The highest standards of Iarnrod Éireann?

Judgement Day

Yet again IE's sloppy operating practices have come to light according to this report into an incident with a 29000 railcar set at Connolly Station in 2010. The problem was brought to the attention of IE by a contact cleaner!

http://www.raiu.ie/uploads/raiu/RAIU_InvestigationReport_29000_Suspension_Failure_R2011_002.pdf

Rashers72

Well written report in my opinion!

Hungerford

Look at the photo on page 3 of the report - how the hell did they miss that?

And they still haven't sorted out their maintenance paperwork issues.

* Sighs *

CIE

IE been kept too busy buying new rolling stock and retiring rolling stock in the middle of useful life cycle to worry about maintenance. Should such DMUs as these be travelling all the way out to Longford anyhow, a journey of about 74 miles one way?

mgmt

What was the potential danger? Could the train have derailed for example?

busman

Judgement Day wrote: »

Yet again IE's sloppy operating practices have come to light according to this report into an incident with a 29000 railcar set at Connolly Station in 2010. The problem was brought to the attention of IE by a contact cleaner!

http://www.raiu.ie/uploads/raiu/RAIU_InvestigationReport_29000_Suspension_Failure_R2011_002.pdf

So am I correct in saying that basically they took the valves from this carriage to try "fix" a different carriage and when they put them back the fitted them to the wrong side?

This was because when they "rob" parts no job card or instructions are issued when they are replaced?

Major hole in the maintenance system

P.S. I hope the clearer at least got employee of the month!

coylemj

Typical public service whitewash. If Jack O'Connor of SIPTU had written the report he couldn't have done better. The problem is always to do with lack of training or poor documentation.

Heaven forbid that they'd actually write a report which identified named individuals and found them to be guilty of gross incompetence because then they'd actually have to fire someone but of course anyone working in the public service in this country is completely immune from this sanction so when they screw up and there's an 'investigation' we all know what to expect.

markpb

The pupose of the RAIU, just like the NTSB in America isn't to point the finger. They're there to work with the transport staff to find out what went wrong and identify ways to stop it happening in future. If they went on the attack, employees would be less likely to cooperate with future investigations. There's nothing stopping Irish Rail from persuing the individual at fault if they want to.

shamwari

markpb wrote: »

The pupose of the RAIU, just like the NTSB in America isn't to point the finger. They're there to work with the transport staff to find out what went wrong and identify ways to stop it happening in future. If they went on the attack, employees would be less likely to cooperate with future investigations. There's nothing stopping Irish Rail from persuing the individual at fault if they want to.

That's correct. The RIAU is more interested in what went wrong rather than who got it wrong.

DWCommuter

shamwari wrote: »

That's correct. The RIAU is more interested in what went wrong rather than who got it wrong.

Will IE identify who got it wrong and why?

shamwari

DWCommuter wrote: »

Will IE identify who got it wrong and why?

I would like to think so, but when you look at the lack of accountability with the Malahide collapse then I wouldn't hold my breath.

Pineapple stu

DWCommuter wrote: »

Will IE identify who got it wrong and why?

Ye, they would have already known who was responsible and would have delt with it. Will they publish his or her name? No.

Pineapple stu

shamwari wrote: »

I would like to think so, but when you look at the lack of accountability with the Malahide collapse then I wouldn't hold my breath.

The train driver got it right at the time didnt he ?

foggy_lad

Pineapple stu wrote: »

The train driver got it right at the time didnt he ?

And if he hadn't? Would someone have been accountable then for the loss of countless lives because nobody in Irish rail could be arsed to write stuff down and keep it safe in some office? God knows Irish rail have enough empty offices for records storage!

Pineapple stu

foggy_lad wrote: »

And if he hadn't? Would someone have been accountable then for the loss of countless lives because nobody in Irish rail could be arsed to write stuff down and keep it safe in some office? God knows Irish rail have enough empty offices for records storage!

But he did . There you go again assuming

foggy_lad

Pineapple stu wrote: »

But he did . There you go again assuming

At least one person working for Irish rail was awake that day thank god. Why were others not immediately sacked and charged with endangering lives?

If such a near miss happened in air traffic control heads would roll.

shamwari

Pineapple stu wrote: »

The train driver got it right at the time didnt he ?

Indeed he did and all credit to him. But he was not responsible for the maintenance regime which precipitated the collapse.

Nor do I blame the guys who inspected the viaduct beforehand because the structure they inspected was ok and this was verified by a track inspection car which traversed the viaduct a day or two beforehand. Such inspections were useless when the real problems lay beneath the water, and therefore undetected. Someone in a senior position has to be accountable for that.

foggy_lad

shamwari wrote: »

Indeed he did and all credit to him. But he was not responsible for the maintenance regime which precipitated the collapse.

Nor do I blame the guys who inspected the viaduct beforehand because the structure they inspected was ok and this was verified by a track inspection car which traversed the viaduct a day or two beforehand. Such inspections were useless when the real problems lay beneath the water, and therefore undetected. Someone in a senior position has to be accountable for that.

Maybe we just cant expect Irish rail employees to recognise or accept that there was anything under the water and that all safety inspections etc should be taken out of their control? Common sense would have told them surely that the Viaduct was not floating just under the water level?

The real problem is they have no standards and this clearly shows in that the several recent derailings and accidents including this malahide incident happened, and instead of doubling up or increasing safety checks and insisting that important safety people like track walkers keep up to date records, Irish rail decided to stop keeping records so we do not now know if any safety checks were carried out!

We only have the word of people whose reccollections may be confused or clouded by something as simple as a good night on the tiles they are only human after all but keeping important safety records is part of their daily/weekly work so if they fail this they should be sacked!

nanu nanu

http://www.raiu.ie/uploads/raiu/RAIU_InvestigationReport_29000_Suspension_Failure_R2011_002.pdf
:eek::eek:

Cookie_Monster

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056270697
done already

AlekSmart

Hmmmm....Interesting report alright.

yet it appears not to dwell on one other major contributory cause of the incident,the nil-stock of Suspension levelling Valves

During the shift from 20:00 on the 4th
May 2010 to 08:00 on the 5th
May 2010 the light maintenance
team were carrying out fault finding checks on another Class 29000 that required two levelling valves.
There were no levelling valves available from the stores, therefore, the Duty Manager instructed the
staff to use levelling valves from Unit 10. The levelling valves on the trailer bogie of carriage 29310
were removed. Once the levelling valves were no longer required, they were tagged and placed in
the duty manager’s office for refitting on carriage 29310 during the next shift. The removal of the
parts was logged in the duty manager handover report under the parts robbed section (IÉ, 2010a). A
job card was produced for fitting of the levelling valves on the other unit. No job card was produced
for refitting the levelling valves to Unit 10.

This "robbing" of parts would be familiar to fitters,mechanics and maintenance people in may areas,it is quite normal practice,however it should not be allowed to become "The Norm" in large facilities such as Drogheda Maintenance Shed.

I would be questioning the CME Rail on the level of Parts Stock for running gear on the IE fleet and what if any parts holding review has taken place.

Engineering managers worldwide are now expected to perform Engineering Accountancy tasks as an integral part of their job descriptions....however the two disciplines are not necessarily complimentary of each other especially when it relates to safety-critical areas such as Brakes,Sterering or Suspension.

Lessons here for everybody involved in Public Transportation..on Land,Sea and Air :eek:

Pineapple stu

What recent derailments and accidents ?

Victor

Pineapple stu wrote: »

What recent derailments and accidents ?

Cahir, Skerries, Malahide, this. Others no doubt.

Pineapple stu

Victor wrote: »

Cahir, Skerries, Malahide, this. Others no doubt.

Its hardly to the scale as Potters Bar now is it.

This? no derailment or accident in the thread . Malahide wasnt down to poor maintenance of the per way and a disaster was prevented through the skill of the Train driver. IR would have taken action to make sure of no repeats. Im not sure to the incidents at Cahir and Skerries but heavy rain and landslides was to blame in one or two .

markpb

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Malahide wasnt down to poor maintenance of the per way and a disaster was prevented through the skill of the Train driver. IR would have taken action to make sure of no repeats.

Why didn't IR take action to make sure it didn't happen in the first place? Your defence of your employer is admirable but slightly terrifying if it represents the average approach to safety in more relevant departments.

Pineapple stu

My employer has no mention in C&T

Losty Dublin

markpb wrote: »

Your defence of your employer is admirable but slightly terrifying if it represents the average approach to safety in more relevant departments.

It's amazing how anybody who defends, agrees, condones, defends or generally concurs with a CIE company position, they are automatically taken to work for same.

newmug

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Its hardly to the scale as Potters Bar now is it.

This? no derailment or accident in the thread . Malahide wasnt down to poor maintenance of the per way and a disaster was prevented through the skill of the Train driver. IR would have taken action to make sure of no repeats. Im not sure to the incidents at Cahir and Skerries but heavy rain and landslides was to blame in one or two .

What exactly did the driver do?

foggy_lad

Pineapple stu wrote: »

What recent derailments and accidents ?

The many accidents derailments and incidents which are down to staff error in a few cases but mostly due to track and points issues related to poor maintenance and lack of safety checks to ensure track and points well past their useful life are replaced.

One such recent incident involved maintenance equipment at Limerick junction.

markpb

Pineapple stu wrote: »

My employer has no mention in C&T

Losty Dublin wrote: »

It's amazing how anybody who defends, agrees, condones, defends or generally concurs with a CIE company position, they are automatically taken to work for same.

Who's making assumptions? Pineapple Stu posted publicly in the Conflict of Interest thread that he works for Irish Rail.

foggy_lad

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Irish Rail,but not the Traffic Dept.;)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=126578&page=4

Pineapple stu wrote: »

My employer has no mention in C&T

you work for Irish rail but they are not mentioned in commuting and transport? I must be missing something...?

It's amazing how anybody who defends, agrees, condones, defends or generally concurs with a CIE company position, they are automatically taken to work for same.

Or taken to be involved in restoration or heritage groups with close links to CIE and Irish rail. Often a quick and short post in the conflict of interest thread clears up a lot of the confusion.

Transportuser09

My guess is that following this report such "robbing" practices in depots will be clamped down on more. If this incident has created more awareness then that can only be good thing.

As for conflict of interests, in fairness being involved in a heritage group isn't really one when discussing Irish Rail, unless they worked for the Heritage Department in Irish Rail, which as far as I know barely exists.

shamwari

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Its hardly to the scale as Potters Bar now is it.

This? no derailment or accident in the thread . Malahide wasnt down to poor maintenance of the per way and a disaster was prevented through the skill of the Train driver. IR would have taken action to make sure of no repeats. Im not sure to the incidents at Cahir and Skerries but heavy rain and landslides was to blame in one or two .

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with this. Your defence of your employer is commendable and I do admire you doing it and also fully respect your right and entitlement to do same.

However Rail safety is not a privilege. It is a right. And to say Malahide wasn't down to poor maintenance is splitting hairs thinner than the proverbial atom to the point where it annoys me. In an earlier post I stated that I wouldn't blame those who checked the structure and deemed it ok because of the unfolding events below the water that were of sight. However, the regime should have included suitable underwater inspections of the structure and detected the erosion of weir bed. This serious oversight was recognised in the RAIU report as a shortcoming in the maintenance regime but nobody was held accountable.

The avoidance of an horrific accident that had the potential to wipe out me, my family, my friends and my neighbours in one go that day had more to do with good luck than anything else. Coming on here and trying to downplay the seriousness of that incident on the back of its fortuitous avoidance is a dreadfully flippant thing to do. Had that driver been a few seconds later, his brilliance may not have been enough and we could be talking about that day in far darker terms than we otherwise are. That assumes of course that I and others would be here to do same. :mad:

DWCommuter

shamwari wrote: »

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with this. Your defence of your employer is commendable and I do admire you doing it and also fully respect your right and entitlement to do same.

However Rail safety is not a privilege. It is a right. And to say Malahide wasn't down to poor maintenance is splitting hairs thinner than the proverbial atom to the point where it annoys me. In an earlier post I stated that I wouldn't blame those who checked the structure and deemed it ok because of the unfolding events below the water that were of sight. However, the regime should have included suitable underwater inspections of the structure and detected the erosion of weir bed. This serious oversight was recognised in the RAIU report as a shortcoming in the maintenance regime but nobody was held accountable.

The avoidance of an horrific accident that had the potential to wipe out me, my family, my friends and my neighbours in one go that day had more to do with good luck than anything else. Coming on here and trying to downplay the seriousness of that incident on the back of its fortuitous avoidance is a dreadfully flippant thing to do. Had that driver been a few seconds later, his brilliance may not have been enough and we could be talking about that day in far darker terms than we otherwise are. That assumes of course that I and others would be here to do same. :mad:

WOW!

Better than Obama and the Queen!

Pineapple stu

markpb wrote: »

Who's making assumptions? Pineapple Stu posted publicly in the Conflict of Interest thread that he works for Irish Rail.

Erm??????? no

Pineapple stu

shamwari wrote: »

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with this. Your defence of your employer is commendable and I do admire you doing it and also fully respect your right and entitlement to do same.

However Rail safety is not a privilege. It is a right. And to say Malahide wasn't down to poor maintenance is splitting hairs thinner than the proverbial atom to the point where it annoys me. In an earlier post I stated that I wouldn't blame those who checked the structure and deemed it ok because of the unfolding events below the water that were of sight. However, the regime should have included suitable underwater inspections of the structure and detected the erosion of weir bed. This serious oversight was recognised in the RAIU report as a shortcoming in the maintenance regime but nobody was held accountable.

The avoidance of an horrific accident that had the potential to wipe out me, my family, my friends and my neighbours in one go that day had more to do with good luck than anything else. Coming on here and trying to downplay the seriousness of that incident on the back of its fortuitous avoidance is a dreadfully flippant thing to do. Had that driver been a few seconds later, his brilliance may not have been enough and we could be talking about that day in far darker terms than we otherwise are. That assumes of course that I and others would be here to do same. :mad:

2 points, dont be assuming that you know who my employer is and the driver wasnt late so there is no point arguing over "What ifs "

Pineapple stu

foggy_lad wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=126578&page=4

you work for Irish rail but they are not mentioned in commuting and transport? I must be missing something...?

Or taken to be involved in restoration or heritage groups with close links to CIE and Irish rail. Often a quick and short post in the conflict of interest thread clears up a lot of the confusion.

Yep, you missed the bit where i said my employers are not mentioned in commuting and Transport

2007 post? dont believe every post you read

-Chris-

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Yep, you missed the bit where i said my employers are not mentioned in commuting and Transport

2007 post? dont believe every post you read

Are you saying your post in the Conflict of Interests thread was false/deliberately misleading?


Any chance you could stop being cryptic and just lay your cards on the table so that the thread isn't dragged off-topic?

Victor

shamwari wrote: »

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with this. Your defence of your employer is commendable and I do admire you doing it and also fully respect your right and entitlement to do same.

However Rail safety is not a privilege. It is a right. And to say Malahide wasn't down to poor maintenance is splitting hairs thinner than the proverbial atom to the point where it annoys me. In an earlier post I stated that I wouldn't blame those who checked the structure and deemed it ok because of the unfolding events below the water that were of sight. However, the regime should have included suitable underwater inspections of the structure and detected the erosion of weir bed. This serious oversight was recognised in the RAIU report as a shortcoming in the maintenance regime but nobody was held accountable.

The avoidance of an horrific accident that had the potential to wipe out me, my family, my friends and my neighbours in one go that day had more to do with good luck than anything else. Coming on here and trying to downplay the seriousness of that incident on the back of its fortuitous avoidance is a dreadfully flippant thing to do. Had that driver been a few seconds later, his brilliance may not have been enough and we could be talking about that day in far darker terms than we otherwise are. That assumes of course that I and others would be here to do same. :mad:

Good post.

For clarity, the eroded weir / bridge foundation was perfectly visible at low tide and the Sea Scouts provided photos of the damage.

Pineapple stu, Irish Rail have been lucky over the last while that most accidents (the official railway term for an incident that causes injury*) haven't been severe. While much track and passenger rolling stock has been replaced and accommodation crossings removed, many of the stuctures (bridges, tunnels, embankments and cuttings) are dated, as are parts of the signalling system, points, stations, etc.



* In the road safety world, the term has been replaced with "collision" as "accident" implies no responsibility. However, not all traffic deaths are collisions in the traditional sense.

shamwari

Pineapple stu wrote: »

2 points, dont be assuming that you know who my employer is and the driver wasnt late so there is no point arguing over "What ifs "

Two points back: The assumption that you are an employee of Irish Rail is a reasonable one given your comments in the Conflicts of Interest thread, and the clearly apparent defence of that organisation in your comments. As I said earlier, I genuinely have no problem with you being an employee of IR (if you are) or even defending them. In many respects that is a noble thing to do.

As regards arguing over "what ifs", the facts are that the Viaduct collapsed because the maintenance regime failed to detect and address the underwater issues which led to the collapse, and nobody in the organisation at a senior level has been held accountable. This in my mind is beyond defence. The driver played no material role in causing the collapse and could not prevent it. He behaved commendably in bringing his train to safety in an extremely difficult situation. However his starring role should not distract focus from the accidents causes and the apparent lack of accountability for the oversights of others in Irish Rail, and the fact that nobody was killed or injured has more to do with luck than anything else. There is no arguing with any of this.

Drimnagh Road

Just a quick question which has intrigued me for some time,

Given that there has been a severe speed restriction on Laytown Viaduct for many months now - at least September - and that IE issued two tenders in relation to the upgrade,

http://etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=DEC187905

http://etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=DEC187903

can we assume that during the nationwide bridge inspection that took place after the Malahide collapse that this also was a bridge that was an accident waiting to happen or would this have been scheduled work?

foggy_lad

Drimnagh Road wrote: »

Just a quick question which has intrigued me for some time,

Given that there has been a severe speed restriction on Laytown Viaduct for many months now - at least September - and that IE issued two tenders in relation to the upgrade,

http://etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=DEC187905

http://etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=DEC187903

can we assume that during the nationwide bridge inspection that took place after the Malahide collapse that this also was a bridge that was an accident waiting to happen or would this have been scheduled work?

The speed restriction would probably imply an immediate danger from faster moving rolling stock unless there are people working along that stretch of track. could there be another collapse? Nobody can see into the future but if all records are kept and stored up to date there is less to worry about.

Rud

shamwari wrote: »

As regards arguing over "what ifs", the facts are that the Viaduct collapsed because the maintenance regime failed to detect and address the underwater issues which led to the collapse, and nobody in the organisation at a senior level has been held accountable. This in my mind is beyond defence. The driver played no material role in causing the collapse and could not prevent it. He behaved commendably in bringing his train to safety in an extremely difficult situation. However his starring role should not distract focus from the accidents causes and the apparent lack of accountability for the oversights of others in Irish Rail, and the fact that nobody was killed or injured has more to do with luck than anything else. There is no arguing with any of this.

Very well said.The fact that certain people would brush aside the seriousness of the collapse at Malahide is sickening,as is the ineptness of Irish Rail staff to discover the problem at the viaduct,at the time

Pineapple stu

-Chris- wrote: »

Are you saying your post in the Conflict of Interests thread was false/deliberately misleading?


Any chance you could stop being cryptic and just lay your cards on the table so that the thread isn't dragged off-topic?

Who i work for is of no importance to this or any other thread .

foggy_lad

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Who i work for is of no importance to this or any other thread .

Were you lying in the conflict of interest thread? Would you care to update your entry in that thread if you no longer work for Irish rail?

And others may disagree but from your constant defending and promoting of Irish rail you are more like a shill IMHO.

Is that you Dick (Fearn)?

Pineapple stu

foggy_lad wrote: »

Were you lying in the conflict of interest thread? Would you care to update your entry in that thread if you no longer work for Irish rail?

And others may disagree but from your constant defending and promoting of Irish rail you are more like a shill IMHO.

Is that you Dick (Fearn)?

Come back to me when you are the mod for the section .

Losty Dublin

Drimnagh Road wrote: »

Just a quick question which has intrigued me for some time,

Given that there has been a severe speed restriction on Laytown Viaduct for many months now - at least September - and that IE issued two tenders in relation to the upgrade,

http://etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=DEC187905

http://etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=DEC187903

can we assume that during the nationwide bridge inspection that took place after the Malahide collapse that this also was a bridge that was an accident waiting to happen or would this have been scheduled work?

The viaduct has been earmarked for a rebuilding and refurbishment for a long time now. The intention was always that this work be held off prior to the relaying and renewal of the Belfast line; this will be done DV before September. Those two tenders are for materials needed for same.

-Chris-

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Who i work for is of no importance to this or any other thread .

Maybe you misunderstand. The incongruities in your statements are important, not who your employer is.


- I've asked you if your post in the Conflicts of Interest thread is false or misleading. You've refused to answer.

- You're giving cryptic answers that imply you are an "insider", but your lack of clarity on this issue is dragging the thread off-topic.

- All that was really needed was to say "I do/I don't work for Irish Rail" or even to say "delete my post in the CoI thread, I'll post as an average Joe".


Honestly, I don't care who you work for, it makes no difference to me.


Identifying yourself as an IR employee, posting as an "insider" and then saying "not every post you read is true (referring to your CoI post), what does it matter to you who I work for?" smacks of Trolling tbh.


As such, I'm removing your access to C&T for Trolling until you can give Victor and myself reason to believe you are not, in fact, a Troll.

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Come back to me when you are the mod for the section .

*waves*