RAIU - Runaway locomotive at Portlaoise Loop on the 29th September 2011
 

Pretty damning I would say, and indicative of a laissez-faire attitude within IE in terms of procedure(the drivers involved not following the service tests and cab change procedures in full)and maintenance(failing to give the locomotive the scheduled overhaul).

Although to be slightly more fair, the real root cause is the fact there was an undetected leak in loco brake. That was down to an omission in regulations, so that's a problem for management and the whomever is meant to be regulating IE to ensure they are safely operating trains(RSC?). As a user of train sims and having some interest in trains, I would have thought as the driver did, simply applying the straight air brake should keep the LE loco from going anywhere for as long as it takes to operate a set of points(in the absence of a leak). But I'm not paid a comparatively high salary and issued a book of procedures to read and follow as he is.

Had the driver implemented the correct and full procedure of applying the combined train brake the locomotive would have remained firmly stopped regardless of the leak.

The rules are based on the fact the equipment is not going to be perfect and by applying both loco and train combined brake it ensures the brakes won't leak off (once the locomotive engine is still running). Its the combination of rules and multiple systems that are there to protect from an accident, no one single error should result in a critical state.

There are two critical issues, a proper brake test would have revealed the leak (probably missed by several drivers), combined brake should have been applied.

Even in perfect condition if you apply the loco brake only the brake will gradually bleed off, just at a very very slow rate that's why there is a hand or more correctly parking brake (as its not longer applied by hand on most trains)

The whole things is typical corner cutting with a lack of proper training and supervision and a failure to follow maintenance procedures and dates, that said the locomotive was well within the distance limits on its brakes

Yes, I agree entirely, my second post was really just playing devil's advocate. Safety should be the single most important factor for an operator, and that means applying all procedures fully even if they are a pain in the ass or cause delays. No excuses.

I really don't want to be around when Irish Rail's luck runs out. One the scale of bridge collapses, this one is minor but the lack of accountability at senior level surrounding serious incidents in Irish Rail is alarming.

Not only was the scheduled overhaul not done in 2011 (or earlier), there is no "formal" record of the previous one. IE really have an issue with corporate knowledge (a contributory factor to Broadmeadow). It looks like they could use a checklist system similar to the airlines too (although in that case there are two "drivers" managing that checklist). One wonders what is being left unsaid - perhaps (speculation ahead) the driver felt pressured to rush things because people were waiting for this loco to arrive when it was supposed to have been there in Portlaoise at the start of his duty. The RAIU has to walk a fine line in avoiding assessment of direct blame but one wonders what consequences are being seen in the IE training and maintenance hierarchy.

The 071s are being worked hard with doors from old locos being installed (unpainted) etc. Not throughly surprising corners are being cut elsewhere too.

What I don't get is why the hell these locomotives haven't been withdrawn yet. We have 10 fairly new (well not exactly new but newer than 071) and more powerful locomotives (201-205 + 210-214) stored in Inchicore which parts are easily available for rather than what Dowling said taking unsuitable parts from other classes of locomotives.

They have to keep some - there are weight limits on parts of the network which preclude the use of 201s for ballast trains and the like. The Tara traffic also has a limitation at the North Wall unloading point I understand. Their prime movers are still widely available and thus parts for those shouldn't be an issue, so it comes down to structural integrity and parts for things more unique to the 071/111 family in terms of how long they can go on.

As far as 201-205 etc., it was theorised at one point that they were set aside for sale purposes, similar to the 8200s being transferred to Inchicore this week and the 2700s before that. Clearly that didn't happen. They are supposed to be being started on a regular basis but the question is what else has been nicked from those units in the cause of keeping spares costs down that wouldn't stop an engine start from being done.

There has been an uptick in the number of 201s seen on container runs, this may be because of the need to pull in 071s for checks after this incident. It should also, hopefully, be the case that more 201s will be available simply because fewer will be breaking down on the Northern line now that the EGV project seems to be finally getting somewhere. There may be concern among the per way fraternity that increased use of 201s on containers may cause increased wear west of Portarlington but the extra 800hp is probably a good nice to have for the drivers.

201-205/210-214 are different machines to the rest, different bearings, couplers and fuel level systems, not to forget no hep and no push pull