Setting Back.

[robots]

I know the story appeared in the Sub - Standard and so

should be taken with a large dose of salt but what was

the truth behind its lead story on Friday ? It claimed that

following a SPAD in the High St area a train was

authorised to `set back' but continued for some distance

risking a collision.

[marty]

What´s a SPAD -

"C5 report to dmt´s office!"

[Deleted]

marty said:

What´s a SPAD -

Signal Passed At Danger

[Chris W]

marty said:

What´s a SPAD -

"C5 report to dmt´s office!"

SPAD = Signal Passed At Danger

Two answers for the price of one there, and at the same time ;D ;D ;D

[marty]

Double Post - Thanks...

[Deleted]

I was first, so THERE! ;D

[marty]

***But I read ChrisW post first SO THERE!!!***

[Deleted]

[*childish chant*] I don't care, I con't care, I can post over there

[DWS]

robots said:

I know the story appeared in the Sub - Standard and so

should be taken with a large dose of salt but what was

the truth behind its lead story on Friday ? It claimed that

following a SPAD in the High St area a train was

authorised to `set back' but continued for some distance

risking a collision.

See the website of "Rail Accident Investigation Branch"

[Colin]

robots said:

I know the story appeared in the Sub - Standard and so

should be taken with a large dose of salt but what was

the truth behind its lead story on Friday ? It claimed that

following a SPAD in the High St area a train was

authorised to `set back' but continued for some distance

risking a collision.

I was working at the time of the incident, and heard much of what went on over the train radio (well, what the line controller said anyway) - I think at this stage it would be unfair to pass comment whilst the Rail Accident Investigation Branch are involved.

All I will say is that whatever the original cause, a wrong direction move was carried out incorrectly - and that is why it's being 'looked into'

[marty]

So there is some thruth about it ?

[Phil]

Marty, mate don't push it. The LU staff on this forum have always been very good at revealing as much information as they dare can. We don't want this to change because one or two members won't let go.

DWS has already referred us to the RAIB site.
have a look here
If you go there, as I did, you will find more details than Colin has seen appropriate to release as a T/op.


Then please let it rest. You can be sure that if further details come out one or other of our members will post here at the earliest opportunity.

[marty]

I understand.

[Deleted]

Although i believe I know pretty much what went on, i too feel i can't post full details here at this stage.

Suffice to say, there was an incident, some miscommunications and a wrong direction move that didn't go to plan and obviously a safety implication, hence the Investigation board involvement.

There were numerous factual inaccuracies, as one would expect, from the Evening No Standards. As much of their report was wrong as was right !

My understanding, however, is that the incident did not follow a SPAD, but from an incorrectly offered and accepted route approaching High St Ken.

[Chris M]

evening said:

[the train] continued for some distance risking a collision.

RAIB said:

There was no imminent likelihood of a collision and no injuries resulted from the incident.

I think these two quote sum up the difference between neutral factual reporting and scaremongering.

I don't know anything about this other than what has been posted on this thread and the RAIB site, but it seems likely there wasn't a SPAD involved as the RAIB don't mention it.

Chris