If satellite phones were issued, I would expect that they would be issued to each relevant employee, as with other equipment, and therefore that a worker en-route to or from work would have it with them.

The train involved in this accident was PROBABLY protected by the signalling system, but it is unwise to totally rely on this.

This tragedy does in my view make a strong case for supplying satellite telephones to operational rail staff in remote locations.
It is most unlikely that any reliable cellphone signal was available, but a satellite phone works anywhere. Had the of duty rail worker had a satellite phone they could have summoned help WITHOUT a long walk in challenging conditions.

Had the driver and conductor possessed satellite phones, this might not have helped in THIS case as both lost their lives, but could be most helpful in similar situations.
In case of fatal accident, I would consider it acceptable to go through the belongings of the deceased in search of their satellite phone to summon help.

Fatal accidents are now exceedingly rare, but satellite phones are also most useful in case of serious delay or breakdown, without risk to life.

I have received another report from a friend who lives near the scene of the tragedy, though not involved in any way.
The state that the helicopter they observed was a coastguard one, primarily searching for anyone who had escaped alive and then become lost in the challenging terrain.

They again stated that the rainfall was truly extreme, even by local standards in an area known for rough weather.
Their next door neighbour had a substantial stone outbuilding collapse, presumed due to the downward rushing of water undermining the foundations. The three goats within were killed. Had any persons or other livestock been within they would probably have been killed.
Another neighbour had a modern steel framed barn partially collapse, again due to fast moving flood water washing away the supports.

I fully appreciate that the loss of animals and the destruction of property, is of relatively little consequence if compared to the human death toll, and no disrespect is intended  by this.
Worth reporting IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) as confirmation of just how extreme was the rainfall.

I suspect that this is not on the national network.
Looks like a common type of cheap bulkhead light fitting, coated black apart from the cut out for the number.

Network rail would probably have an expensive bespoke item.

I agree, but electric ferries should produce a lot less noise than diesel powered ships.

Latest reports on BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) TV news at 22-00, confirmed earlier reports of 3 fatalities, and 6 injured.
The only new news was that only 9 persons were on board, so EVERY person was either killed or injured.

It is therefore most fortunate that the train was so slightly loaded, had it been full a death toll in the dozens would seem probable.

What I find particularly shocking is not the actual occurrence of the accident, they can never be entirely eliminated, but the scale of the damage to modernish stock. One coach is substantially destroyed a very rare occurrence these days.

Despite this tragedy, we must remember just how rare such events are, and just how safe rail travel is.

Most media reports refer to a landslide as being the likely cause.

Yes I believe that electric ferries would be suitable for the shorter channel crossings.
When ships are considered, bigger is better, within reason. A larger ship uses less fuel per ton than a smaller one.
A cross channel ferry could charge, briefly at each end of the route, both the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and nearer parts of Europe have well developed grid systems that can supply the charging load of many megawatts.

Some routes to small islands may only allow charging at the mainland end, due to limited electrical infrastructure on some islands.

I cant consider air transport as being "very environmentally friendly" when it is virtually 100% fossil fuel powered, and when total fuel used by aviation is increasing.
Any slight improvement in fuel efficiency is swamped by more flying.

And anyway, quite a few airlines HAVE gone bust in the last 10 years, being bailed out in various ways.
And they would probably all go bust if they had to pay tax on the fuel used, perhaps at the same rate as levied on road fuel.

I repeat that if we are serious about climate change, that we need to fly a LOT less.
To move towards flying a lot less, we, as a nation, need to avoid taking policy decisions that subsidise or otherwise encourage flying.

I see nothing silly in my remarks. Aviation is inherently virtually 100% fossil fuel powered. A transatlantic flight burns hundreds of liters of fuel per passenger.
The problem is not just the fuel used per mile, which is broadly similar to a car, but also the speed of air transport which permits of greater distances being covered.
Few people would drive 4,000 miles each way for a holiday, but many people do fly a similar distance.

I don't have detailed knowledge of the air transport industry, but I do know the following.
Virtually 100% fossil fuel powered.
Consumption per passenger mile broadly similar to driving, but much greater distances are covered.
A significant and increasing source of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

And yes I do feel sorry for those thrown out of work by airlines and aircraft builders.
If public money must be used to preserve jobs, then this should be in greener industries than air transport.

Latest reports on BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website state 3 dead. Very sad, the bereaved are no doubt in all our minds.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-53751678

And slightly later reports on channel 5 TV news, confirm 3 dead, one of whome is reported to be the train driver. 

Not certain that I agree, in all but extreme cases I believe in freedom of speech, which customarily includes pictures as well as actual speech.
IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) it is not generally appropriate to publish pictures of the dead or seriously injured, but I see no such in the image in the preceding post.
Nor should pictures that seriously invade privacy be published, for example of someone unclothed as a result of emergency or disaster, but again I see no such.

UNCONFIRMED REPORTS on the websites of two local newspapers suggest that a life MAY have been lost in this accident.
"one feared dead in train crash" read the headlines. Very sad IF confirmed.

(if you visit the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) news report, links at the bottom of the page to "other media" give links to the local papers. Beware adverts and clickbait, in the newspaper websites, some of which are in EXTREMELY poor taste under the circumstances)

Later report from BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-53751678

Includes a video of the scene from a distance, which does not add much, and an indirectly relevant view of Stonehaven town center showing the flooding.

(I know someone who lives fairly near the scene, but they are not able to add much to published reports, they did observe a helicopter flying near the scene, not clear if it was air ambulance, or simply inspecting the scene. They describe the weather as being exceptional, in an area known for rough weather)

Agree.
A boat can be picked up and placed on a ship.
Ships carry boats in case of emergency and for trips ashore if port facilities cant take a ship.
Anyone may operate a boat, but a ship needs qualified mariners to run it.
If the vessel lists noticeably when a person moves from one side to the other, then it is boat not a ship.

There are exceptions and special cases, but the above is a good guide.

Boats have crossed the Atlantic, but many would consider a ship to be more suited for such a voyage.

Young sir, you again tend to exaggeration.
I have taken no port for some weeks, it is not in my view an ideal drink for warm weather, more of a winter thing.
This is the season for either beer, or gin and tonic.
Fillet steak is taken but once a week, on account of the environmental costs of red meat.

There are no recorded instances of me walking on water. IN water perhaps, swimming maybe.

I do avoid flying on account of the carbon emissions therefrom. I last flew about 20 years ago, and flew very little before then.
I have no car nor driving licence. I can just about drive, and would do so in dire emergency, for example if life was at stake. I would not contemplate driving illegally under any ordinary circumstances.