Freight train derails near Peterborough on ECML

[Henry Littleton]

The Nationalrail website reports (at 00:30) that a freight train has
derailed in the Peterborough area, blocking all tracks. Extensive
disruption to GNER and WAGN services can be expected today.

If the derailment is anything along the lines that happened at
Tamworth a few weeks ago, I wouldn't like to be a passenger turning up
at Peterborough this morning expecting a train to London/Scotland!

But maybe (just myabe) the derailment will be all clear within a few
hours before the scrum begins! We'll see.

[Mark]

Post by Henry Littleton
The Nationalrail website reports (at 00:30) that a freight train has
derailed in the Peterborough area, blocking all tracks. Extensive
disruption to GNER and WAGN services can be expected today.
If the derailment is anything along the lines that happened at
Tamworth a few weeks ago, I wouldn't like to be a passenger turning up
at Peterborough this morning expecting a train to London/Scotland!

As at 0330:
"A limited number of lines through Peterborough are now open.  GNER
plan to run a near normal service today, however, delays and short
notice alterations can be expected."

[Jack Taylor]

66119 was transferring from either Up slow or Up fast. One of the twins
(front half) decided to take the down fast route instead of into platform
four where a majority of the train had gone. The derailed wagon tipped

over

on its side and when I was there it was in the process of being righted.
Up and Down main blocked. Up and Down Stamford open Up slow also open for

Up

direction GNER and platform five being the only platform on the Down.

Same set of points as last year's derailment, then - under Spital Bridge?

[Neil Asher]

Heck to St Neots working was usually signalled to pass through

Peterborough

depot at 5mph. That was a first for me. Initial site of derailment is on

the

crossovers under Mayors Walk bridge (aka Spittal Bridge) at the depot.
k

Plasmor have moved their depot from Biggleswade to St Neots, have they!!!!!!

Don't think so!

Neil.

[Mark Rawlinson]

Were these the former 'Cargowaggon' twins again- they seem to have
quite a propensity to come off the road. IIRC ,they're already
running as Class 7 (45 mph) services on some traffics.

This restriction was in force for the first half of this year,
but for the past month or so, they have been re-authorised
to travel at 60mph!

ISTR that the same thing happened last summer - the 45mph
restriction was lifted and not long after the train derailed
at Peterborough North - is the pointwork there uniquely complex?


~ MARK ~
http://www.freightmaster.uk.com/FMonline.htm

[Brian Williams]

--

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:47:17 +0100, "Brian Williams"

Were these the former 'Cargowaggon' twins again- they seem to have quite

a

propensity to come off the road. IIRC ,they're already running as Class 7
(45 mph) services on some traffics.

They have always been subject to certain restrictions in France too,
IIRC.
Something to do with track profile - theirs is different to ours or
the Germans' (where the wagons are registered).
Regards
Mike
--

I had previously been told by someone from EWS that they had given problems
on various sidings and secondary lines. It sounds more like a suspension
problem than one of wheel profile - certainly they are allowed to run empty
through the Channel Tunnel at 120 kph, and the information panels suggest a
general empty restriction of 120kph ( marked 'ss' on the panel). A similar
differential speed restriction applies to the Transfesa 'Ford' wagons, which
run as ME120 (75mph) as far as Dolland's Moor, and then run as Class 7 on
Network Rail.
Brian

[Mike Roebuck]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:32:57 +0100, "Brian Williams"

Post by Brian Williams
I had previously been told by someone from EWS that they had given problems
on various sidings and secondary lines. It sounds more like a suspension
problem than one of wheel profile - certainly they are allowed to run empty
through the Channel Tunnel at 120 kph, and the information panels suggest a
general empty restriction of 120kph ( marked 'ss' on the panel). A similar
differential speed restriction applies to the Transfesa 'Ford' wagons, which
run as ME120 (75mph) as far as Dolland's Moor, and then run as Class 7 on
Network Rail.

I'm trying very hard to remember what the restriction in France was.
It may have been a load limit at 100km/h, I can't remember offhand.

I'll try to remember to ask Bill Carter or Thomas Weidner next time I
speak to them.

Regards

Mike

[Brian Williams]

--

Post by Mike Roebuck
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:32:57 +0100, "Brian Williams"

Post by Brian Williams
I had previously been told by someone from EWS that they had given problems
on various sidings and secondary lines. It sounds more like a suspension
problem than one of wheel profile - certainly they are allowed to run empty
through the Channel Tunnel at 120 kph, and the information panels suggest a
general empty restriction of 120kph ( marked 'ss' on the panel). A similar
differential speed restriction applies to the Transfesa 'Ford' wagons, which
run as ME120 (75mph) as far as Dolland's Moor, and then run as Class 7 on
Network Rail.

I'm trying very hard to remember what the restriction in France was.
It may have been a load limit at 100km/h, I can't remember offhand.
I'll try to remember to ask Bill Carter or Thomas Weidner next time I
speak to them.
Regards
Mike
--

The load limit marked on the panel suggests 100kph, except when empty. The
outbound empty newsprint wagons are shown on the train plan as timed at 100
kph, but on the time-space graph I work to are pathed at 120 kph. Similar
100 kph loaded/120 kph empty rules apply to a lot of the internationally
registered stock that works to the UK
Brian

[Daisy Hill]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:13:02 +0100, Mike Roebuck

Post by Mike Roebuck
I'm trying very hard to remember what the restriction in France was.
It may have been a load limit at 100km/h, I can't remember offhand.

The Cargowaggon twins have always been prone to buffer locking when
propelled - in fact, I rather think there's a prohibition on
propelling them. Something to do with the dynamics of two permanently
coupled long wheelbase wagons. But IANAE (I Am Not An Engineer)!

[Mark Rawlinson]

66119 was transferring from either Up slow or Up fast.
One of the twins (front half) decided to take the down fast route
instead of into platform four where a majority of the train had gone.

Sounds like a carbon copy of last year's derailment of the
same train at the same location - is the derailment of 6L56
at Peterborough to become an annual event??!


~ MARK ~
http://www.freightmaster.uk.com/FMonline.htm

[NGarn75125]

Post by Mark Rawlinson
Sounds like a carbon copy of last year's derailment of the
same train at the same location - is the derailment of 6L56
at Peterborough to become an annual event??!

More frequent than that: It has derailed 3 or so times at Ipswich too, though
in the yard out of harm's way!
Nick: to reply remove 'goaway'