

    In truth I’m not sure how you would get isolated brakes back on my own stock (’72s, Piccadilly line) if something like this occurred, since it would involve cutting under-seat equipment back in – a time consuming task when you are talking about all six cars. I await the RAIB full report with interest.

  • Richard Hare

    Bob Crow has been remarkably silent on this one. Normally he’d be on the warpath about safety being compromised. Could it be his members’ errors caused it?

Read about my books
Speaking engagements
Biography
Contact

Forthcoming Events

5 June
Rail privatisation, the first 20 years

13 June
Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation, awards presentation and keynote speech

See more appearances.


Back to Top