On Aug 13, 3:09*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
06:26:47 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, MIG
remarked:

I did assume that maybe the works overran because
the train had run away, but maybe there were other problems.

Perhaps they over-ran because the train broke down, which was why it was
being towed away...

The broken down train and tow-away elements of this story are new i.e.
the BBC story has been updated - which is why earlier comments made by
MIG and myself now seem as though we never read the story (because at
the time of posting we hadn't read those parts of the story coz they
weren't there).

In message
, at
07:28:21 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mizter T remarked:
I did assume that maybe the works overran because
the train had run away, but maybe there were other problems.

Perhaps they over-ran because the train broke down, which was why it was
being towed away...

The broken down train and tow-away elements of this story are new i.e.
the BBC story has been updated - which is why earlier comments made by
MIG and myself now seem as though we never read the story (because at
the time of posting we hadn't read those parts of the story coz they
weren't there).

Those elements were there originally iirc. What's fundamentally changed
(I think) is that originally it said that the broken down train chased
the towing train, which would have meant it was being towed southwards
not northwards - which had it been true, might have explained the lack
of collision because the towing train would be clearing the track ahead.
--
Roland Perry

On Aug 13, 12:00*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Aug 13, 11:23*am, Paul wrote:

Sounds like a serious screw up, thankfully no-one got hurt. RAIB will
of course be involved.

The RAIB have announced their investigation, with some preliminary
details and a picture of the unit involved:
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/...te_runaway.cfm

Something that I don't think had previously been released:
The crew of the grinding unit, who had no means of re-applying the
brake, jumped off the unit as it passed through Highgate station.

In message
,
martin writes
Something that I don't think had previously been released:
The crew of the grinding unit, who had no means of re-applying the
brake, jumped off the unit as it passed through Highgate station.

That sounds a bit like the Rovos rail runaway near Pretoria on 21st
April, where (some reports say) the crew encouraged passengers aboard to
jump out, presumably while the speed was still modest. Sadly 3 people
were killed and many injured, and 15 out of 19 carriages were damaged
beyond repair. I find it even more extraordinary that on a long
passenger train there was no way of applying the brakes from on board:
on older stock on BR I seem to remember that if you pulled the
communication cord it opened a hole in the brake pipe at the end of the
carriage, which was robust, simple and effective under practically all
circumstances.

I don't know what happens on modern stock but it looks to me as if
pushing the emergency button merely sounds an alarm in the drivers cab,
which is by no means as satisfactory.

--
Clive Page

In article , (Clive Page)
wrote:

In message
,
martin writes
Something that I don't think had previously been released:
The crew of the grinding unit, who had no means of re-applying
the
brake, jumped off the unit as it passed through Highgate station.

That sounds a bit like the Rovos rail runaway near Pretoria on 21st
April, where (some reports say) the crew encouraged passengers
aboard to jump out, presumably while the speed was still modest.
Sadly 3 people were killed and many injured, and 15 out of 19
carriages were damaged beyond repair. I find it even more
extraordinary that on a long passenger train there was no way of
applying the brakes from on board: on older stock on BR I seem to
remember that if you pulled the communication cord it opened a hole
in the brake pipe at the end of the carriage, which was robust,
simple and effective under practically all circumstances.

The communication cord wouldn't work if the brakes had been isolated as
appears to have happened in this case.

I don't know what happens on modern stock but it looks to me as if
pushing the emergency button merely sounds an alarm in the drivers
cab, which is by no means as satisfactory.

The trouble in this case looks to be that the brake on the railgrinder had
to be isolated because it could not be controlled from the 95TS train.
That makes me wonder why they didn't attempt the rescue with a battery
loco or something else with compatible braking equipment.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 08:00:08
on Wed, 18 Aug 2010, remarked:

That makes me wonder why they didn't attempt the rescue with a battery
loco or something else with compatible braking equipment.

Where would the nearest battery loco be at that time of day, and would
there be anything between it and the train needing to be rescued (for
example, some service trains).
--
Roland Perry

On 18/08/2010 12:03, Clive Page wrote:
In message
,
martin writes
Something that I don't think had previously been released:
The crew of the grinding unit, who had no means of re-applying the
brake, jumped off the unit as it passed through Highgate station.

That sounds a bit like the Rovos rail runaway near Pretoria on 21st
April, where (some reports say) the crew encouraged passengers aboard to
jump out, presumably while the speed was still modest. Sadly 3 people
were killed and many injured, and 15 out of 19 carriages were damaged
beyond repair. I find it even more extraordinary that on a long
passenger train there was no way of applying the brakes from on board:
on older stock on BR I seem to remember that if you pulled the
communication cord it opened a hole in the brake pipe at the end of the
carriage, which was robust, simple and effective under practically all
circumstances.

I don't know what happens on modern stock but it looks to me as if
pushing the emergency button merely sounds an alarm in the drivers cab,
which is by no means as satisfactory.

The thinking behind that is that if you pull the cord in the tunnel, and
stop the tunnel, than it would be more difficult to get to somebody who
is in need of assistance. You also don't want to pull the cord if there
is a fire, for example, which would possibly customers at even greater risk.

In message
, at
03:20:43 on Wed, 18 Aug 2010, martin
remarked:
Something that I don't think had previously been released:
The crew of the grinding unit, who had no means of re-applying the
brake, jumped off the unit as it passed through Highgate station.

The "jumping off" was known, but not the bit about the brake.
--
Roland Perry

On 18/08/2010 12:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
03:20:43 on Wed, 18 Aug 2010, martin remarked:
Something that I don't think had previously been released:
The crew of the grinding unit, who had no means of re-applying the
brake, jumped off the unit as it passed through Highgate station.

The "jumping off" was known, but not the bit about the brake.

I heard that it was at Archway.

On 18/8/10 20:43, in article DJWao.43180$Dt3.31586@hurricane,
" wrote:

On 18/08/2010 12:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
03:20:43 on Wed, 18 Aug 2010, martin remarked:
Something that I don't think had previously been released:
The crew of the grinding unit, who had no means of re-applying the
brake, jumped off the unit as it passed through Highgate station.

The "jumping off" was known, but not the bit about the brake.

I heard that it was at Archway.

If I've understood it correctly, the failure occurred at, or near, Archway.
It was decided to haul the failed train North to East Finchley; presumably
they intended to either reverse it down one of the centre tracks into one of
the sidings, where it could receive attention, or possibly just dump it on
one of the centre tracks, where it would at least be out of the way, and
could be collected later. Somewhere North of Highgate station, but before
reaching East Finchley, the coupler failed and the train, having no
functioning brake, ran away Southbound, towards Highgate. When it reached
Highgate station, where it would presumably have been travelling fairly
slowly since it had only run away a short distance at that point, the crew
who were unable to control the train, jumped out, and the train continued to
run South until it reached Warren Street.

We now seem to know pretty much what happened, but we don't know why it
happened. We don't know why the failed train was being hauled North with no
functioning brake of any type, not even a handbrake it seems. We don't know
why the crew couldn't apply the handbrake, we don't know if the braking
systems on the two trains were compatible, and if so to what extent. We
don't know if a MR pipe connection could have been made between the trains,
which would probably have allowed the brake on the failed train to be
applied locally from the cab of that train. If there was no alternative to
isolating the brake on the failed train we don't know why another train, or
locomotive, with a functioning brake wasn't coupled behind it. It's not
possible to see on the small picture of the train what brake connections, if
any, are available. Does anybody know if this train can run under its own
power to a worksite, or if it has to be hauled there, and can only move
slowly under its own power while actually working?

A somebody else said, well done the control room staff for quick thinking,
and keeping all of the other trains out of its way.