Great Western Coffee Shop

Nothing new to be honest, however it does concern me that trains seem to be heading in the wrong direction recently. One example i read was a train was coming from Gatwick Airport to Redhill and of course it has to wait a few minutes, for the points and signals to change, however on the 1013 service, the First Great Western train was put onto the same direction it came from, when it should have gone to Reigate and Reading instead. I hate it when one says oh its network rail's problem and the other says its FGW's issue. For goodness sake just run the railways properly then none of this would happen. However i wonder how frequently this happens... puts me off travelling now, what if the signaller said yep you can go, and the driver doesnt bother to look but decides yep ill proceed, when another train is coming head on... thats further evidence to avoid trains i think... Bunch of numptys :)

Please give some more facts behind the example you've read, as your description is rather hard to follow.

As for "what if the signaller said yep you can go, and the driver doesn't bother to look but decides yep ill proceed, when another train is coming head on" then I would suggest the following:-

signallers set routes and signals, not say "yep you can go"

they can't set these routes and signals such that a head on collision would result

drivers do bother to look at signals and in your example the signal would have been cleared (other than it couldn't be of course)

So I think you are making up 'evidence' to suggest that the railway is unsafe and run by a 'bunch of numptys' - a phrase that I think most of those involved in railway safety would find quite offensive.

You avoid railways if you want to - I'm quite happy travelling 25,000 miles a year on a system that hasn't had a passenger fatality from a crash in over 6 years, and on which the last head on collision was over 10 years ago.

Well said John R, couldn't agree with you more!

Yes, please do give more details, James.

As I read it, you're telling us about a Gatwick to Reading train that came into Redhill to reverse (as it has to do on that journey) and got signalled out after the reversal back to Gatwick ...

There are occasions where a Reading to Gatwick train gets capped (cut off short) at Redhill, so it comes in from the Reading / Reigate direction and the goes out in the same direction again.   Typically that happens to allow a late running train to get back into its pattern and avoid knock-on delays all day.   And it's not beyond the realms of possibility that passengers on the train may not have been informed or understood what's happening, especially if the delay's due to problems with the train which the crew are concentrating or, or if the passengers who get taken back don't understand the announcements.  Unfortunate, but hardly dangerous.

I'm not sure I understand completely the original post, but travelling in Europe extensively it is common practice for trains to weave from one track to another (at speed) as engineering work takes place all week while the railway is 'live'.  There are no specific issues with trains correctly following procedure using fully reversible lines.  NR has spent a fortune on installing reversible track just so delays can be minimised and safety ensured.  We have one of the safest railway systems in the world and like others posting before me, I have no hesitation in using it and actually feel safer than when I have to use the motorway.

Well i am sorry if i am offensive to people who work with the signals, but i hardly find it acceptable if a signaller says to the driver you may proceed when not all the safety checks have been completed. And u call that a good safety record, dream on!. Comeon every railway in the world has issues, so why should the uk be the exception?

James I think you have failed to grasp the main feature of railway safety in that rail signals are not traffic lights they don't change randomly in front of trains (except in an emergency when they go to red and the driver will make an emergency brake application).

Before a signal can be cleared the route to the next signal must be proved to be clear of trains (track circuits clear axle counters zero) all points in the route and others on conflicting routes (flank protection) proved to be in the correct position and locked (a separate mechanism to point changing motor). Once all this is proved then the signal will clear. If there is the possibility of a route change in front of the signal then the signal will display some form of route indicator (Feathers or Line Designation).

If as you alleged the Train from Gatwick returned towards Gatwick then the Three Bridges Signalman made a mistake in setting the route and the FGW driver made a mistake in accepting the signal for an incorrect route.  However although silly mistakes it was perfectly safe any other trains in Redhill would either have been stopped at a signal until the Gatwick had cleared or be on non conflicting routes.

At worse it would cause an awful lot of delay minutes which would have to be explained away.

It is possible that had it happened as you said the Signalman and Driver would be sublject to a disciplinary hearing.

And it is equally possible that the whole thing was set quite deliberately - and safely - to allow one train to pass another. Bignosemac posted video of something similar happening in Teignmouth, where the train he was on, having been delayed earlier, overtook the stopper by going through the station "wrong line". The driver knew it was happening, and I think it was announced. It was unusual, but not in any way dangerous.

Edit: See it here (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=12632.msg135700#msg135700). Scroll down to the Youtube link.

And there's no cause for alarm, James lad, everything's under control. Grand day out, and all that...

Thankyou for clarifying that eight and what ever the number is? :)
I already feel nervous about travelling by train, so something like this to happen is abit concerning, but after reading what u have posted, i have more courage to board trains now, so thankyou. Once again sorry if i caused any offensive, after its was a concern...

To add to the points above, many lines are signalled for use in either direction, but used primarily in one direction.
This gives valuable flexibility in case of breakdowns.
It is common practice to route the odd train in the "wrong" direction to ensure that the equipment remains in reliable working order, and the drivers remain familair with running in the opposite direction to normal.

If two trains proceed in opposite directions onto the same line line there is clearly the risk of serious accident, but this is virtualy impossible on a modern railway.

Firstly the signaller would know not to clear both routes at the same time, secondly interlocking would protect against human error by the signaller.
The drivers would be well aware of the need to carefully observe signalls, and human error by the driver will usually be gaurded against by automatic safety features.
No system is abosultely safe, but the proof of high safety standards is in the fact the fatal railway accidents in the UK are very rare, the last was several years ago.


The last fatal head on collision that I recall was at Cowden.
Two trains collided head on in a single line section, the inquiry found that the person driving one train had passed a signal at danger.
It was suggested that an unauthorised person may have been driving, but this was not proved either way
The red signal that was passed was not as bright as it should have been due to an infestation of insects within the signal.

A repeat of that tragedy should be impossible, since TPWS would have prevented the train passing the signal at danger, the system was not in use at the time.

Rail travel is very safe, the most dangerous part of a rail trip is said to be walking, cycling, or driving to the station.

Mrs GTBE and I went to the IOW on Thursday.  The 1045 Rdg - Bournemouth XC went through Southampton Tunnel on what I would call the Up before crossing over to P4 (ie the Down Main).  Then on the way back the 1815 Southampton - Manchester XC left from P1 but went through the Tunnel on what I would call the Down.  Very innovative (and this was after the reported signalling problems they had earlier in the day), but perfectly safe and nothing James should be worried about.

I've noticed before that they do use the bi-directional signalling through the tunnel quite frequently, especially with the terminators coming into P2 and P3 from the east.

Incidentally, there was a 158 (?)  in P2 with the electric destination board in the cab showing "Worksop"!

With the air con failings we have had this summer, do you suppose it was the closest they could get to 'WorksHop' ???

Thanks Guys, to add to this as well, to help with understanding the railways more (or not depending on your view point) is the FGW documentary which apparently (although unconfirmed) starts next week Friday 16th August at 20:00 on channel 5, should be a good programme.

Since i am more of a visual person (prefer watching documentaries, than reading) it should also be more benefical.

Certainly not in the Radio Times - which is nearly as infallible as a holy book!  :)

By coincidence went through Worksop yesterday but on a 14x coming into Retford it amply  demonstrated why they are called "Nodding Donkeys". Front coach pitching in different direction to rear.

Incidently packed out with shoppers returning from Meadowhall all with Primark bags!

Ah, the good old radio times, maybe its more accurate than whats put on the internet although now i cant find it... Technology hey :)

I was thinking of this earlier, as some of the normal day to day practices at Southampton are very well used examples of having fully bidirectional signalling on all routes.  Container trains heading for the smaller of the yards, which is on the up side at Millbrook, often run at reasonably high speed through the 'up main' platform in the down direction, having switched over alongside Northam depot.  I've left the station heading towards St Denys and the Netley line on what is nominally the down line often enough to not really notice anymore...

Paul

But you still haven't given us the evidence, just a rather confusing summary of what you read or think happened.  So please don't jump to conclusions without the full facts.

I cannot provide a link since i cant do it on my iphone. If you really must read it go to the top of the forum click Rail News and go to 'an apology after the 10:13 from Gatwick Airport is sent down the same track it came from, in other words 'originated from'. Its reported in GetSurrey News in the Redhill/Reigate Area, unless something has since been edited or removed. And it is true. Sorry should have done it already, my mistake...

Link is at http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-after-train-sent-wrong-5691923 (http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-after-train-sent-wrong-5691923).

OK, thanks. Here's the contents of the link.

Rail passengers in Redhill had a surprise on Wednesday (August 7) when their train to Reading went the wrong way.

The 10.13am First Great Western (FGW) service, which originated from Gatwick Airport, was due to make its next stop at Reigate.

However, a signalling error by Network Rail meant the train headed back down towards Earlswood station, on the route to Gatwick.

Chris Culnane, a passenger on the train, said: "New low for @FGW Redhill to Reading train missed the turning to Reading! Changed direction again, back at Redhill for another go."

First Great Western apologised to Mr Culnane, explaining the error was not made by a member of their staff as signalling is controlled by Network Rail.

The train was delayed by approximately 10 minutes while it was turned round at Earlswood and sent back to Redhill station before departing for Reigate and on towards Reading.

A spokesman for Network Rail explained both the signalman and driver had responsibility to ensure the train went in the right direction.

The signaller told the driver the train could leave and received an acknowledgement before it departed incorrectly.

"The signaller and driver will be spoken to as both have a responsibility to ensure the train is travelling on the correct route," the spokesman said.

"Passengers were delayed by around 10 minutes and we apologise for any disruption this caused."

Network Rail also said there were no safety implications as a result, with the train correctly signalled back into Redhill after the mistake.

A First Great Western spokesman said: "The 1013 service from Redhill to Reading was routed towards Earlswood by a Network Rail signalling error. On realising the error the service was taken back to Redhill and onwards towards Reading.

"First Great Western would like to apologise to customers for the delay caused."

So, thinking about the layout at Redhill, because the driver has to change ends to head towards Guildford, he always starts by heading back in the direction of Gatwick, before then diverging right. In this case the signaller set a route back to Gatwick, which the driver should have noticed and not set off. But the driver had a clear signal so nothing would have been coming in the other direction.

But rest assured, a minor cock up maybe, and inconvenience for passengers but absolutely safe, 100pc, so no need for any disparaging comments about safety please.

Agreed, John R, and James is vindicated so far as the mistake is concerned, if not on the safety worries. The wrong route was set as a mistake, but it was set incorrectly safely. No-one hurt, some passengers inconvenienced, and a couple of red faces. I bet there were people on that train that didn't realise it was a mistake.

Ahh that makes sense now.

The driver did not have to change ends as the train reverses at Redhill. So it was due to turn right to go to Reigate but the points and signals were set for it to go straight on.

Shouldn't the driver have noticed a signal with some sort of indicator saying which way the route was set before he/she got there? In which case shouldn't he/she have been able to stop and advise the signaller of the error?

Whatever way the route was set so there was no risk of an accident.

Wow john R, i said earlier it was a concern, would have been a different story if another train came quickly around the corner, and that train with the gatwick could have had a head on collision. thank goodness nothing happened, but it raises all sorts of questions which does include safety.

Yes, they should.  The onus is on the signaller and driver (and even the guard) to spot that a wrong routing has been made.  My guess is that due to the fact the drivers are used to seeing both indications (i.e. a route towards Gatwick and a route towards Reading) regularly when they reverse at Redhill, the driver simply didn't notice that the wrong route had been set.  A mistake by both parties, and a word will be had with both of them I'm sure, but an inconvenient mistake rather than one that had any safety implications.


No train would have 'come quickly round the corner', James.  It was a signalled move that happens every hour when trains are supposed to be going to Gatwick, and as such any other signals that might have conflicted with it would have been interlocked to stay at red.

I'm sorry James but you and the press are trying to create a scare story here.  The signalling fully protected the movements concerned and there was absolutely no chance of a collision.  This was simply a mis-routing cases of which occur all over the network wether we like it or not.  Humans are not perfect :P

I think I can answer the "safety" question.

Railway signalling systems have a system called 'interlocking' on them, which avoids two trains been routed onto the same line or in conflict with each other.   So - once a route is set, whether it's for the right route (99.99% of the time) or the wrong route (when a highly unusual error such as this is made), all routes that could conflict are automatically block and cannot be signalled.    It would then require a SPAD (Signal passed at Danger) error by a driver for there to be any risk, and there's no more risk if he's going on the right properly signalled route to the wrong but properly signalled route.

Is there is ANY concern of there having been accident possibility at Redhill, the RAIB (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) will take a look and will report, and we'll here about it.  

Thank you Grahame (I'll make a signal engineer of you yet :D).  Just to add that a SPAD would have also been protected by TPWS and would have brought a conflicting train to a stand before the conflict point.

Ok ill say this again, it was a geniune concern...
Yes i agree it was a human error totally, but there's another issue.
As industryinsider says the trains travel hourly throughout the day and have to come to Redhill to change direction. Now i understand the signal interlocking thing, and that trains in that location travel at low speeds, however how often do those signals and points fail (due to moving parts), and then you have a situation when whilst the signal is blanked out and the points are set in the wrong direction, and the signaller (as reported on getsurrey) said to the driver yep the way ahead is clear when a Class 377 is approaching around the corner... If the people (such as the driver or signaller are reckless  like they have reported, that doesnt give me confidence on travelling by train).  I am not being offensive, but this act is unacceptable, and remember that there are human beings travelling after all.

James, we can safely assume Get Surrey is scare mongering. If a signal fails it has a safety feature to change to Danger.

There is no danger or nothing to be concerned, and it is clearly a media making up rubbish as it suits. The signaller would be very unlikely to be in discussion with the train driver, and if he was it most certainly wouldn't make it into the media.

All people in the railway industry work hard, and there have done for along time.

In the very early days of railways, sending a train off on the wrong track but signalling it correctly was a danger.   The first interlocking was installed in 1843 at Bricklayers' Arms Junction and ... even at the slow speed of progress on railways in this country, it's now in use everywhere  ;D

To quote Wikipedia (not always 100% accurate, but putting things more succinctly that I do) "An interlocking is designed so that it is impossible to display a signal to proceed unless the route to be used is proven safe."  In other words, the signaller can only set a route (right or wrong) if nothing else is set over those lines already, and if he happens to set a wrong route, that will prevent him setting any intended but now-conflicing routes for other trains.   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking .

Again from WikiPedia: The Train Protection & Warning System (TPWS) is a train protection system deployed across the entire UK passenger railway network. It automatically activates brakes on any train that has passed a signal at danger.   In other words, when the train went off the wrong way, it would still have been protected from other trains - brought to a halt even if the driver passed a signal at danger.

Can I try an analogy?     If I drive from home to work, I turn right out of the end of our road.  If I forget where I'm going one day and turn left instead (perhaps I'm going to the recycling place),  I'm unlikely to have an accident if I continue to follow the rules of the road.

And should there be a signal failure (which there wasn't in this case I don't think), the signaller will authorise the driver to pass that signal at red after verbally confirming which route has been set with the driver (phonetic alphabet and repeat back are in use to avoid misunderstanding) and will instruct the driver to proceed at caution at a speed that they can stop short of any obstruction (i.e. another train).

If the rules weren't so fail safe then there would be plenty more incidents and I wouldn't be 100% happy entering a cab!

We appreciate it is a genuine concern that you have. We are just trying to reassure you that it was safe. Inconvenient, yes! Annoying, yes! But perfectly safe.

What we are saying is over 150 years of railway signal development has tried to learn from each accident to make systems safer and safer as time has gone on.

Unlike a car a train can only make a turning if the signaller sets the points and the points can only be moved if the signals are already set so that there cannot be another train coming along the line.  In the days when there were levers it would be physically impossible to move the lever because an interlocking bar would be in the way.  If you want to see how this works a visit to the STEAM museum in Swindon is recommended. You can then even try for yourself!

Nowadays it is done with electronics which fail safe by stopping everything if they go wrong. Hence the chaos when things do go wrong. But it is safe chaos!

The most recent weakness fixed was signals passed at danger using the Train protection and Warning System as Graham has pointed out. This means that if the driver, for any reason passes a signal at danger the train will stop automatically.

That seems to be an implication that a minority of drivers are consistently careless or reckless. Whilst nobody is perfect, and slight errors in judgment or lapses in concentration do occur (as happened in this case), again, to suggest that the travelling public need to be aware of this subset of rogue railway personnel is offensive.

Before you make such comments, I suggest you learn a little bit more about the operation of the railway. If you're interested and concerned about the safety aspect, a couple of good primers would be Red for Danger by LTC Rolt, and British Railways Signalling by Williams and Kitchenside.  And online you can read the accident/incident reports on the RAIB website which will demonstrate the forensic nature which goes into each incident to understand the cause and ways in which risk can be mitigated. If nothing else, that should show that the culture of the railway is "safety first".

Now that is true, but what if you followed all those rules, but some doughnut comes rushing around the corner, with the radio blazing whilst eating nuts, drinking juice, eating crisps and reading a map, not to mention trying to answer a call, and to add to the melee an OAP now tries to reverse, without looking, with those examples of course you would have an accident. After all what do u expected from this world, all calm and everyone living in peace and without questions, obivosuly just wont happen sunny! :)

Although travelling with the railways can also been fun and games, and you dont even have to travel by train for something to happen. Now its monday morning you are in a rush after discovering you woke up late... dam the day of my interview in sunny london. So u rush to put on your clothes and whilst u do this you have creeses all over your shirt and trousers but you havent got time to, iron them, grr. Oh well i now need to go but cant go without breakfast.... Lets take a banana and coffee machine, then slams the front door awaking all the local animal life... Ok i now have 20 minutes to get to Maidenhead Station so should i run, walk or take the bus... ok lets get the bus. Zoom... bus goes by, not another for 20 minutes, oh what shall i do dam. Ok lets run. So we are now running and whilst doing so, i twist my ankle... ouch!!. only got 10 minutes, so hop on to a bike. Dont worry its just for hire, finally get to the station. Walking through the subway, and going to platform 2 when someone comes flying down the stairs after tipping up. (Not surprised as everyone is in such a rush these days), finally get to the top of the stairs and my anckle is now better rush to the train and the doors slam on my foot. Train departs and stops a little way down the platform. Not having a good am i. So there we have it, the railways regardless of trains, signals or points, have other issues and they obivously should be also setting a standard of safe stations as well as safe trains that dont trap people when the train is about to move. (Sorry for long analogy, just felt i like writing :)

I recognise the railways are an interesting place and i agreed the railway has a much improved safety record than it did before

Deleted. Apology accepted and reasons understood, time to move on.

Cutting to the 'quick' of this, I think you're suggesting that the extra mileage adds extra danger.  Yes - but that's minuscule because the railways are so safe.


If something goes awry - a missed bus, a malfunction of some sort, there's a tendency to panic and other things will go wrong.  Have I understood that right?     Yes - may be the case to some extend, but there are so many systems in place that check and countercheck each other that it's pretty darned difficult to rush things and compound errors, and that's by design.   I'm tempted to point you to another thread which describes how a train sat in rural Wiltshire for over five HOURS while a breakdown situation was dealt with.  Certainly no dangerous corner cutting to save time there, as far as I can see, but a system which was irritatingly slow for those people who were stuck on the train.


I believe that - statistically - the railways are leaders in terms of trade l safety.  I'm more likely to have a serious accident in the mile I walk to the station than in the 100 miles on the train to London.   Yet, having said that, there's such a strong backup to investigate those very, very few occasions where something goes wrong and creates an identified risk, even if no accident follows.  It's that very system that has made it as safe as it is.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are railway staff who falll into that category?

Theres anything else for me to put on this thread. However if posters want to continue to post then please feel free to post here, as all comments are welcomed :)

Its not often that I step in an official moderation capacity these days, but in order to take the heat out of things, I am temporarily locking this topic, pending further consultation with the rest of the team.

Thanks, Lee ... I'm just back and also have a message of apology (to all the posters in this thread who have been offended) and some background.   This is a holding post ... will be back, further, later on.   At work today, very busy day, one team member down too ... so it may not be until quite a bit later

I have received, from James, an explanation, a clear understanding that he was very much out of order, and a thorough apology, which I have passed on as requested to the posters most directly concerned or will be doing very shortly as I check back through the thread.  It's probably fair to say that the apology should also go to any and all British rail industry readers who feel slighted.  Ladies and gentlemen - you are a totally professional and caring bunch on safety issues in particular.

James has posted nearly a hundred messages to the forum, and this thread has been somewhat out of character - it's the first time which I might describe as "beyond the pale".  I'm going to unlock the thread as I don't expect it to "blow" again now after the overnight cooling off period; clearly, there are other actions that the moderators / admins could take if it blows again here or on another thread.

Thank you, everyone, for your forbearance while we sorted this.

Is this an incident blown out of all proportion as a journalist quotes what he reads on twitter?   

Was this passenger's immediate reaction to a relatively minor amount of hassle to contact the local media?

This sort of 'incident' would never have made the press at all a few years back, and in my opinion still doesn't need to be reported at all...

Paul

I note that post numbers 31, 37 and 41 have been altered this morning, removing much of the vindictive that was there, have been edited without explanation.    This makes it look as if our other member's reactions were completely over the top.    I strongly object to posters on any forum who try to go back and alter history, especially if in doing so they make subsequent posts look like an over-reaction.    For this reason, I feel that the trust I showed just a few hours back has been quickly betrayed (that's something of a record in speed) and I have locked the thread again.   In contrast, the edit in post number 38 is a model example of a good post edit - making it very clear why the edit was done, and not effecting later follow ups.

I have moved a more general question about rail safety standards to a fresh thread
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=12777
as it's something for us to look at / talk about away from this storm.   The posting here originally was a good choice ... the original poster was probably (like I was) hoping to move on without a further storm.  Thanks for trying  :D