A set of points near the site of the Cumbria train crash site were faulty, an initial report has found.
Investigators have found one of three stretcher bars was not in position, one had nuts and bolts missing and two were fractured. The bars join the moving rails, keeping them a set distance apart.
Network Rail chief executive John Armitt said his organisation was "devastated" by the report and he offered an "unreserved apology".
One of the stretcher bars was possibly fractured before Friday night's West Coast Main Line crash and one possibly after, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) said in its report.
It also said there was no evidence the bolts had been "wrenched free" and indications were that the points "were the immediate cause of the derailment".
Mr Armitt said: "Network Rail is devastated to conclude that the condition of the set of points at Grayrigg caused this terrible accident."
He added: "We would like to apologise to all the people affected by the failure of the infrastructure."
He said the company now needed to understand how the points came to be in their reported condition.
Speaking at the scene before the interim report was published, Deputy Chief Constable Andy Trotter from the British Transport Police said it was too early to say whether the inquiry would be considering criminal charges.
Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander is expected to make a statement on the crash in the Commons shortly.
Work on removing the train carriages from the site is not expected to begin until the end of the week.
Contractors are currently building two temporary roads from steel across muddy fields to allow heavy lifting gear access, and cranes will take about 48 hours to set up.
"We have been doing a finger-tip search of the site, trying to work around the carriages which, although stable at the moment, we are mindful of the fact that it's a very unstable environment," said Ch Supt Martyn Ripley, of the British Transport Police.
I agree that UK railway industry was always down to decision of political level, no matter it is in private or public sector. However UK have done a lot of modelling and simulation on each and individual project. No matter is a new build or continuous maintenance.
Since I started in Metronet, I have seen UK industry has always been trying to find root causes in every incident whether it is in LU or Network Rail. Every report is available in Office of Rail Regulator / HMRI website and within their respective company.
I think HMRI have definitely look into all possibilities before rule out and wheel-rail interface as the cause of incident in Potters Bar. I am not a expert in incident investigation so I cannot comment what causes for this time, I am just a news reader and saying what BBC reporting now.
The HMRI safety/maintenance approval regime is so tough that you have to prove yourself innocent in law of court if something gone wrong (something different in Common Law in England).
Here's the Rail Accident Investigation Branch interim report on the derailment. Click here. I personally believe a professional expert report is a final truth report to any accident. Please comment based on this report.
原帖由 tommykwan 於 2007-2-27 02:15 發表
I agree that UK railway industry was always down to decision of political level, no matter it is in private or public sector. However UK have done a lot of modeling and simulation on each and in ...
After reading the interim report, the status of the stretcher bar reminds mystery. I'd say this report is more persuasive then news source.
1) What had happened to the regular maintenance.
2) What's the status of those stretcher bars before the incident.
3) Is there anything other then the immediate cause had ever happened.
4) How the stretcher bars was being damaged.
5) Can anything be able to done to improve the failure safety of that point.
(3 stretcher bar is enough to provide the required failure safe if they were maintained properly)
Well, someone happened failing to understand the importance of questions above, although some reason was due to my lack of skills on converting the question in mind into question above quick and effective enough. Some part that leads to so much time were spaced as a immediate result. I deeply regret for that.
If you use the question above to re-read my post, you shall understands why I've to ask that way if you are knowledgeable enough.
Since these questions is just the beginning, we'll see how much can the investigation can be done.
Political pressure is important in terms of resources, but that' could be only but one thing for maintenance.
The mindset of safenesses of all the front line staff also plays an important role for such preventive maintenance, too.
I love debate, it doesn't necessary make a big mindset change on incident investigation but it makes a brainstorm to everyone. I always learn something new everyday...
PS to 500: I would like to know how 點針對式 work in Japan, do you know the English name for that?
