The opposite effect of the runaway train coming over the hill......

[whole diary]

[chuffed]

Reading about the Indian set of carriages (22 in all) that rolled backwards for 7 miles after becoming detached from the locomotive. Footage on the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website shows the train going through a station at a fair old speed, with passengers shouting for help at open doors and windows, and being India, of course it was very crowded. Didn't hear how the issue was resolved. short of Indian Railways promising an investigation. For all we know it could have carried on into the Bay of Bengal! What a frightening experience for all those on board and for those who witnessed it.
Now this could never happen on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway),could it ?? Since when have seen a train of 22 coaches ?

[grahame]

Runbacks have had some dreadful consequences in the past ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armagh_rail_disaster

... not unknown even in recent times in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) ... engineering trains seem to be the worst culprits these days - recent case at Grayrigg and on Fife as I recall.

[Bmblbzzz]

There was a thread recently where someone explained how airbrakes and handbrakes work on trains. I don't understand why the airbrakes didn't stop the detached carriages. Can anyone explain that?

[stuving]

There was a thread recently where someone explained how airbrakes and handbrakes work on trains. I don't understand why the airbrakes didn't stop the detached carriages. Can anyone explain that?

Despite the wording of most reports, this was not an accidental detachment - the train reverses at Titlagarh and the engine (or engines) was running round. It takes a long time to recharge the air brake in a train that length, so it's usual to close the open end(s) with a valve. Something else (in this case a form of wheel chock) is required to hold the train still during the manoeuvre, and in this case staff have been suspended on the grounds they didn't do that.

[Bmblbzzz]

I see. I'm not sure whether that makes it more or less serious than an accidental detachment but having witnessed some *interesting* Indian working practices (I lived there for a few years) and bearing in mind the huge number of movements on Indian railways every day, it's in some ways less surprising. Thanks for the explanation.

[stuving]

I see. I'm not sure whether that makes it more or less serious than an accidental detachment but having witnessed some *interesting* Indian working practices (I lived there for a few years) and bearing in mind the huge number of movements on Indian railways every day, it's in some ways less surprising. Thanks for the explanation.

Note that it is intentionally a rather sketchy explanation, since I don't know what kind of brake system the trains have.

[Phantom]

Didn't hear how the issue was resolved.

100% true they placed a large number of rocks on the line to gradually slow it until completely stopped
Which in itself sounds a recipe for a disaster waiting to happen !

[Phantom]

Just found this on The Guardian website

India’s railway ministry said a “ghastly” accident had narrowly been avoided after 22 passenger carriages carrying about 1,000 people became detached from a train engine and sped backwards for miles before being stopped.

The runaway carriages rolled for seven miles in the north-eastern state of Odisha before being brought to a shuddering halt by rocks placed on the tracks by railway staff.

A spokesman for the railway ministry’s eastern division said on Sunday that none of about 1,000 passengers had been injured in the incident on Saturday night.

Seven railway employees who were reported not to have followed proper procedures were suspended and an investigation was opened into how the carriages became separated during the journey from the western state of Gujarat to Odisha, said JP Mishra, a spokesman.

Authorities believe that brakes normally applied when carriages are detached or attached to an engine were either incorrectly used or overlooked altogether.

“Something ghastly could have happened and it was averted by alert staff. Safety cannot be compromised,” Mishra told AFP. He said more heads were likely to roll, adding: “Everybody in the railways [ministry] is aghast and shocked.”

Mobile footage posted on social media showed the carriages speeding past a railway platform as helpless onlookers screamed and yelled at passengers to pull the train’s emergency brake.

More than 22 million passengers commute daily on about 9,000 trains across India.

The incident is the latest to beset the creaking rail network, which dates to the colonial era. Last November 13 coaches of an express train derailed in northern India, killing three people and leaving nine injured. A year before, 146 people died in a similar disaster.

A 2012 government report said that almost 15,000 people were killed in various ways every year on India’s railways and described the loss of life as an annual “massacre”.

[stuving]

There was a thread recently where someone explained how airbrakes and handbrakes work on trains. I don't understand why the airbrakes didn't stop the detached carriages. Can anyone explain that?

Despite the wording of most reports, this was not an accidental detachment - the train reverses at Titlagarh and the engine (or engines) was running round. It takes a long time to recharge the air brake in a train that length, so it's usual to close the open end(s) with a valve. Something else (in this case a form of wheel chock) is required to hold the train still during the manoeuvre, and in this case staff have been suspended on the grounds they didn't do that.

I still don't know what brake system was in use here, but with a bit more time I've concluded that my reasoning isn't relevant here. 22 carriages isn't "long" - and even a really long freight train can be parked temporarily using the air brakes.

However, the detach - run round - reattach process calls for the air cocks to be manipulated in the right sequence, and it's possible to get that wrong. So I'd guess from the reports that some secondary brake (scotching) was mandated just in case.