UK TRAIN CRASHES - PADDINGTON RAIL DISASTER - LADBROKE GROVE 1999 

Lol

Wow thats like that horror film Final Destination. Still worse things could have happened if you was on that train. Hope your health is better these days!

Sorry mate but it sounds like you messed with gods plan

I’m sorry but why did they tell them not to say anything to the press? They were just car parking attendants what would they have known?? Sounds a bit weird to me

I’m so sorry for your loss 🙏

Oh my god, i'm so sorry about bob :(

I didn't even watch it because the first minute is Hollywood clickbait sensationalism. I'm sorry you lost your friend.

Since the mid-1990s the railway was already developing the concept of what was to become TPWS (Train Protection & Warning System) which does just that. It followed the Transport Secretary's agreement with the railway in 1994 that the safety benefits of Automatic Train Protection (ATP) as used on the Great Western and Chiltern lines did not justify the enormous cost of fitting it nationwide. TPWS is designed to achieve most of ATP's overrun protection capability at a fraction of the cost. Just two months before Ladbroke Grove, Parliament passed the Railway Safety Regulations mandating a form of train protection system and TPWS national fitment programme was all done with a couple of years. TPWS is very successful and was the railway's biggest single safety improvement project.

Well yeah but wait until they have driverless trains it will be a lot worse cos how are driverless trains going to be able to read signals

@@benconway9010 driverless trains don't rely on looking at the colour of the signal

once the signal was installed it was railtrack property so it was railtracks who should have changed it

@@flee6818 Remember also that there had been a number of previous SPaDs at SN109, evidence that other drivers had particular problems with it. Indeed Railtrack/ Network Rail HAD changed SN109 (and others on same gantry) to its reverse L shape following one of those previous incidents, but the court agreed with the H&SE prosecutors that this was not enough.

Many people have reuploaded this video...

Probably thought it was a double yellow when in fact it was a red.

Because of sighting of signal SN109 if you watched it properly you would of known that

@Stu Pretty sure that the driver saw the yellow and would've gone, right the next signal is Danger (Red). Drivers should be trained / are trained that if you can't properly read the aspect, treat it like it's a danger / red aspect and report it to the signaller.

Exactly,if he thought it was amber then surely you'd continue with caution expecting a red signal next? 🤔

Yes that's the first reaction a good signaller. Safety first and not worrying about delays caused. But that all changed with privation. When I left the UK and Network Rail in 2008, it was all about performance, the catch phrase was "Safe Performance" . Luckily there was still the "Old School' in our Signal Boxes at Banbury & Leamington Spa who would throw a signal back in front of a train and then contact Control in reaction to any incidence. I hate to think now 14 yrs later with all the fast track university graduates brain washed into performance figures how the signalling centres are run. "Hey mate, just a call from Joe public about some cows lineside" "Are they going cause a delay?" "Not sure, but there are several dozen of them" " OK better call a friend in Control to get some advise"

The signalling regs were subsequently tightened up to make clear that these actions must be done immediately.

I don’t understand why the interlocking didn’t revert SN146 when SN109 was SPAD and the TC occupied or how the points where set so the head on collision could happen as one train would have had to pass the other at some point if the accident happen happened. Would a signaller advise on this please?

They did?? 😮

Well said John, I was going to comment on exactly the same thing. Also a Yellow signal is a caution meaning that the next signal is displaying a Stop aspect, therefore the driver should be slowing down NOT accelerating. But you can't let facts get in the way of dramatic story !!

And what if a train passes a signal and crashes to the back of another train? :P Stand in the middle.^^

@@flyingboy8095 then what about a train spads and accidentally crosses the junction your train is crossing?

@@Tobu9105F That is not really possible in most countries with advanced train protection systems

In the Selby disaster the people in the front carriages survived. It's just luck or bad luck on the day...

In the Eschede crash in Germany, the 2nd carriage & behind were derailed, but the 1st was unscathed. 100 people killed, EXCEPT those in the first carriage.

I think it was an old design

The had no footage of an 166 cab, I think.

It's a simulation - the general public don't know what the cab layout of a 165 is like

Yep the sun certainly plays in mysterious ways

@@benconway9010 painful life-changing completely avoidable ways

Bell 🛎️ end

No one really cares

Yellow means 'caution, be prepared to stop at the next signal', it is a warning that the next signal is red. Trains are big and heavy, they take a long time to stop, the HST that crashed at Ladbroke Grove would have taken a mile to stop from full speed, and they cannot swerve or avoid obstacles. You therefore need plenty of advance warning to slow down. Modern brakes are better, but not that much better, especially in poor visibility or where there is low adhesion and anyway you don't wanna be going around using full emergency braking on a regular basis as it is dangerous for the passengers and on board staff who could be in the loo, buying food from a trolley, walking down the aisle, or just sat in their seat drinking their scalding hot coffee. Trains are not cars, railway signals are not traffic lights

@@LUAu101 thanks TIL

Because It is a Class 390

Yeah that genuinely made me laugh

Nobody wears bowler hats anymore. Especially not in a train. Try again.

Yep very true and they would have to have been travelling the same speed as the train as well

Pieces *

It’s a 166 not a 465

If you're really interested, red is danger: stop. Yellow is caution: proceed but expect to find the next signal at danger (red). Double yellow, where it occurs, is preliminary caution: expect to find the next signal at yellow and the one after at danger (red). Green is clear: crack on. It's yellow because it's a warning signal of a red to come. Different shapes will not be at all noticeable at any distance, it's a beam of light. There are signals which flash and they have their own meaning, but I wouldn't say having your stop indication dimming and brightening and dimming and brightening is the best idea, nor would it be as easy to pick out through fog or if it's partially obscured by sunlight or branches or any other factor which would mean you want that bright red light shining clearly for as long as possible. Yellow is perfectly easy to distinguish from red hence the billions upon billions of journeys which have been made over more than a hundred years, each of which passes dozens and hundreds of signals, where this hasn't been a problem. And it wasn't here either. The point was the sun washed out the red and appeared to reflect off the yellow lens. It wasn't that the red light was shining clearly but the driver thought it was yellow because they look similar. If you look at the examples in this video you can see that the problem occurs with all the colours and would be just as bad if not worse if one of them started flashing ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5JlHdBkVS4k.html

It was the sun that gave the impression the signal was yellow, and the red, being to the left, was probably not visible.. and of course the AWS did not determine the difference between red and yellow, which was normal practice at the time, if the driver had passed yellow signals since leaving Paddington, and the sun gave the impression he had a single yellow, that is why he accelerated, and was perfectly explained in the documentary. the signal was at red.

That wasn't a factor at all. It was the combination of an newly-qualified train driver, working in a very complex and busy layout, with some signals that were difficult to see because of various features causing temporary obscurations approaching them. After the collision most Paddington area signals were replaced with more compact LED units mounted a lot lower down to give uninterrupted sightlines, and some changes were made to the controls so that certain signals can no longer be approached simultaneously unless there are points available to divert any overunning train away from a collision path.

No it isn't.

"If there was a guard on the train he wouldn’t have ran the red signal"

this dude clearly failed physics.

If 2 cars collide both travelling at 70mph it's the equivalent of one car hitting a stationary object at 140mph.

so where does all the force in the other car go then?

He can balance on waves 'if that's him' but not comprehend basic physics 😂

That's Not a Nice Comment How Would You Like It If You Were In That Situation and The General Public Laughed about It

I am currently reading Woolmar’s book about this. You’re not wrong. Had a part to play in the signal people not having the facility to call the Thames train directly.