Swithland Steam Gala 26th – 28th April 2013

Done as requested but I think I have cross posted with Martin!

 

Unfortunately it is quite often the older generation that think they know better than everyone else and therefore consider themselves more "qualified" to post uninformed drivel. Those involved with the railway will know and appreciate what a massive and professional effort was made in the aftermath of this unfortunate incident to get the loco re-railed and back at Loughborough by the early hours of Sunday morning to allow the gala to continue with an albeit reduced but more intensive than usual service on the final day of the event. It is quite clear that serious problems have occurred (hence the loco on the deck) and the resulting investigation will draw conclusions and demand the appropriate action to be taken. However sweeping statements made by those not present at the time and acting only on the viewing of youtube footage without full background knowledge of the events leading up to the incident will not help anyone!

 

Did anyone get any photos of the re-railing in progress? Sorry if this is speaking out of turn, it just fascinates me.

 

agreed the use of the steam crane i must admit fascinates me too if i'm honest! just a shame something like that has to happen to see it in use!

 

What I mean by "stuffy" are sentences like "im getting fed up of typing this". The incident has happened, in front of a lot of people, one of whom had a video camera. Naturally people will discuss this and it being so public it will be difficult eventually not to say what the cause was. The value of the discussion here has been to establish that the video sequence is only part of the story.
PH

 

So your saying we needed this discussion to find out the video is only part of the story? Seriously?

Well I consider myself quite lucky that I was able to fathom that out for myself then!... dear god!

 

Has the damage to the loco or tender been deterimned? I think I'm right in saying that it's supposed to be in Nottingham this weekend for the GCR(N) festival.
Anyone know what is happening, or likely to there?

 

"dear god!" we are getting stuffy again!

P.H.

 

Well, looking at schedule 1:
1. An accident resulting in the death of a person or the serious injury of two or more persons. It didn't
2. An accident on a level crossing involving rolling stock, resulting in the death of a person or serious injury to a person. It didn't
3. A collision between rolling stock on a running line which causes damage or blocks a running line that was open to railway traffic at the time of the collision. It wasn't and didn't
4. A derailment of rolling stock on a running line that was open to railway traffic at the time of the derailment, or which blocks a running line that was open to railway traffic at the time of the derailment. It wasn't on a running line nor was it blocking it
5. A collision of rolling stock with an arrestor mechanism or buffer stop, other than in a siding, that causes damage to the rolling stock. It wasn't
6. An accident involving the release or combustion of dangerous goods being carried on rolling stock that necessitates the evacuation of the area. It wasn't
7. An accident or incident that is likely to result in suspension of a railway service for a period in excess of 6 hours. Services were running shortly after
8. An accident that causes extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment. It wasn't. Extensivedamage is defined as over £2m euros.
9. An accident or incident which under slightly different conditions might have led to a death, serious injury or extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment. Subjective, but I'd say it wasn't.

Certainly not reportable under Sched 1.

 

You could even say the same regarding schedule 2. a open running line is not a siding.

 

Why do some of you seem to be baying for blood about this? The less RAIB have to visit the heritage sector the better in my view! And I have it on good authority that RAIB are not interested. Time to drop it now I feel, however I might just go and talk to that wall over there.....

 

Interesting point however I think you could only put a goods train in there to cross a passenger train, as I would be very surprised if your allowed to signal a passenger train over a set of trap points... therefore covered. Also their passenger train loop is the station isn't it?

 

So now that some of us have taken it upon themselves to judge what happened during and before the event and that's being discussed I hope the conversation isn't trying to be swung in the direction of what the railway did in the aftermath...

 

As long as it had a FPL there shouldn't be any issue.

 

As far as I can see (and I wouldn't by any means claim major expertise), the RAIB are primarily interested in accidents and incidents where there is (1) actual, or significant potential, risk to life or property and (2) where the circumstances are such that potentially there may be safety lessons and / or changes to recommended procedures, equipment etc for the whole industry.

Taking a really dispassionate view of this incident:

1) Train moved past signal set at danger.
2) Trap points did their job and harmlessly deflected the train away from the running line that the trap point was protecting.
3) Er... that's it.

Now, I am sure the GCR will want to investigate the circumstances, and in particular why the initial move was made - was it authorised, who authorised it, what checks were done to ensure safety beforehand etc. But, without wishing to sound complacent about safety, the circumstances in which a move past a signal at danger can take place are covered in the rule books, and it is difficult to imagine that this incident has thrown up an issue of such fundamental importance as to lead to recommendations of wholesale changes, beyond "always be vigilant".

Tom