UK. Virgin Class 390 Derailed near Lake District at Cumbria

一直都係你用所謂頂尖級思維去睇英國鐵路，人地講你又拋大堆頂尖級角度，知道什麼是local knowledge？

A set of points near the site of the Cumbria train crash site were faulty, an initial report has found.

Investigators have found one of three stretcher bars was not in position, one had nuts and bolts missing and two were fractured. The bars join the moving rails, keeping them a set distance apart.

Network Rail chief executive John Armitt said his organisation was "devastated" by the report and he offered an "unreserved apology".

One of the stretcher bars was possibly fractured before Friday night's West Coast Main Line crash and one possibly after, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) said in its report.

It also said there was no evidence the bolts had been "wrenched free" and indications were that the points "were the immediate cause of the derailment".

Mr Armitt said: "Network Rail is devastated to conclude that the condition of the set of points at Grayrigg caused this terrible accident."

He added: "We would like to apologise to all the people affected by the failure of the infrastructure."

He said the company now needed to understand how the points came to be in their reported condition.

Speaking at the scene before the interim report was published, Deputy Chief Constable Andy Trotter from the British Transport Police said it was too early to say whether the inquiry would be considering criminal charges.

Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander is expected to make a statement on the crash in the Commons shortly.

Work on removing the train carriages from the site is not expected to begin until the end of the week.

Contractors are currently building two temporary roads from steel across muddy fields to allow heavy lifting gear access, and cranes will take about 48 hours to set up.

"We have been doing a finger-tip search of the site, trying to work around the carriages which, although stable at the moment, we are mindful of the fact that it's a very unstable environment," said Ch Supt Martyn Ripley, of the British Transport Police.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6398057.stm

原帖由 norrislaw 於 2007-2-26 23:56 發表
一直都係你用所謂頂尖級思維去睇英國鐵路，人地講你又拋大堆頂尖級角度，知道什麼是local knowledge？

你口中的所謂local knowledge咪搞到今時今日咁多問題law……

由此至終都仲未有人解釋到同類的(斷連桿)事故會再次發生，就已經可以證明原因唔止佢一個。
一個唔能夠由問題的根本：車同軌兩個大界面出發的調查係多餘的茶飯工事。

再者，以我有限的記憶中，97年單野都有講過話係維修不良加上車輛的振動先會
爆wok，就證明了路軌本身的問題並不會即時引致支桿斷，佢仲要經過一輪加震先會出事。
有關的加震程度係可以有好多個pattern，而要做預防性維修就必須要跟隨呢個pattern先可以生效。

係一D細微野中其實係應該睇到一連串關係先o岩。正如係量產一件野前都必須要經過一連串最tough
的極限測試先可以過到有關要求一樣，同類問題發生o左咁多次但居然被放棄，如果咁都叫local knowledge的話，
咁大家可以進行end of discussion手段(和稀泥式手法係香港常見的方式之一，八達通公司就係其中的表表者)了。

治標同治本的分別，就係我所講的高與低。

Oh, yes. 我個人對你的「人講你又講」心態持有相當的反感。不過我講完就算……
呢個係討論區，理應有不同的聲音；如果係包含唔到的話，睇黎你對果邊的熟識只係枉然。
有口話人冇口話自己呢句，大家明就得啦。

[ 本帖最後由 500 於 2007-2-27 01:39 編輯 ]

原帖由 norrislaw 於 2007-2-27 00:34 發表
A set of points near the site of the Cumbria train crash site were faulty, an initial report has found.

Investigators have found one of three stretcher bars was not in position, one had nuts  ...

係紅色的部份之中，why xx happened(not what had happened)呢一連串關係先至係個調查同根治同類問題的focus。
但係英國始終都係做唔到，that's why事故連連……

係咪人講你又講，定係邊個喺英國鐵路問題上有更深入認識，而家睇得好清楚。 英國鐵路可以用所謂頂尖級思維去理解嗎？英國鐵路可以用香港、日本鐵路營運方式去作同一判斷嗎？英國鐵路牽涉到的政治層面你又可以用頂尖級思維去解釋嗎？

英國鐵路是否真的可以用你所說的「同類問題發生o左咁多次但居然被放棄」來形容，相信英國的版友最清楚。

你所發表的是一套，但是跟整個調查卻是另外一套；不可以說你所說的不對，但已經跟事實完全不同。 不要用香港、甚至亞洲的思維去看待英國的交通，也不要將第三世界的鐵路跟英國相題並論。

英國有一樣野你永遠都唔明就係，事情往往看似簡單，做起來卻十分困難，甚至無法短期解決，為什麼？ 這就是英國，一個經常派鐵路專家來港協助頂尖級鐵路的地方。

有時d野，你幾有point都好，諗既野同件事背道而馳，係要硬將己見變成全部，個個都會質疑你既想法。

Think in the British way, don't be so Chinese

[ 本帖最後由 norrislaw 於 2007-2-27 01:58 編輯 ]

I agree that UK railway industry was always down to decision of political level, no matter it is in private or public sector. However UK have done a lot of modelling and simulation on each and individual project. No matter is a new build or continuous maintenance.
Since I started in Metronet, I have seen UK industry has always been trying to find root causes in every incident  whether it is in LU or Network Rail. Every report is available in Office of Rail Regulator / HMRI website and within their respective company.
I think HMRI have definitely look into all possibilities before rule out and wheel-rail interface as the cause of incident in Potters Bar. I am not a expert in incident investigation so I cannot comment what causes for this time, I am just a news reader and saying what BBC reporting now.
The HMRI safety/maintenance approval regime is so tough that you have to prove yourself innocent in law of court if something gone wrong (something different in Common Law in England).

Here's the Rail Accident Investigation Branch interim report on the derailment. Click here. I personally believe a professional expert report is a final truth report to any accident. Please comment based on this report.

[ 本帖最後由 tommykwan 於 2007-2-27 03:00 編輯 ]

原帖由 norrislaw 於 2007-2-27 01:54 發表
係咪人講你又講，定係邊個喺英國鐵路問題上有更深入認識，而家睇得好清楚。 英國鐵路可以用所謂頂尖級思維去理解嗎？英國鐵路可以用香港、日本鐵路營運方式去作同一判斷嗎？英國鐵路牽涉到的政治層面你又 ...

唔好意思，我對世上各種問題的調查方式係以日本果套要點針對式黎行ge。
(係人都識講係收尾果句。但今次顯然未證明你未夠料講呢句……
應該好清楚明白熟識一個地方的人係用乜野方式諗野ge，睇黎你只係係口中明白呢一句的精神……)

係呢個利益掛帥的世界上，除英國之外，大把地方的鐵路都係同政治扯上關係架啦，我都照學你的講法：唔好將英國果套政治優先咁大。

呢個世上有唔少人都會唔將自己built up的價值觀黎睇野，你有你的，我有我的本來好地地，點知你見人同你所講ge有唔同就……
因為每個人係獨立個體，睇法的分歧係不可免的。但係溝通係可以將呢個距離收窄ge，而你就明顯地將此門緊閉……
(封尾門：我以前都係咁，不過我宜家知道要點提防)

要令一個外行人了解一件事，或者更明確的「將自己果套想法表露出黎」的話，更需要一個優良的技巧黎說明。
明顯地大家係呢方面唔係幾掂……
對此我感到非常遺憾。

原帖由 tommykwan 於 2007-2-27 02:15 發表
I agree that UK railway industry was always down to decision of political level, no matter it is in private or public sector. However UK have done a lot of modeling and simulation on each and in ...

After reading the interim report, the status of the stretcher bar reminds mystery. I'd say this report is more persuasive then news source.

1) What had happened to the regular maintenance.
2) What's the status of those stretcher bars before the incident.
3) Is there anything other then the immediate cause had ever happened.
4) How the stretcher bars was being damaged.
5) Can anything be able to done to improve the failure safety of that point.
(3 stretcher bar is enough to provide the required failure safe if they were maintained properly)

Well, someone happened failing to understand the importance of questions above, although some reason was due to my lack of skills on converting the question in mind into question above quick and effective enough. Some part that leads to so much time were spaced as a immediate result. I deeply regret for that.

If you use the question above to re-read my post, you shall understands why I've to ask that way if you are knowledgeable enough.

Since these questions is just the beginning, we'll see how much can the investigation can be done.

Political pressure is important in terms of resources, but that' could be only but one thing for maintenance.
The mindset of safenesses of all the front line staff also plays an important role for such preventive maintenance, too.

[ 本帖最後由 500 於 2007-2-27 04:00 編輯 ]

I love debate, it doesn't necessary make a big mindset change on incident investigation but it makes a brainstorm to everyone. I always learn something new everyday...

PS to 500: I would like to know how 點針對式 work in Japan, do you know the English name for that?

原帖由 500 於 2007-2-27 03:16 發表


唔好意思，我對世上各種問題的調查方式係以日本果套要點針對式黎行ge。

申報:我完全係行外人。

又唔係日本o個度出意外,點解要用日本o個套黎查?
兩邊文化背景,運作模式都唔同,
就算點頂尖思維都好,同件事本身就格格不入,
針對唔到件事本身,都係空口講白話。
呢d係一股人都知既常識。

既然你咁講,日本出事用英國o個套黎查就實搞得掂。