A Brief History of: The Ladbroke Grove Train Disaster 1999 (Documentary)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2021
- Learn while you're at home with Plainly Difficult!
The Ladbroke Grove rail crash also known as the Paddington rail crash, was a railway accident which happened on 5 October 1999 at Ladbroke Grove in London, England.
Two passenger trains collided almost head-on after one of them had passed a signal at danger. With 31 people killed and 417 injured, it remains one of the worst rail accidents in 20th-century British history.
Want to become a channel member? / @plainlydifficult
Paypal Donate Link: www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
Help the Channel Grow Like, Comment & Subscribe!
Subscribe Here: ruclips.net/channel/UCb0M...
Equipment used in this video:
Rode NTG3, Audient ID4, MacBook Pro 16, Hitfilm, Garage Band
Check out My Twitter:
/ plainly_d
Check out these other great channels:
/ dominotitanic20
/ cynicalc. .
/ jabzyjoe
/ @qxir
Sources:
www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...
By Peter Broster - 43126, CC BY 2.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
By mattbuck (category) - Own work by mattbuck., CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
Would you like to see more train disaster videos? Let me know in the comments!
No! Jk lol
Yes! Also, your personal take on the safety measures for high-speed trains. I haven't heard of an accident yet, so obviously they're pretty safe
Indeed I do. I love me some train crashes. I got hooked on the Thunderbolt 1000 something or other's channel for a while.
Dont get me wrong. I love your videos but as a sound designer I notice that your mid range on your speech is really muddy and I think you are able to make it better. thanks for the great vids.
Some about Germany would be interesting
My dad was meant to be on this train to go to work, he was late that day because I fell off my bike that morning. I was 4 years old, so scary to think how different my life would be now.
Lucky!
Gee, thanks...
Thank God for good dads
Good job eating dirt to save your dad
That should be interpreted as righteous vindication! You and your father should embark on a quest!
So, the AWS gives the same signal for "pay attention," "look out," and "stop immediately." And it comes with a 1.9 second time limit, which teaches drivers to thoughtlessly smack the "go away" button as quickly as possible to prevent the emergency brakes from coming on. It is literally designed to give dozens of false alarms daily.
The ONLY advantage is that it requires someone to be at the controls to hit the "go away" button.
Yeah, I can think of a better way would be for it to have more than one signal, different buttons for the different signals, and a bit longer time limit, so that they have to actually look at what it says before they press it.
@@mlmmt They tried that in the late 70’s where they had a different button for a driver to press on passing over each magnet. They never really got the system to work properly though.
Thats why they teach press and call what the aspect or reason for the warning is, so you don't just automatically cancel the AWS.
Absolutely, this system instantly builds operator fatigue and acceptance of the same rote response into the model.
The ultimate problem with AWS is that it's now used far beyond the original situation it was designed for - namely, to repeat the indications of a (semaphore) distant signal, which can only show "caution" or "clear" so having only two indications on the AWS was fine. It's always struck me as a questionable decision to add it to multiple-aspect signals without giving it (at least) a third indication.
also, waiting until the 90's to implement a "red signal makes train brakes go psssh" system seems to be an extreme oversight in my eyes
Most American railroads had a system like this before WW2.
Again BR's sheer size made it hard to innovate and upgrade faster.
@@F40PH-2CAT "sheer size" isn't an excuse. the german railways had a system like this as an integral part of their indusi train control equipment since it's invention in the mid 30's. one of it's 3 induction frequencies is exclusively reserved for the "red signal makes train brakes go psssh" function. i have to test it's fucntionality on various locomotives a couple of times a week.
@@eftalanquest Aftermath of the world wars is a major factor. continental Europe had to rebuild large portions of it's infrastructure from the ground up in the aftermaths, (especially WW2), for the UK rail system at least however a lot of it had stood since the industrial revolution.
You see this with infrastructure a lot. if it's fairly critical and old upgrades tend to be slow as the cost, (and disruption), of upgrades is on par with a complete new build out. So it lags. Destroyed critical infrastructure has to be rebuilt and damm the cost, (because it's critical infrastructure).
@@darthkarl99 Germany was not rebuilding its railways "from the ground up" in 1934.
@@Pence128
and other countries like switzerland that were even less "rebuilding from the ground up"
That terrifying moment when a train driver sees another train coming right at him. He knows he's already dead, he knows it's probably his own fault, and all he can do is keep hammering the breaks and hope as many people behind him as possible somehow survive.
It reminds me of the Gare de Lyon disaster. The driver on a stopped train saw the runaway train coming towards him and shouted over the radio for passengers to get off and run.
It's reported that moments before impact there was a horrific scream that came from the driver's cab and went on all the way until the actual collision, chilling to think about
@@theshermantanker7043 God imagine the fear.
It is possible to survive it. Modern locomotives have a bar on the door and you only need to push it. If you applied brakes you can do nothing more. It will collide or stop. The best you can do is horn and run away as far as you can. On motortrains you can even warn the passengers to move as back as they can
Brakes*
Our friend's son, 26, was in the carriage in flames. He was only able to be identified because of a tattoo he'd just got of his family's clan crest. He was on his OE from here in NZ. Thank you for not sensationalising this and explaining it well. RIP, Matthew.
Don't forget about the shop-workers from the local Sainsbury's store, they were the ones who were first on the scene before the emergency responders, they gave first aid and turned the cafe in the store to a triage area. 👏🏼
God bless ordinary people.
"The history of regulations and safety is written blood."
This is true for every thing. But it is more prominent in transportation.
@@treytavares6410 It's really true in every industry. See for example the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire.
Profound.
I had just arrived in the UK to visit family when this happened. For me what hit home the hardest was hearing the rescue workers' reports of cellphones lying around in the wreckage that started ringing when the story broke on the news.
Interestingly there was a similarly devastating train crash just 4 years earlier in Toronto in 1995. The causes of the Toronto crash were almost identical to the causes of this accident. A new, poorly trained driver, faulty signals and a company that ignored multiple warnings and failed to install adequate safety measures due to the cost. If the UK rail industry had taken the opportunity to learn from the mistakes made in Toronto they might have prevented this tragedy from happening.
I have the hobby to recommend science-channel to those in
c-sections under science-channels... i mean... its kinda self-explanatory, really...
Anyway, want some?
They were too busy ripping up the railway and selling its remains to private investors. In capitalist hellscapes, profit always comes before lives.
“It is the 5th of October..”
Oh wow, specific date already?
“.. at around 8 a.m.”
Uh-oh, and time.
When [insert engineering youtuber of choice] says a date, things are about to get interesting. When [insert engineering youtuber of choice] say a *time*, things are about to get *bad*.
@@ewanhogg3068 WTYPP? (Well, there’s your problem podcast)
@@ellianagrant6294 Indeed.
@@ewanhogg3068 I have the hobby to recommend science-channel to those in
c-sections under science-channels... i mean... its kinda self-explanatory, really...
Anyway, want some?
It is absolutely incredible that a single Missed warning could cause such an accident. Usually a disaster have a sequence of events.
The smell of your car must rate a 7 or above on the Plainly Difficult Disaster Scale to warrant that many air fresheners.
Toddlers are mobile 7 or above disasters, on many fronts
The Ladbroke Grove rail crash helped hasten the demise of Railtrack. There were so many accidents under them that they eventually had to be renationalised.
And it is still like that today.
@@ThomasTHEONEANDONLY
What is??
Mad to think some firemen at that N Ken station would have worked this disaster AND Grenfell 20 years later... Heck of a tough job
Exactly
Damn, that's depressing.
Cost benefit analysis. AKA “let’s keep trimming costs until the people we kill end up on the front page of the newspaper “.
I wonder who told the accountants to add the cost of wayside equipment into the analysis to skew the numbers towards deadly?
Capitalism kills.☝️
Deaths are just another cost. That's why these companies employ actuaries.
Do you even have a clue about business?? Without private enterprise, profits and capitalism....we would not enjoy the living standards we do today.....blame the driver....not the system.
If we spent a billion quid to save one life on the rail, there wouldn't *be* any rail. As cynical as this is, where safety is concerned you gotta put a price tag on human life, and it's well below even a million pounds.
"even more safer"... bro you cant just cram that many positives into a sentence.
I can and I will!
Haha! It's interesting, I think Mr Plainly Difficult may be dyslexic because of some of the spelling errors, but also because of the great verbal explanations and the strong and clear visual component. Excellent work!!
Bro you can’t have a MLP as your pfp 💀
@@markismays2764 ur comment is like a historical document people will study in the future
Ain't gonna make no nevermind nohow...
Train driver from Belgium here : firstly thanks for this very well made and simple explanation of how the train security systems work. (there are some slight differences with the belgian Train Protection Systems but it's all pretty similar). I've driven quite a bit with ETCS and I honestly believe it's one of the best choices from the driver's perspective. It's quite a bit more relaxing than having to watch and remember signals and it's a lot safer too. Anyways thanks for this excellent video, keep them coming !
Excellently and respectfully done as always. Hope that you'll cover Southall, Hatfield (possibly one of the most consequential rail crashes in this country of the last 20+ years), Great Heck, Potter's Bar, Ufton Nervet & Grayrigg in due time.
Stonehaven
Harrow and Wealdstone
Railways are Satanic, and the Earth is flat. Repent!
Someone call bedlam, one has got out
Potter’s Bar - whole network reduced to 50mph - weeks and weeks of delays, that was a nightmare
my mother was supposed to be on this train with my sister. my sister was 1, she was 23. they were supposed to see a family friend but my mother slept in. my mother helped people who were injured, she’s told me the story multiple times and each time i get a little emotional. i thank god every time i’m reminded of this horrible accident.
The signalling and its weaknesses were explained very well in this video! And I'm glad you didn't just focus on the driver's mistake. He did pass a signal at danger but it went way beyond him. I mean I never knew that most of the SPADs at that signal were from the one company... that's insane!
To draw a valid conclusion from that statistic you'd have to know the relative frequency of movements from all the companies using that piece of track. Paddington is a major commuter terminus, so I would expect most of the action would involve the suburban transit provider - making the cited statistic practically inevitable.
AWS was designed to stop trains out on the mainline, where signals are relatively far apart. It was implemented after Harrow & Wealdstone, which happened due to severe fog. Somewhere like Paddington, a realistic time for a driver to react to a warning might not be quick enough. Add this to bad visibility and a wreck is close to inevitable. Here in the US most passenger trains are equipped with cab signal displays, which tell the crew exactly what aspect the signal is at. These systems date back over a century, the Pennsylvania Railroad being one of the first to use it on their mainlines.
Once you cancel AWS warning you can carry on it won't stop train ATP or TPWS will however
As has already been pointed out by Vinicit, you’re getting AWS and TPWS (or even ATP) mixed up. AWS is purely to get you to react to a restrictive aspect or upcoming speed restriction...basically it’s a reminder to slow down or prepare to stop coupled with a visual ‘sunflower’ reminder in cab.
Both TPWS and ATP (on fitted lines) will apply the emergency brake if a signal is passed at danger. AWS will only apply the emergency brake if you do not acknowledge it.
@@thecornedbeefcouncil9792 thank you. Good description of AWS. 😀👍
@@thecornedbeefcouncil9792 Good description. Love your name.
99% of the US doesn't have cab signaling. It was a thing into the 60s but it feel by the wayside. Its why even though most mainline track allow for 90mph passenger trains they are limited to 80MPH. even modern PTC isn't cab signaling.
I didn't know that railway signalling could actually be interesting.
Check out Tom Scott's video on the German model railroad which is part of their signalling control system. It's incredible.
It is!
Lol really its kinda complicated.
They're pretty interesting everywhere, but N. America is especially so, because the railways mostly devised their own systems, resulting in a huge variety. Australia is similar in a large variety. But that comes with problems for crews operating on many railroads' track with different systems
That’s how it starts…
When I joined the railways in 75 I had to be a secondman and ride with a qualified driver for 12 months before you even started driving and you had to be 25 and under to apply for a secondman job otherwise you were classed as too old.
Sitting with a driver is where you learnt everything about signals, gradients and everything necessary to drive, now they just take anyone as trains basically drive themselves, the driver is just a PR exercise as the public aren't prepared to accept being a passenger in a train traveling at 120mph with no driver.
As a railway signaller and mobile operations manager (MOM) you’ve covered the intricacies of signalling and protection systems very well
Here in North America, signals prone to being hit by sunlight (lights lit by the sun are often referred to as phantom signal aspects) can have 'phankill' units applied. They're basically honeycombs of non-reflective material in front of the signal lens, that are designed to permit light from only a narrow angle to pass through. While they're not ideal on curves where trains approach from a wide angle, they're a rather inexpensive solution to phantom aspects caused by sunlight. I can't help but wonder if something like this could have prevented this collision
After all I learned about the (lack of) NA train infrastructure, that sounds like a really good and low-cost solution.
Most traffic lights here have hoods installed to stop the lights being hidden by snow and sunlight, but those grids seem to be pretty great.
@@HappyBeezerStudios our system is very basic, but our trains are mostly slow freight trains, and a lot of our cargo is moved by truck. We don’t use trains as much as they do in Europe
My husband is a freight train engineer of 17 years and this is one of my biggest fears as freight trains have also crashed because of human error of both themselves or others. My other fear is having to save him after a crash because I’m an EMT. 😳
What is an EMT?
Can we take a second to appreciate all this animation? Solid work, PD!
@Bamidélé I have the hobby to recommend science-channel to those in
c-sections under science-channels... i mean... its kinda self-explanatory, really...
Anyway, want some?
@@nenmaster5218 bot
Take as many seconds as you like.
Can we take a second to appreciate all the emergency workers? Solid work, LAS, LFB and MET!
You'd think trains would have all the kinks ironed out by now, but they're still Plainly Difficult.
You should read "Normal Accidents" by Perrow, "The Logic of Failure" - Dorner et al., and "The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error" - Dekker. You might find them interesting and even find some more video topics.
Those all sound interesting- are they kind of for a layperson?!
@@tifKh it's been a while since I read them. They might be a little academic but it's all prose no math or anything.
@@tifKh Yes, very good for a layperson, at least _Normal Accidents_ and _The Field Guide_ - I haven't read the third one.
@@tifKh Almost all academic writing is meant to be intelligible to an interested lay person.
Ex: If I get published on political socialization, anyone interested in it (so mostly other political scientists, but maybe anyone with a college degree) should understand my article. If not, I wrote it poorly.
Math, some areas of “hard science,” and such can get so technical this doesn’t apply without you having to look terms up. But it’s the general guide.
British Rail: "So, you have choo-choo-chosen death."
That train stop wasn't on the schedule.
Lolol
Take my upvote and get out
Awww man rough 🙃
I’m pretty sure you’ve got an important part of this wrong. He didn’t think the signal was yellow (confirmed by the fact he ACCELERATED after passing it...something you wouldn’t do on a single yellow). The L shape signal was the cause of the accident as on approach only the bottom two aspects were visible due to overhead line equipment structures. As both bottom aspects were obscured by sunlight Michael Hodder must have believed he actually had a green signal (again, this is proved by his actions after passing the signal) because without the red or a yellow it couldn’t be a red, single yellow OR double yellow...it had to be green. Sadly it wasn’t, but the mistake could’ve been made by anyone at the time.
Incorrect AWS codes are not that uncommon, presumably he thought the AWS was faulty when cancelling the horn.
That makes sense.
That's plausible, but a reasonable person would want to see photos of what his view would have been before accepting it as the answer. It could just as easily have been a medical event, or him dozing off, or one of a myriad of other explanations.
I still think that the red signal should be obviously visually different from the others. Like I mentioned in another comment maybe high visibility bars pop out when it's engaged. Maybe it's a totally different shape, like a triangle of signals instead of a single one.
@@ianmcnaney6528 I think it’s the only reasonable answer. Michael Hodder took power after the red and even cancelled the AWS, both of which rule out a medical event. As a train driver we were taken through this incident in great detail when I was in training 20 years ago and the only possible option to explain his actions would’ve been to assume the signal was green. Even if he’d mistakenly seen it as yellow and thought it was double yellow he’s highly unlikely to have accelerated in that area as the signals are close together.
What I can say, as someone who drives through there everyday, lessons have obviously been learned and the signals and their visibility is much better today.
@@thecornedbeefcouncil9792 Was it common for a light to be green after a preceding double yellow? I'm not a railroader, but it sounds like a pretty big flaw in this system if it's not guaranteed to go green > double > single > red.
@@MatthewBoonstra it depends on the traffic in front of you and how fast it’s moving, you receive yellow or double yellow, you slow down anticipating a red at some stage. By slowing down you allow the train in front to get further ahead of you, allowing signals you approach to revert to green. Likewise it’s very common to run from yellow to yellow if the train in front is also behind something.
Essentially the system is controlled by the passage of trains and receiving a double yellow does not mean you will definitely get a single yellow at your next signal and then red.
Can we all just appreciate the ITV style cue dot that comes up in the top corner before the adverts?
😉
@@PlainlyDifficult I’ve just stumbled across your channel, and I’m finding it very interesting, educational and well explained… gotta give you that compliment, even if you are a southerner 🤷♀️
Can't appriciate it, adblock. And nobody get pissy, I'd give the man money, no doubt. I'm just not wanting to give youtube money. "BuT ThAt'S nOt HoW iT WoRkS" - said the person I'm not giving money.
@@truth9958 As far as I'm concerned, if RUclips wants my money for "ad free" then they need to ban sponsored videos, "like and subscribe" messages, and "please give money" messages. I don't use ad block, but I'm not paying to remove ads unless all ads are removed.
In terms of the Paddington approaches, the aftermath of the Ladbroke Grove accident was significant. The route was resignalled again, with flank protection and 3-aspect signals to make sighting easier, and as a result the linespeed was reduced from 85mph to 50mph (or even 40mph east of Westbourne Park.) For several years lines 3 and 4 were locked out of use and Paddington effectively had to operate as two independent half-terminus stations side by side. Even today with all lines operating, there are severe restrictions applied on directionality of each line and what movements the Automatic Route Setting (ARS) system can set, which hampers capacity.
NB - on the missing flank protection in the original design (which actually made it non-compliant with BR’s standards in 1993), the justification was that ATP was imminent and therefore flank protection would be made redundant. Due to privatisation, the corporate memory of this was lost, and the decision not to properly install / utilise ATP was made without considering the requirement already built into the Paddington layout, setting the scene for Oct 1999.
Should be noted that TPWS is not actually designed to stop SPADs but rather mitigate their consequence by stopping the train in the overlap...not always possible due to various factors. ATP on the other hand was designed with stopping SPADs in mind.
TPWS alone won’t fully prevent a SPAD,, but used in conjunction with modifying the signalling to “Double Block” will prevent a train from ever reaching the protecting signal at a junction. With double block the driver will receive two yellows (PreliminaryCaution), a single yellow (Caution) and a red (Danger) but at the signal BEFORE the signal protecting the conflicting Junction giving the train an additional signal section to safely be bought to a complete stand before it ever reaches the fouling point at a junction.
@@2010craggy
Yes. Yes, exactly my thoughts.
Well ATP is clearly better than TPWS... at least if it was installed and working anyways. The crash couldn't be avoided even if the HST train (the one with it installed but defective) had it working since it wouldn't kick in until the signal was red and the driver responded anyway.
@@alex_zetsu: I thought defective ATP was the Southall crash?
@@fetchstixRHD
Southall's driver wasn't trained to use ATP and it wasn't mandatory to use it at that time. Defective AWS was the issue. The driver took over the train at Cardiff in that state, and rules at that time permitted trains in service to continue to destination with it isolated. Had AWS been working correctly, it is probable that the driver (who had been distracted packing things away in his bag) would have been alerted to refocus his mind back to the windscreen....
The staff from the Ladbroke Grove Sainsburys helped alot of the walking wounded that day of which was next to the train line.
Bless em, honestly. At least if you're a first responder, you go into work with the notion that you might have a major emergency to deal with. I can't imagine going to my old job at Walmart and having two busses crash in front of it.
A reminder that warning signs should be vetted to see how easily you can turn one symbol into another if some part of the message gets obscured. This has cropped up with airplanes mistaking "okay" for permission to take off, and I noticed it with AEDs giving the contradicting orders "Shock Advised" vs. "No Shock Advised," where if you happened to get distracted during the start of the message you hear the opposite command. Although an AED has other controls to prevent unwarranted shocks, it struck me that it should be something like "Shock Not Advised at This Time" or the like, something that even truncated does not sound like its opposite command.
@N Fels Just got certified, so yes, I got to hear a lot of the practice versions; that's *where* I went "hey, this is fine in a situation where it's quiet and relatively calm and there's not a whole bunch of other things going on right now, but what if the situation is a bit more chaotic?"
Having recently watched videos about horrible crashes with dozens or hundreds of fatalities that happened because someone got distracted and missed part of the message, or a sound happened at the wrong time and masked part of the message, I think my fear isn't entirely unfounded. That is, after all, why certain safety standards (e.g. the wording for takeoff approval) have been updated so that literally cannot happen no matter how noisy, distracted, or complicated the situation becomes.
Heck, that's why we have multiple alphabets where you cannot mistake one *letter* for another, no matter the conditions.
Your right it should be simple.a traffic light Green GO RED stop Amber Not Advised.
@@Steve211Ucdhihifvshi I wonder if things could be improved if they weren't all the same shape (round). Triangle for Caution, for example. And maybe "stop" could be larger than the other two.
Also, lately I've been given to think that common weather ought to be taken into account in design. I mean, I'm sure this actually *is* taken into account, at least generally speaking, but I've noticed that here in Washington, the most aptly named State in the Union, when it gets really rainy it's very hard to see the markings on the road. Which made me wonder if we couldn't create a type of paint, or even a raised surface, that would work better despite the rain.
Having a signal that is *designed* to operate despite sun glare -- e.g. one that reflects the sun a certain way based on the signal, so it still shows color or signal regardless -- might not be easy to design, but it could be quite useful. Maybe tilt the signal so it reflects sun only downwards and never toward the train? Heck, maybe throw up a filter that works like those sunglasses that filter out glare but still allow the color to shine through.
I have the hobby to recommend science-channel to those in
c-sections under science-channels... i mean... its kinda self-explanatory, really...
Anyway, want some?
You don’t have AEDs that tell you to “keep clear, shocking” warning or “resume compressions” voice instructions???
I remember this, but I was a kid when it happened so every time I've tried to mention it I've been really fuzzy about the details. Nobody has ever known what I was talking about! Thank you for clearing that up for me!
The mobile Alabama Sunset Limited Derailment, where a barge struck a swing bridge span and cause a amtrak train to fall into the river
i've seen this incident covered before (possibly on Forensic Files, i cant recall), and would really enjoy seeing it covered here as well. PD has a way of describing things that i really like, and he includes so much additional info that really gives a full understanding of the situation!
Although I had left the railway by then , I knew Brian Cooper, a nicer man you couldn't meet. R.I. P. Brian, and everyone one else who died.
I’ve been riding trains more often since moving into college and these videos make me appreciate just how safe and uneventful my trips always are
The lack of radiation or burst dams was balanced out by all the rail operation details. Nice vid!
Nice one Plainly, I have often wondered about the safety of trains on my travels, many quite complicated systems at work there for sure
However very safe.
@@youkofoxy I dont doubt it :)
I do the same. Logically, I know trains and planes are much safer than cars, but I often wonder. I think it may be the illusion of being 'in control' in a car that tends to trick us, when in truth we are exposed to the mistakes of others as well...
@@youkofoxy I have the hobby to recommend science-channel to those in
c-sections under science-channels... i mean... its kinda self-explanatory, really...
Anyway, want some?
I was twelve and at home, ironically enough playing with my wooden trains. The phone rings, it's my dad, telling me to turn on the TV. This accident was all over the news. He had helped rescue workers at Southall two years earlier with refreshments and other things. I will never forget this or Southall ever.
The horrorific last moments for driver Cooper as he had signal throwback. Driver Hodder too as he saw HST. Did he realise his mistake we'll never know.
Yeah i would of smashed emergency brake and ran back to pretend to help people but honestly just try and escape the colision.
Seeing as they both slammed on the brakes, it seems they did realise it. What a bummer.
@@HarryNott I mean did he realise he'd had a SPAD? When he saw HST?
@@vincitveritas3872 Quite possibly driver Hodder realized his mistake. Someone else in these comments mentioned his after-the-signal acceleration likely means he thought the signal was green and therefore that the AWS warning was incorrect (known to happen occasionally). When he saw the other train, the only explanations would be wrong-side failure or SPAD. If he'd just had a "presumed incorrect" AWS warning at a hard-to-read signal, the natural conclusion would be that AWS was actually correct and he'd misread the signal, and therefore that he had passed the signal at danger.
@@CoastalSphinx I remember being on a 156 with sun behind train. The driver despite getting a clear AWS which I could hear being near front stopped at two consecutive signals and used trackside phone twice to confirm aspect with powerbox. He informed us why we were running slowly. In that a difficult to read signal he takes as danger so it's 'failsafe' operations. He didn't rely on the AWS as it's the signal aspect that is important. That was just after the Paddington crash too.
7:02 “we’ll look more into this, later on”
That’s exactly what the rail company must have said at the time lmao
In US, Green is clear, Yellow is approach, and Red is stop or occupied. Permission to pass red after stop is sometimes given "at restricted speed, prepared to stop short of equipment on track or switches lined against you."
It is a mystery to me why a system has not been universally adopted that would stop a train within a few seconds of passing an approach signal should the person running the locomotive not respond. Such technology was available in the 1930's, as far as I know.
I went on this line shortly after the crash happened when I was 4 and remembering asking (too loudly) my Dad just after we left Paddington "Daddy are we going to crash?" Que awkward glances from other passengers...
450,000 subs? Dude that's incredible!
Thank you! It’s been a crazy few months! Thanks for your support along the way!
"So...your cost/benefit analysis showed that the system wasn't worth the money." The plaintiff barrister took off his glasses and cast a gimlet eye at the defendants, then said, "How about now?"
What was the quote, "if you think safety is expensive, try an accident"?
@@fetchstixRHD Pretty much spot on.
The brake pedal interface is one hard-won system. PRNDL was another.
Sometimes obvious is only obvious when it fails SPECTACULARLY! Or routinely, that works, too.
I think you really hit the mark with this video with a great amount of detail. As a railway worker myself I have been on track at Paddington near to SN109 and it still gives me the shivers to this day!
They must really hate that self trained Baboon signalman with the perfect safety record.
One I remember. I was young and I believe family and colleagues had involvement in aftermath (Certainly the case for other accidents) Very impressed with your railway knowledge! You're either a railway lad yourself or you've done your homework
i think he just does his homework tbh. He takes a lot of pride in what he does and he does excellent job of explaining it all and in simplistic terms.
he does his homework - he also makes SUPER in depth videos explaining exactly how nuclear power plants work down to the fine detail, to the point where it flies right over my head. dude is super fucking smart.
Great video.
I think it's worthy while adding around 17:40 regarding the read-accross of signal gantry 8, that it was non-uniform in that Line 1 had a standard 4-aspect signal head mounted down the supporting pillar while Lines 2 through 6 had the reversed-L shaped signal mounted on the gantry above the OHLE and track itself.
The approach to gantry 8 is on a long and gently sweeping left hand turn, there it is also very possible that driver Hodder focused on the wrong signal by counting three signal heads across the gantry from the left due to the inconsistent design and placement of signals on that gantry, which would have made him look at the signal for Line 4, rather than Line 3 on which he was driving. There was nothing in terms of visual aids which would have allowed a driver to identify from a distance which signal pertained to which line, and the curved nature track in that place means there a visual displacement of the signal you were looking straight ahead at relative to the signal you shouold have been looking at which would have been further to left.
I think that and the signal placement issue largely contributed to the accident.
Since the accident, giant white boards with the line number were installed on the signals in the Paddington area to make sure drivers can spot the correct line number signal for their line and the signals have been replaced with a standard one-aspect-three-colour LED signal to limit the risk of drivers getting confused having to work out the signal aspect from a four light heads in an area with obstructed vision.
My dad is a train driver and I live in Bedwyn, where one of the trains was bound for, it’s chilling hearing such familiar words and systems that my dad mentions, like TPWS as well as SPAD. My dad says that if you get yourself into a train crash, or something goes catastrophicly wrong, you hope that you’re killed because if the driver isn’t and the passengers are, they can be charged for manslaughter or loose your job.
Boom! Really informative video! I knew signal bleaching had contributed to that accident. What I didn't know is, what if anything had been done about it.
I have the hobby to recommend science-channel to those in
c-sections under science-channels... i mean... its kinda self-explanatory, really...
Anyway, want some?
Im still confused why anyone ever though that the warning sound and symbol for caution and danger should be the same....
The system was originally invented for two aspect signalling which lacked the caution aspects, and it was intended for driver alerting rather than train protection. Accordingly when it was applied to three and four aspects, the distinction was "clear" versus "not clear" and the equipment was installed ahead of the signal. A train protection system would have made the distinction "not danger" versus "danger" and would have been installed at the signal, with immediate emergency brake if passed at danger.
One of the most comprehensive analysis here of signaling in relation to this event! Your inside knowledge shows through. Much respect to all drivers and signalers!
I had finished working at Paddington station only a couple of months previous to this but being part of the safety team working on the Heathrow express project, I had the 2.5mile special safety ticket which allowed me to accompany workers up to Ladbrooke Grove.
Paddington is a confusing station when you are on the rails as it is difficult to know exactly where you are. There are 12 lines exitting the station that run alongside one another on a bend, accompanied by the resulting steelwork necessary for signal lights and looking back you have a hard job even seeing the station. The number of crossovers too, presented a danger as you couldn't tell which line the train was on as it could change very easily, I did the safest thing and told the group of any train heading our way whether it was on the track next to us or the farthest away, at least then they were all aware there was danger present.
The other problem is Paddington has infrastructure to both sides of the track and at certain times the sun shines down this alleyway so much so, it blinds you although the LED signals helps with that. At that time of course there were no LED's but I played my part 20yrs later advancing the usage of them.
The fact that AWS was not expanded to cover the deficiency of multi signaling is downright disturbing. simply adding more electro magnets and improving the counting circuitry would have allowed for however many signals needed to be covered. and counting circuitry is not complex by any stretchy of the imagination. I further find it disturbing that drivers still have to look outside the train as the main way of telling the signal. trains should be able to display the next signal in the cab IN FRONT OF THE DRIVER well in advance, especially in todays day and age.
They do! Just not all of them. In cab signalling is expensive. If the train fails, So has your signalling. When you have actual signals, they do not necessarily fail if your train does :). Modern trains are being fitted with new technology like this, but cost is a large thing.
What's even worse knowing this - The amount of motorists who jump reds... 🤑🤑
It also is not a big deal to implement a type of speed control into the train when you got multiple magnets in the track. That a single yellow for example requires the driver to slow down to 40 mph within a certain distance, and the last AWS before the danger signal can be passed only not exceeding 20 mph. So the train can be brought to a halt in advance of the signal, if he goes too fast, and a spad wouldn´t occur at all. And at 20 mph, a train passing danger should be brought to a halt within the overlap.
ETCS can show signal aspects in the cabs display. But thats complicated and expensive technology, especially on a huge rail network like the uk has got.
A system similar to described was trialled out, mostly because the risk of habitually cancelling AWS warnings was foreseen in multi-aspect colour light territory, but it ended up being replaced with the "standard" AWS. At this point anyway, the plan is to move towards ETCS in-cab signalling, which is pretty comprehensive and doesn't require signals...
Ironically, it might not have been an issue had the signals been left as the old semaphore type. Bleached out or not, you can still clearly see whether the signal arm is horizontal or at 45 degrees up or down (upper or lower quadrant).
I just love the way you explain signalling and the story,you rock and I believe you can make one of the best professors in the world
Why would anyone program a system that allows an unpredictable human to bypass a diagnosis of danger from a machine specifically intended to tell someone how dangerous a certain action is? I saw this on Reddit, "don't imply that your consumers are idiots, but always assume that they will be". The rail company should have had a more foolproof system, then again, my dad told me "if you make something foolproof, they'll make a better fool" and more comments on the Reddit post I mentioned earlier said "if you try to make something idiot proof, the universe will take offense to that and produce an even dumber idiot" and "You can't make something idiot proof because God makes the idiots and he's a much better designer than you are"
The point is a train engineer shouldn't be allowed to bypass a red signal just as a motorist isn't allowed to run a red light.
Literally every car ever build can pass a red signal just fine. Trains have had much more safety systems since the beginning. The trip cock system for example is something that has existed for 100 years, from the moment a single driver could operate a train dead man switches have been used as well.
In my experience, if you make a machine simpler to operate, the operators that want to do the job are simpler as well. In my field (CNC machining) this is very obvious. From the highly skilled machinists that used to operate CNC machines, to brain-dead button pressers that we have today (well, not all of them, but a lot).
@@slome815 oh that makes sense, so what you're saying is there has to be some difficulty or complexity otherwise it would be controlled by total idiots and once a difficult situation occurs they'll be dead in the water? I still think the system should have at least used a different visual and audio to signal a red light.
I learned way more about British rail travel than I thought I would ever need to know.
I starting working for a heavy haulage company not long after this accident happened and we took trains in and out of a yard where these carriages were being sifted through for personal belongings. Never forget the sight of them and what people must of gone through their minds. Horrible site.
Hard to believe it's been 23 years since this happened. My family came to England after my father got work here and decided it was easier to just hang around for 2-3 months then come back. He was on this train and 2 weeks earlier he was on a plane that overshot the runway and crashed
Qantas flight Sydney to Bangkok ?
@@nickc6882 Not sure mate, been a very long time. Could be. All I remember is the landing gear either didn't work on the front end or failed at some point during landing and it went into a building
We had Bell labs in the 1970s but the railway industry was effectively still using semaphore stations until 2000, great job guys.
Semaphore signalling has a very good record for a very long time in the UK. It was still used on minor lines in the UK until recently, though of course backed up with modern systems to help in poor visibility. There were still a few in use in 2020 IIRC. The great Settle-Carlisle line still has the semaphore signals in place, but I'm pretty sure they aren't in use, as there are also colour lights. I think they have been kept in place because it's a rather special line visually- I've never seen one other than at caution/danger. It's certainly odd that so many railway companies here were so obstructive to AWS and other systems in the early days when they were being used so effectively in the USA- especially as one British company, the Great Western, did have a pretty sophisticated system for its time even under steam.
Semaphore signalling is still in use on many rural lines in the UK today (2022). Most of the semaphore distant signals (yellow/green) have been replaced by colour lights, eg those on the Settle - Carlisle. The TPWS system has been applied to semaphore stop signals, making them safer.
Seeing that signal switch at the last second while going 81 mph…You know you’re dead and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Your graphics really help explain signalling which is fairly complex. Kudos to you (and quite interesting)!
It's amazing how easy these disasters fade from memory - I had forgotten all about this one...
As someone who works and plans for the railway, I really appreciated this video, I always love learning about the history of why we work the way we work and the way you presented this video was fantastic and very educational! Thank you!
Being into railway modelling (GWR) in the 80’s I was intrigued by the token system used sometime in the stoneage. Idiot-proof?!
Cannot remember when we had a serious accident in Sweden last time. Today the big problems is people finishing themselves off (last time a parent with two children) which causes a lot of psychological stress for the drivers.
As always a good and informative video!
If properly enforced, the token system works well on simple one-way tracks, but once you add complexity and multiple tracks to the system it doen not work anymore, because you would have to sacrifice throughput of trains. Thats why the ETCS standard is used in many countries, even outside the EU, since you can handle more trains safely.
Really informative video like always. This reminds me of the train accident in Columbia SC in 2018 between an Amtrak passenger train and a CSX manifest train.
I learned so much more than I expected from this video.
6:20 The origins of AWS is older than the 1950s as it was originally introduced in 1906 by, quite ironically on who's historical tracks this collision happened on, the Great Western Railway. When it was introduced by the GWR, it was known as "Automatic Train Control" (ATC) and was well ahead of this time, much like the GWR itself with its forward thinking.
Thats why im a GWR man ;)
My friend had just moved to Ladbroke grove a few months before this and I remember phoning him to see what had happened. Terrible disaster.
The speed of two vehicles colliding head on doesn't combine to equal the speed of both vehicles together.
I know, it's totally unintuitive. Mythbusters tested it with two vehicles coming together at 50 mph and the damage was the same as a 50 mph crash into an immovable concrete block.
The damage is rather obviously not the same - there’s two vehicles being destroyed, not one.
@@JasperJanssen well I guess you got me there. Haha.
If you hypothetically put your collision on a frictionless table - like, it’s a collision on a giant air hockey table, and the frictionless effects remains through the collision - then there is indeed no longer a difference between two items going at 50 each toward each other and an item going 100 toward something motionless (but which still has zero friction with the base). But the result will be very different - in one, the mangled wreckage will be more or less stationary wrt the ground, and in the other, the mangled mess of the two items will end up traveling onward at 50.
But what we’re actually proving with this gedankenexperiment is that the high speed car under that hypothetical would be getting damaged as if it were going 50, rather than the two slower cars getting damaged as if they were v fast - because what ends up happening is that it slows from 100 to 50, not from 100 to 0. And only the 2x50 variant resembles what actually happens when you do have friction.
@@JasperJanssen I was speaking more in a practical sense than a strictly scientific one, Of course the two impacts are not "the same."
My point is not that the forces would be identical, it's that the energy the two vehicles carry doesn't combine in terms of the damage done in the impact, rather they cancel each other out.
Makes sense to me. A car hitting a stationary car is a lot less damaged than if it hit an immovable wall.
Closest that 2nd car can come to simulating that wall would be to be moving toward the first car at the same speed.
I absolutely love this channel. He gives so many details and such a great explanation. On top of which he adds humor and excellent narration. Keep up the great work! I both love and appreciate you.
These videos are so educational and interesting to watch. So much good information and making sure to break it all down. Keep up the good work!
I am loving these longer videos!
Glad you like them!
Poor guy, gets a new job as a train driver and dies two weeks later
Just binged on a few of your UK train accident videos. Thank you, really well made and really informative about UK trains regs and signalling. Very informative and sensitively made considering lives were lost. Well done
I find it crazy that the signals aren’t standardized, ie a four light signal, green, on top, two yellows and red on the bottom, that way if a light was bleached you would still know the aspect by the position of the light.
Mind you, sunlight can make the lights on signals impossible to spot, regardless of which position it's in, or can make other lights appear as if they're lit when they aren't.
It sucks that so much life has to be lost to learn safety. Humans are a funny species.
Errr there is no other way. No one designs it. ....🤔 well maybe McDonnell Douglas ...
Privatization at it's finest.
Great coverage!
Excellent video and the first time it's been explained in chronological order. More transport related videos please, thanks Plainly!
Love your videos, sir. Thank you for all the hard work. I really appreciate your content.
It appears the AWS system was made to LOOK like a fail safe or parallel system, but its just a sub-system of the light circuit, to make shure the driver is alert, but didnt add more security to the process. A horn by the light box would be the same effect but the eletro magnetic system sell the ideia of safety.
So well done and informative! Watching for more!
Thank you!
THANK YOU! Thank you for putting the black and white gizmo in the corner for the adverts. I appreciate it
Funny you should mention the automobile park interlock; when I was a kid I was playing in my grandmother's old Ford with the engine off key out, pulled it out of park, rolled it down the driveway, across the street, and into a tree. No one was hurt save a scar on the tree, but that could have turned out way worse.
Ford had that problem for years. I have almost the same story, but without the tree.
Ford sucks. One of my earliest memories is my dad having his Fairmont with a Windsor V8 255 towed across the county to repair the engine. I'll never buy a Ford and I hope they go bankrupt.
the thames company being like "no maps for the route you're driving, you should know it" ?!?!?! no wonder this disaster happened when that could create a situation where the driver knows less about the route than the passengers
I would like to suggest the train crash of eschede (high speed train) as a possible interesting topic for a future video
I remember this well. Horrific.
Keep up the good work fella and stay safe.
A really clear explanation of all the factors involved. Very interesting - great stuff!
Coincidentally, it's cold, rainy and gloomy here in Michigan USA too. Ah, autumn
the joys of michigan weather...
I travelled out of St Pancras during the summer of 1999 on a tiny commuter train home to Bedford while doing an internship with a political party. It was standing room only on most days, which was a bit silly on a service that took an hour and went further than Bedford. When this happened, and I read about the burnt out carriages in ditches, I thanked all the Gods I could possibly think of that one of my trains hadn't rolled over like that, otherwise it would have been a total loss. I much preferred getting a seat to standing on those trains but I think in that situation, the people sat down would have been in a much worse position. It always surprised me how at the busiest times they'd put these crappy trains on and at other times on that route they'd have the massive, lavish ex intercity rolling stock.
On the plus side, although I moved to Reading after university and then down to Basingstoke (which was heavily affected by the Clapham crash) and I travel by rail every day now I'm in Basingstoke, I actually have good things to say about train travel. Before the pandemic it could get crowded, but having had to travel even during Covid, I must say I've never felt unsafe, and while much of that is the shortness of my commute, the line between Basingstoke and Reading is like if the M1 was a narrow country lane -- it's the main route south of Reading, itself a massive hub, and it's amazing how nothing has actually happened on it. It's a real testament to how railway workers and engineers do strive to keep us safe, and should be praised rather than eviscerated.
Another fantastically made video!! Such a tragic event
you do an excellent job of breaking things down and explaining them but I'm just not able to keep up with you. it all comes so fast but I always watch the entire video anyway. Another great video as always! cheers🤘🏻🏴