Great Western Coffee Shop

All across the Great Western territory => The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom => Topic started by: grahame on August 12, 2020, 11:52:18



Title: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 12, 2020, 11:52:18
Quote
Stonehaven Train Derailment, what we know

⁃ Near #Stonehaven, #Aberdeenshire
⁃ Smoke seen rising from area
⁃ Large emergency service response
⁃ Flooding in the area overnight
⁃ Possibly a British Rail Class 43 (HST)
⁃ First call to emergency services made at 9:43

Edit - 16th August to add ... this has turned out to be the worst railway accident in the UK for many years and there is a long follow up in this thread.  There are certain aspects which are being shared in our "Frequent Poster" area rather than in public, and members logged in and with an established posting record can read that additional thread at http://www.passenger.chat/23893


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 12, 2020, 11:54:04
Quote
Stonehaven Train Derailment, what we know

⁃ Near #Stonehaven, #Aberdeenshire
⁃ Smoke seen rising from area
⁃ Large emergency service response
⁃ Flooding in the area overnight
⁃ Possibly a British Rail Class 43 (HST)
⁃ First call to emergency services made at 9:43

https://ukupdates.co.uk/major-incident-declared-after-train-derailment-near-stonehaven/

Quote
Emergency services are dealing with a derailed train near Stonehaven.

There is a growing number of emergency services at the scene including an air ambulance, Close by large plumes of smoke can be seen.

It is not yet clear if there are any injuries however there are unconfirmed reports of at least one fatality and numerous injuries.

From Twitter

Quote
#BREAKING First image from train derailment in #Stonehaven massive emergency service response. #Train #Crash #Aberdeenshire


Andy Roden @AndyRoden1
·
Quote
Re #Stonehaven: it's very, very important not to start speculating at this early stage about reasons, causes and details. Let @BTP and emergency services do their job - the facts will come out in due course.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Electric train on August 12, 2020, 12:00:26
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-53751678



Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Western Pathfinder on August 12, 2020, 12:13:41
Front power car and all Four coaches are said to be off the road and down the embankment,thoughts go to all involved, hearing that it's a early service To Glasgow from Aberdeen let's hope it was lightly loaded.

From incident report,via source,Six Passengers and Three crew on board one Mk3 said to have suffered a fire.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on August 12, 2020, 12:24:54
There are other reports, which add little to the knowledge. This sounds very serious - let's hope that the damage is confined to machines, not people.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 12, 2020, 12:26:02
Front power car and all Four coaches are said to be off the road and down the embankment,thoughts go to all involved, hearing that it's a early service To Glasgow from Aberdeen let's hope it was lightly loaded.

From incident report,via source,Six Passengers and Three crew on board one Mk3 said to have suffered a fire.

Rather duplicating your report ... couple of extra elements

Richard Clinnick
@Richard_rail

Quote
Incident log suggests 3 crew members and 6 passengers on board. At least one Mk 3 was on fire.

The @ScotRail IC7 set was returning north on the Down Main having encountered a landalip further south when the accident happened.

The front power car and all four of @ScotRail set HA22 went down the embankment near #stonehaven

As per Andy Roden earlier, best not to speculate on details.  Thank goodness the train was quiet; still terrible and thoughts with all those concerned.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 12, 2020, 12:37:45
And across Scotland ... Network Rail Scotland reports on Twitter ...

Quote
THREAD: With lightning strikes and intensely heavy rain falling overnight across Scotland, we’re seeing disruption to many routes. We’ll give a rundown of the incidents we’re dealing with below. Please keep checking with your train operator for service info

Between Burntisland & Kinghorn, we’ve had reports of two landslips, which have blocked the line. We’re working closely with the emergency services here. /1

At Carmont, we’ve had reports of a landslip, which means services can’t operate between Dundee & Aberdeen. /2

At Cardenden on the Fife Circle, we’ve seen a landslip, and we need to inspect a viaduct following high water levels overnight. There are also signalling faults at Cowdenbeath, caused by flooding and lightning strikes. /3

At Perth, we’ve seen flooding in the station area, and also at Auchterarder, this has also damaged signalling equipment, meaning trains can’t run towards Inverness or depart Perth heading south. /4

Between Stirling & Dunblane, overhead line equipment has been damaged by lightning strikes meaning trains can’t run. We’ve identified the damage, and our team are mobilising to repair it. It’ll take a couple of hours though. /5

At Polmont, severe flooding has closed the line between here & Bo’ness. This affects our Glasgow – Edinburgh via Falkirk High/Grahamston and Glasgow – Stirling routes. /6


At Blackridge, between Airdrie & Bathgate, we’re dealing with flooding. The line is open, but  @ScotRail services are travelling through the affected area at 5mph. /7

At Hartwood, near Shotts, flooding has closed the line between Glasgow Central and West Calder. /8

There are further issues emerging caused by heavy rain and lightning strikes overnight. We're working hard to reopen all routes where it's safe to do so and monitoring the forecast closely as more thunder and lightning is expected. We'll keep you updated as the day goes on. /9

Serious, but pale into insignificance compared to the Stonehaven derailment.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 12, 2020, 12:47:16
From The Courier (https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/angus-mearns/1504819/nicola-sturgeon-confirms-serious-injuries-as-train-derailment-sparked-major-emergency-response-between-dundee-and-aberdeen/)

Quote
Nicola Sturgeon confirms ‘serious injuries’ as train derailment sparked major emergency response between Dundee and Aberdeen

A fair amount of text in there ... I will updates (and others please do too) as significant news comes / may cut some of that back into edits on the end of existing posts.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on August 12, 2020, 13:23:03
There is a report of a fatality according to the Press and Journal (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeenshire/2403055/one-person-feared-dead-after-train-derails-near-aberdeenshire-town-following-floods-and-thunder-storms/). The live blog in the report suggests that some people may have been "submerged"".


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on August 12, 2020, 13:29:24
Later report from BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-53751678 (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)


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on August 12, 2020, 13:39:34
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 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)


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on August 12, 2020, 13:48:53
(Photo taken down until I know it's genuine.)


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: JayMac on August 12, 2020, 13:55:00
There are photos of the scene. It doesn't look good. One power car completely engulfed in flames.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: JayMac on August 12, 2020, 14:10:32
The Scotsman are now reporting one person dead with concerns there may be a second fatality.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/stonehaven-one-dead-after-scotrail-train-derailment-aberdeenshire-2939946


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on August 12, 2020, 14:13:09
From Twitter:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EfOAqfRXYAA0_d9?format=jpg&name=900x900)


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: SandTEngineer on August 12, 2020, 14:20:05
I don't think appropriate to post that photograph on here.  Its been removed from lots of other sites.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on August 12, 2020, 14:31:15
I don't think appropriate to post that photograph on here.  Its been removed from lots of other sites.

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 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.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 12, 2020, 14:38:48
I don't think appropriate to post that photograph on here.  Its been removed from lots of other sites.

I have noted it in a private thread for those of us who look after moderation, but personally much more in line with Broadgage.

I note the picture was posted on the forum by one of our moderator team, so that makes three of us currently well versed and currently active posters.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Phantom on August 12, 2020, 15:27:28
Photo of one of the engines here

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12381187/train-aberdeenshire-stonehaven-derailed/


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: southwest on August 12, 2020, 15:38:49
Very sad and worrying time for those involved and their families.  Important not to speculate about anything, especially as the media are using forum's as sources.  I do hope this isn't a "Concorde" moment for the HST after 42 years.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on August 12, 2020, 15:46:00
I don't think appropriate to post that photograph on here.  Its been removed from lots of other sites.

I posted, the picture initially, then removed it very soon afterwards. I thought long and hard and looked for confirmation before posting it again. It is in the public domain, and now shown on a number of bona fide news sites. I am not after an argument about free speech or anything, just explaining my reasoning. I was moved by it and the clearer understanding of what an awful event this is, but will keep watching, and may change my mind.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: JayMac on August 12, 2020, 15:56:03
The Scotsman are now reporting "three feared dead," citing the Press Association, a fourth person is "missing." :'(
https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/stonehaven-three-feared-dead-after-scotrail-train-derailment-aberdeenshire-2939946

And their leader page has the image posted here earlier. What it shows is deeply troubling. One carriage upside down and one seemingly crushed above the window line.

EDIT. Apologies to the subsequent poster who quoted me. I thought I was editing my own post. I deleted the entire thing in error. Please repost.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on August 12, 2020, 16:47:50
Latest reports on BBC 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 (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.  :'(


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on August 12, 2020, 17:16:41

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

Sadly, that appears to be the case now that matters are becoming clearer. Reports now say that everyone has been accounted for.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: southwest on August 12, 2020, 17:38:10
Very sad 3 dead, 6 injured. Even more worrying is the aerial footage on BBC News which shows indeed a Mk3 caught fire, another is badly crushed with two laying on top. Something has indeed gone really wrong, as i've said previously I do hope this isn't a "Concorde" style moment that ruins the HST almost perfect record.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on August 12, 2020, 17:49:30
Very sad 3 dead, 6 injured. Even more worrying is the aerial footage on BBC News which shows indeed a Mk3 caught fire, another is badly crushed with two laying on top. Something has indeed gone really wrong, as i've said previously I do hope this isn't a "Concorde" style moment that ruins the HST almost perfect record.

This reminds me of Polmont, in that it's a derailment in a cutting. That greatly increases the risk that a vehicle running off the track will hit something really solid and its front end just stop - the cutting wall. Unfortunately cutting walls are also well placed to cause derailments by slipping onto the track.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Phantom on August 12, 2020, 19:25:29
Very sad 3 dead, 6 injured. Even more worrying is the aerial footage on BBC News which shows indeed a Mk3 caught fire, another is badly crushed with two laying on top. Something has indeed gone really wrong, as i've said previously I do hope this isn't a "Concorde" style moment that ruins the HST almost perfect record.

This reminds me of Polmont, in that it's a derailment in a cutting. That greatly increases the risk that a vehicle running off the track will hit something really solid and its front end just stop - the cutting wall. Unfortunately cutting walls are also well placed to cause derailments by slipping onto the track.

From the BBC live reporting:

The railway line between Aberdeen and Dundee was upgraded in a £9m Network Rail project last year.

Over six weekends in February and March, engineers renewed 2,500m of track at a number of locations along the line between the two cities.

This included improvements to the level crossing at Carmont, near where the passenger train derailed.

The project involved installing a total of 3,500 new concrete sleepers and 2,500m of rail.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: onthecushions on August 12, 2020, 21:02:26

It's heartbreaking to see those wonderful mark 3's crushed, burnt and tossed aside, when they daily for 36 years, carried me to work and around the West, in air conditioned comfort, perfect safety and quietness (at least in coach A).

I can't speculate but I do observe from approved images that the track either side of the wreck appears undisturbed so that the entire accident is contained within a car's length. The leading power car appears to be facing rearwards. Only one buckeye coupling has survived. Diesel is difficult to ignite and is only spilled in really catastrophic circumstances like Ladbroke Grove, where a friend of mine was present next to the burning coach. 79mm of rain fell in the area in four hours.

The brave driver and guard gave their lives in the public service just as much as the NHS COVID workers.

OTC


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on August 12, 2020, 22:20:28
Latest reports on BBC 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.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 12, 2020, 22:44:00
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.

The MK III, whilst much better than a MK I, has proven not to be particularly crash-worthy unfortunately.  The images from Southall and Ufton Nervet crashes show how badly they perform when involved in substantial collisions, though the only really modern reference point for newer stock is the Pendolino involved in the Grayrigg derailment. 

That appeared to stand up amazingly well, though you have to be very careful when making comparisons.  A whole train derailing and falling down a slope will produce significantly different forces to one suddenly being stopped by a landslide with the resulting concertina effect.

A sad day for the industry, but as you say had it been a busy train it could have been very much worse.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: JayMac on August 12, 2020, 22:49:36
(https://i.ibb.co/RY6Gkfj/IMG-20200812-224042.jpg)

 :'(


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: onthecushions on August 13, 2020, 00:03:20

I wonder whether the difference in performance lies in the space the crashing/derailed train has to stop. The Pendolino had nothing in its way so kept together down the bank with only the leading coupling parting. The other accidents had the leading vehicle stop dead by bad luck, either hitting an object that wouldn't move, or digging into the ground. No following vehicles could survive that without massive deformation, impulse being infinite.

At least they concertinaed rather than telescoped.

OTC


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 13, 2020, 04:48:45
Thank you everyone for your thoughtful and measured postings yesterday, here in public and in our Frequent Poster area (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=23893.0)

From the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-53759972) overnight - an article that summarises the events of around 20 hours ago.

Quote
An investigation has begun into an Aberdeenshire rail crash in which three people died.

The train driver, a conductor and a passenger were killed when the the 06:38 ScotRail service from Aberdeen to Glasgow Queen Street derailed near Stonehaven on Wednesday morning.

It is thought to have hit a landslide after heavy rain and thunderstorms caused disruption across Scotland.

Six other people were also injured in the incident.

They were taken to hospital but their injuries were not believed to be serious.

Expert investigators are now working to identify the cause of the crash.

The report goes on to tell of messages of support, visits to site by VVIPs, and starting investigations. And, inevitably, "this must never happen again".  Robust lessons must indeed be learned, but very, very, very rarely something will go awfully wrong and we should be enormously thankful just how rare it is - not content ourselves with that, but  never the less be realistic.  3 people died at Stonehaven - 3 too many.  If it was an average day elsewhere, five people died on the UK roads.

We don't know what the investigation will come up with - and we hope it does point to issues that can be dealt with such that there is no recurrence but trains keep running practically.  Indications are that systemic issues from Margam on 3rd July last year have identified issues which can or have been changed to make things safer; we don't know how much that'll come out of the Stonehaven experts' work, but we hope that it does and put resources into making sure it does as much as possible.

I noted tweets at lunchtime yesterday asking about alternative services ... being rounded on by others tweeting "how could you even think of asking".  However, the rail service is there for a reason, leisure traffic already decimated, and people do need to move for necessary travel . National Rail (https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/253790.aspx) reports that the line from Dundee to Aberdeen is closed until further notice.

Quote
All lines are closed between Aberdeen and Dundee as the emergency services continue to work at the site of the derailed train near Stonehaven. Consequently, no trains will run between those stations, and trains between Aberdeen and Glasgow Queen Street / Edinburgh may be cancelled or revised.

There is no estimate as to when the line reopen, so the below alterations will be in place until further notice.

ScotRail

Amendments to service:
Trains will not run between Aberdeen and Dundee.
Trains which normally run between Aberdeen and Glasgow Queen Street / Edinburgh will start / terminate at Dundee.
Trains will not run between Aberdeen and Montrose.

Alternative travel options:
The Scottish Government has made it clear that public transport should be used by those making necessary journeys only, so staff and passengers can maintain a physical distance from each other in stations and on trains. Please don’t travel if your journey isn’t a necessary one.
If your journey is necessary, your ticket will be valid on other trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow Central.
Rail replacement transport is running between Dundee and Aberdeen. Buses will be operated by Merlin Travel, First Aberdeen, Watermill Coaches, Kineil Coaches, Eazy Coaches and Ratho Coaches.
Ticket acceptance is also available on Stagecoach services as follows:
Stagecoach East on route 73/A: Dundee, Broughty Ferry, Balmossie, Monifieth, Barry Links, Golf Street, Carnoustie and Arbroath.   
Stagecoach North 7B: Aberdeen, Portlethen and Stonehaven.

LNER:
Customers travelling between Aberdeen and Edinburgh are advised not to travel until further notice.
Replacement coaches are being sourced, but customers at advised that there is no guarantee of travel between these stations.

CrossCountry:
Trains are unable to run between Aberdeen and Edinburgh.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on August 13, 2020, 10:32:15

I noted tweets at lunchtime yesterday asking about alternative services ... being rounded on by others tweeting "how could you even think of asking".  However, the rail service is there for a reason, leisure traffic already decimated, and people do need to move for necessary travel . National Rail (https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/253790.aspx) reports that the line from Dundee to Aberdeen is closed until further notice.


I saw similar tweets, and, wearing my charitable head, considered it possible that those asking  were aware of a cancellation but not the cause. For the near future, it is obvious that this will take time, and I don't think for a moment that pressure will be on NR and the ToCs to hurry it up.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TaplowGreen on August 13, 2020, 10:42:00
https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/12/network-rail-warned-about-landslips-four-weeks-before-train-derailment-tragedy-13121720/

Suggestion that NR were being warned about landslips some time ago and were not doing enough.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Electric train on August 13, 2020, 11:07:40
My thoughts are with the drive of 1T08 the passengers who lost their lives or were seriously injured and the families.  My thanks go to the Blue Light Services, the NR and ToC staff who are involved in rescue and recovery

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.

The MK III, whilst much better than a MK I, has proven not to be particularly crash-worthy unfortunately.  The images from Southall and Ufton Nervet crashes show how badly they perform when involved in substantial collisions, though the only really modern reference point for newer stock is the Pendolino involved in the Grayrigg derailment. 

That appeared to stand up amazingly well, though you have to be very careful when making comparisons.  A whole train derailing and falling down a slope will produce significantly different forces to one suddenly being stopped by a landslide with the resulting concertina effect.

A sad day for the industry, but as you say had it been a busy train it could have been very much worse.

There is a good 30 years between the design of a Mk3 and a Penelino, the other comparison would be the Mk4 at Hatfield. 
If I recall correctly the main concern of the BR Engineers for the Mk3 was preventing articulation in the event of derailment, the coach should be able to with stand being on its roof and support its bogies.

Untill the extent of the landslip is known its difficult to judge if too much was being asked of a Mk3 coach, the other consideration the HST were meant to be 7 or 8 coaches between power cars, these new sets are 4 coaches between 2 80 Tonne locomotives.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/12/network-rail-warned-about-landslips-four-weeks-before-train-derailment-tragedy-13121720/

Suggestion that NR were being warned about landslips some time ago and were not doing enough.

I know the Geotech team in the Region I work in have their work cut out monitoring the hundreds of miles of cutting and embankments, the do install active monitoring devices on known potential slip areas.  Occasionally a cutting will move that has been stable for decades the cuase being external an adjacent land owner altering their drainage, a stream getting blocked and storm water taking a different route.

The RAIB report I am sure will identify the causes and the weaknesses in the operation, infrastructure and rolling stock.

A dark day for the Rail Industry


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 13, 2020, 13:15:49
https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/12/network-rail-warned-about-landslips-four-weeks-before-train-derailment-tragedy-13121720/

Suggestion that NR were being warned about landslips some time ago and were not doing enough.

I expect that the formal report will look into this. Hopefully the RAIB will employ engineers who will carefully examine the scene of the accident, rather than arts graduates stood on a hill several hundred metres away, when they assess the causes and make their recommendations.



Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 13, 2020, 13:25:41
https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/12/network-rail-warned-about-landslips-four-weeks-before-train-derailment-tragedy-13121720/

Suggestion that NR were being warned about landslips some time ago and were not doing enough.

I expect that the formal report will look into this. Hopefully the RAIB will employ engineers who will carefully examine the scene of the accident, rather than arts graduates stood on a hill several hundred metres away, when they assess the causes and make their recommendations.



https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/13/driver-killed-stonehaven-train-derailment-named-13121845/

The Metro today also tells us more about the driver and circumstances.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on August 13, 2020, 16:37:37
While overhead pictures of the accident site, both moving and still, have now been widely shown, they have not so far shown the area around it. This sequence from the Evening Express in Aberdeen (https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/video-new-drone-footage-shows-scale-of-devastation-after-stonehaven-train-crash/amp/?__twitter_impression=true) extends a bit further, and does show the shape of the terrain and the landslip that derailed the train. It is about a full train's length before the bridge.





Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on August 13, 2020, 17:25:19
If you were wondering about the temporary road and parking area, and the orange engineering machinery near the bridge, it's for work on the foundations of the railway's bridges (there are at last three) over Carron Water. The contractor is Story Geotechnical, and this page from Railscot (https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/73/730/) has a picture from below the the next but one bridge downstream. No doubt the work was suspended when the heavy rain was forecast. I suspect that bridge is higher than the one at West Carmont, but otherwise is likely to be of similar construction.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: southwest on August 13, 2020, 18:06:01
Quote
Untill the extent of the landslip is known its difficult to judge if too much was being asked of a Mk3 coach, the other consideration the HST were meant to be 7 or 8 coaches between power cars, these new sets are 4 coaches between 2 80 Tonne locomotives.

That is a very valid point. The other thing is that the operator has only been operating these types of traction for a year and a half, with no prior experience in HST operation. I don't want to speculate as it's wrong to do so, but there is likely to be a number of factors which could have lead to this accident.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: JayMac on August 13, 2020, 19:41:26
A nice tribute from The Station Master's Lodge at Gwinear Road, Cornwall.

https://twitter.com/GwinearRoadStn/status/1293957590746095620



Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: paul7575 on August 14, 2020, 01:00:09
Quote
Untill the extent of the landslip is known its difficult to judge if too much was being asked of a Mk3 coach, the other consideration the HST were meant to be 7 or 8 coaches between power cars, these new sets are 4 coaches between 2 80 Tonne locomotives.

That is a very valid point. The other thing is that the operator has only been operating these types of traction for a year and a half, with no prior experience in HST operation. I don't want to speculate as it's wrong to do so, but there is likely to be a number of factors which could have lead to this accident.
The latest video reports strongly suggest a landslip coming down through the trees on the down side of the cutting within about a train length of the bridge.

Paul


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on August 14, 2020, 13:18:41
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 as confirmation of just how extreme was the rainfall.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: bradshaw on August 14, 2020, 13:59:47
RAIB just posted update

Quote
The RAIB is investigating a fatal accident that occurred near Carmont on the national rail network in Scotland.

At around 09:40 hrs on Wednesday 12 August 2020, all six vehicles of a passenger train derailed after striking a landslip around 1.4 miles (2.25 km) north-east of Carmont, Aberdeenshire. There were nine people on the train at the time of the accident; three train crew (the driver, conductor and a second conductor travelling as a passenger on this train) and six passengers. Tragically, the driver of the train, the train’s conductor and one passenger suffered fatal injuries in the accident. The remaining passengers and member of train crew were taken to hospital.

The site of the accident was approximately four miles (6.4 km) south-west of Stonehaven and 20 miles (32 km) north of Montrose, on the double track main line which runs between Dundee and Aberdeen. The train, which was operated by Abellio (trading as ScotRail), was a High Speed Train set with a leading power car, four Mark 3 passenger coaches and a rear power car. It had originally been operating as train reporting number 1T08, the 06:38 hrs service from Aberdeen to Glasgow Queen Street. Train 1T08 had departed on time from Aberdeen and then from Stonehaven, its next scheduled stop. After departing Stonehaven, the train continued past Carmont on the up (southbound) line until it was stopped by the signaller at Carmont, using a radio message. This was because the signaller had just received a report from the driver of a train on the down (northbound) line that a landslip was obstructing the up line between Carmont and Laurencekirk.

Google Earth image showing key locations
Google Earth image showing key locations

When it became apparent that train 1T08 could not continue its journey south, the decision was taken to return it to Aberdeen, and it was routed back over a crossover at Carmont onto the down line. After travelling for approximately 1.4 miles (2.25 km), the train struck a landslip covering the down line and derailed. As the track curved to the right, the train continued in a roughly straight line for around 100 yards (90 metres) until it struck a section of bridge parapet, which was destroyed. The leading power car continued over the bridge and then fell from the railway down a wooded embankment, as did the third passenger carriage. The first passenger carriage came to rest on its roof, having rotated to be at right angles to the track. The second passenger carriage also overturned onto its roof and came to rest on the first carriage. The fourth passenger carriage remained upright and attached to the rear power car; it also came to rest on the first carriage. All wheelsets of the rear power car derailed, but it remained upright..
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/passenger-train-derailment-near-carmont-aberdeenshire?utm_source=cac6d922-c7c0-4888-bf4d-4d29bef30daa&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 14, 2020, 14:12:35
The other thing is that the operator has only been operating these types of traction for a year and a half, with no prior experience in HST operation. I don't want to speculate as it's wrong to do so, but there is likely to be a number of factors which could have lead to this accident.

"I don't want to speculate" but you and perhaps others are getting so close to speculation that it could be seen as such.  We don't know.

The RAIB are collecting evidence ... here is what they write (the link in the previous post)

Quote
We are currently collecting evidence needed to identify factors relevant to the cause of the accident and its consequences. The scope of the investigation is likely to include:
* the sequence of events and the actions of those involved
* the operating procedures applied
* the management of earthworks and drainage in this area, including recent inspections and risk assessments
* the general management of earthworks and drainage and associated procedures designed to manage * the risk of extreme weather events
* the behaviour of the train during, and following the derailment
* the consequences of the derailment and a review of the damage caused to the rolling stock
* underlying management factors
* actions taken in response to previous safety recommendations


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 14, 2020, 14:41:06
The BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-53778891) reports

Quote
An off-duty rail worker walked a mile to raise the alarm after surviving the train derailment which killed three people, it has emerged.

Driver Brett McCullough, conductor Donald Dinnie and passenger Christopher Stuchbury died in the incident near Stonehaven on Wednesday.

Two investigations have begun into the derailment, believed to have been caused by a landslip after heavy rain.

Prince Charles is visiting the area to thank the emergency services.

He met some of those who were among the first on the scene of the crash on Friday morning.

Transport Secretary Michael Matheson told BBC Scotland's The Nine that a "number of actions" were taken after the derailment to raise the alarm.

He said: "There was a call made by someone who believed that an incident had taken place locally and they contacted Police Scotland.

"There was also an off-duty railway person on the train who, after it derailed, walked around a mile to the next signal box and advised them that an incident had occurred, which allowed Network Rail at its national control centre to close the line.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on August 14, 2020, 15:12:17
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.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Phantom on August 14, 2020, 16:04:15
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.

Surely a satellite phone would only have been supplied to working crew not someone off duty?

Possibly this person (and the local person who reported the accident) saved many other lives by getting the line shut and no other train to run into this scene


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on August 14, 2020, 17:54:49
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.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 14, 2020, 18:01:49
That’s a lot of expensive satellite phones to issue our for a very unusual situation. 

Both power cars would have GSM-R fitted and that is supposed to work wherever the train is on the network (including within tunnels), and other places a normal phone wouldn’t work. 

The front power car was obviously unavailable, but an emergency stop message could have been sent from the rear power car if circumstances permitted it.  That reaches other trains in the area as well as the controlling signaller so is a much quicker way of stopping trains than using a phone.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: southwest on August 14, 2020, 19:35:11
That’s a lot of expensive satellite phones to issue our for a very unusual situation. 

Both power cars would have GSM-R fitted and that is supposed to work wherever the train is on the network (including within tunnels), and other places a normal phone wouldn’t work. 

The front power car was obviously unavailable, but an emergency stop message could have been sent from the rear power car if circumstances permitted it.  That reaches other trains in the area as well as the controlling signaller so is a much quicker way of stopping trains than using a phone.

Surely instead of satellite phones as similar system to aircraft with a crash sensor would be a better option.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Electric train on August 14, 2020, 20:15:51
That’s a lot of expensive satellite phones to issue our for a very unusual situation. 

Both power cars would have GSM-R fitted and that is supposed to work wherever the train is on the network (including within tunnels), and other places a normal phone wouldn’t work. 

The front power car was obviously unavailable, but an emergency stop message could have been sent from the rear power car if circumstances permitted it.  That reaches other trains in the area as well as the controlling signaller so is a much quicker way of stopping trains than using a phone.

That is supposing the member of railway staff knew how to use the GSM-R phone.  The GSM-R phone remained working in the crash, there have been a couple of incidents where the equipment has stopped working in derailments.

Given the weather conditions and the fact the train had been reversed because of the flooding, the signaller would have been come concerned of the trains safety after a period of time and would have tried to contact the drive with no response would have contacted the MOMs to check the route.

There is no simple solution to contacting a train involved in a derailment in such a remote location, thankfully in the UK even our remotest locations on the railway network are not that remote from civilisation


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 15, 2020, 00:53:30
That is supposing the member of railway staff knew how to use the GSM-R phone.  The GSM-R phone remained working in the crash, there have been a couple of incidents where the equipment has stopped working in derailments.

Yes, that's the suggestion I am making - all railway staff to be given instructions on how to use the GSM-R in an emergency situation.  It only involves pressing two buttons at the most.  You'll never cover every eventuality - and in the case of this particular crash it may have made no difference at all, but it would surely be unusual for no cabs on the train to be accessible following an incident?

Certainly a better solution IMHO than dishing out loads of satellite phones.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: paul7575 on August 15, 2020, 13:42:54
That is supposing the member of railway staff knew how to use the GSM-R phone.  The GSM-R phone remained working in the crash, there have been a couple of incidents where the equipment has stopped working in derailments.

Yes, that's the suggestion I am making - all railway staff to be given instructions on how to use the GSM-R in an emergency situation.  It only involves pressing two buttons at the most.  You'll never cover every eventuality - and in the case of this particular crash it may have made no difference at all, but it would surely be unusual for no cabs on the train to be accessible following an incident?



Certainly a better solution IMHO than dishing out loads of satellite phones.

How about a g-force sensor that sends an instant Emergency message? Could that be made reliable enough to avoid false alarms?

Paul


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Electric train on August 15, 2020, 13:55:34
That is supposing the member of railway staff knew how to use the GSM-R phone.  The GSM-R phone remained working in the crash, there have been a couple of incidents where the equipment has stopped working in derailments.

Yes, that's the suggestion I am making - all railway staff to be given instructions on how to use the GSM-R in an emergency situation.  It only involves pressing two buttons at the most.  You'll never cover every eventuality - and in the case of this particular crash it may have made no difference at all, but it would surely be unusual for no cabs on the train to be accessible following an incident?



Certainly a better solution IMHO than dishing out loads of satellite phones.

How about a g-force sensor that sends an instant Emergency message? Could that be made reliable enough to avoid false alarms?

Paul

A more practical solution would be constant data comms between train and shore.  An intermediate stage between the current ETCS level 1 and a level 2 with full in cab signalling.

The train would report its position, speed, etc via GSM-R to the signaller as an enhancement to the existing interlocking and train describer systems


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 15, 2020, 15:36:33
Both of those ideas are potentially good ones.  As ever though it will come down to the practicalities of cost.  With just one isolated incident happening, and just one passenger death, I would be surprised if such measures were introduced. 

Should another, worse, incident happen then perhaps.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Bmblbzzz on August 15, 2020, 19:24:46
A question asked by someone else, elsewhere, but which might mind find an answer here:
Quote
As we drove past the rail replacement buses parked near ABZ railway station this arvo, a thought occurrred to me, which was, how do they move all those prone carriages from such an inaccessible place? Does such a thing as a crane train exist? (I'm thinking a crane that runs on rails).


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 15, 2020, 19:40:02
A question asked by someone else, elsewhere, but which might mind find an answer here:
Quote
As we drove past the rail replacement buses parked near ABZ railway station this arvo, a thought occurrred to me, which was, how do they move all those prone carriages from such an inaccessible place? Does such a thing as a crane train exist? (I'm thinking a crane that runs on rails).

I recall there used to be several of them (out of use?) at Swindon in the yard that was taken over by the High Output OHLE train.  Not sure these days.  http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/wagon/rs1083.html is perhaps a not untypical crane from Ramsome and Rapier - lift capacity about 45 tons.  And HST power car is out 70 tones and in olden days 2 cranes were used. A mark 3 carriage is about 33 tons. Big issue is the lean / possibly of topple over when swung across rather than along the track.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: MVR S&T on August 15, 2020, 19:54:23
The power car and burnt coach are I expect write offs, so bit like this then:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHGN1OAvlVk

Class 66 was cut up on site. Access via the road used by the bridge repaires.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on August 15, 2020, 20:06:23
Yes, derailed rail vehicles can be recovered by rail mounted cranes, or very exceptionally by a road crane.
In this particular case, most vehicles look beyond economic repair, and that together with the remote location suggests cutting up at the accident scene. It is easier to move the debris if cut up first.
No one is going to authorise major repairs to HST vehicles, much more economic to simply scrap them, and save alternative vehicles for re-use that would otherwise be scrapped.

I  recall a relatively modern class 66 loco that was derailed in a most inaccessible location. Recovery was ruled out as being virtually impossible, it was therefore dismantled at the scene with some components recovered for re-use and the remainder scrapped. The cheapest option would have been to simply abandon it, but that is not acceptable these days.

EDIT TO ADD, post #59 that was made whilst I was typing, and the youtube link in post 59, shows the difficulties in a remote location.






Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Bmblbzzz on August 15, 2020, 20:27:23
Thanks for the answers.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on August 15, 2020, 20:29:50
It is perhaps worth a reminder that GSM-R was engineered to provide continuous coverage over the whole network, and essentially it does that. The main coverage issues I heard about were due to interference from mobile phone (MNO) base stations close in distance and frequency, and have been resolved. The GSM-R base stations are pretty closely spaced - from West Carmont bridge I can see one to the west, before Carmont SB, one mile away and one to the east, before Fetteresso, three miles away. And it operates at 900 MHz, low enough that it goes round corners, reaching into dips and valleys, reasonably well.

Since it's been provided for the purpose, GSM-R has to be the primary communication resource under all circumstances. Mobile phones provide a good back-up, though not everywhere - and a rural cutting or river valley is likely to be a coverage gap. Trying too hard to provide a back-up for your back-up risks spending a lot on something that's never used, and then finding the first time it's really needed it's not usable because of some unforeseen common mode of failure.

It occurs to me that until forty years ago there were festoons of telegraph/phone wires along all our railways, on one or other side (the Up side here). A really serious accident was likely to knock those poles down and break the wires. That would have two effects - the signallers at each side would know something bad had happened, but would also be unable to communicate with each other at all. It's tempting to think there was a system of connecting to the wires at any point to raise the alarm or connect a telephone in an emergency, but (apart from a few tunnels) I don't think here ever was. Unless you could shin up a pole, that is.

If you electrified the line, the OLE would - quite incidentally - provide something else to signal that it's been interfered with, of course.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 16, 2020, 08:03:53
There are aspects of this accident, such as elements of the reporting, which are being discussed in our "Frequent Posters" area at http://www.passenger.chat/23893 . I have no desire to give additional publicity to those involved in questionable practise hence follow ups on this aspect are their for established members; the purpose of this post / comment is to provide a link across to that part of the story. It also confirms to the public that, yes, the Coffee Shop team is aware of those elements of the story - we are not ignoring them, but we are not feeding their fires.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on August 16, 2020, 12:23:45
There are aspects of this accident, such as elements of the reporting, which are being discussed in our "Frequent Posters" area at http://www.passenger.chat/23893 . I have no desire to give additional publicity to those involved in questionable practise hence follow ups on this aspect are their for established members; the purpose of this post / comment is to provide a link across to that part of the story. It also confirms to the public that, yes, the Coffee Shop team is aware of those elements of the story - we are not ignoring them, but we are not feeding their fires.

I entirely agree, grahame. The RAIB has come out with a surprisingly detailed initial report of what happened, probably to quell speculation. The minutiae will follow, along with a forensic examination of who did or did not do what, and we should wait for that.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: southwest on August 16, 2020, 17:33:36
I'd expect the majority of the rolling stock apart from 43030 will be scrapped. It's questionable whether Scotrail will order for another set to be made given the covid downturn, I would like to see another HST come back into use.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: bradshaw on August 21, 2020, 20:07:14
Updated report from the RAIB giving further information relating to landslip itself.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/passenger-train-derailment-near-carmont-updated-21082020


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on August 21, 2020, 20:49:18
Updated report from the RAIB giving further information relating to landslip itself.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/passenger-train-derailment-near-carmont-updated-21082020

That also gives the speed of the train as 70-75 mph, which is a surprise to me. As it was only going a few miles, and everyone's journey was ruined already, such speed was not needed. And as it was passing steep cuttings in an area where heavy rain had already caused one landslip, and no train had passed to observe the track for over two hours, a lower speed does seem a sensible precaution. I think this aspect of operations will be an important area for the investigation.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: eightonedee on August 21, 2020, 21:18:52
Notable is the amount of rainfall - 52mm or two inches in Imperial is an exceptional amount for the east side of Great Britain for just 4 hours (I always find percentage of monthly amounts unhelpful - it's not unusual in drier parts of Britain for the bulk of the rainfall in a month to fall on one or two wet days).

As Stuving says the speed in these exceptional conditions seems surprising 


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: PhilWakely on August 21, 2020, 21:32:59
Updated report from the RAIB giving further information relating to landslip itself.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/passenger-train-derailment-near-carmont-updated-21082020

That also gives the speed of the train as 70-75 mph, which is a surprise to me. As it was only going a few miles, and everyone's journey was ruined already, such speed was not needed. And as it was passing steep cuttings in an area where heavy rain had already caused one landslip, and no train had passed to observe the track for over two hours, a lower speed does seem a sensible precaution. I think this aspect of operations will be an important area for the investigation.

Notable is the amount of rainfall - 52mm or two inches in Imperial is an exceptional amount for the east side of Great Britain for just 4 hours (I always find percentage of monthly amounts unhelpful - it's not unusual in drier parts of Britain for the bulk of the rainfall in a month to fall on one or two wet days).

As Stuving says the speed in these exceptional conditions seems surprising 

I think this quote, posted on Facebook by the driver's widow, Stephanie Mccullough, warrants posting here............  [ edit / Grahame to add link  ((here))  (https://www.facebook.com/stephanie.mccullough.12/posts/10220028316911727) to the post, which is public ]
Quote
I thought I had to post this because of the recent posts on various news channels implying my lovely husband was at fault.
When Brett was at carmont, he was actually held there for 2 hours, when Brett was told to proceed back north he was told it was good to proceed at line speed that was 75mph, he was under that!! at this point in time the storm had past and the sun was shining, Brett did what he was told we know this because the “black box” recorded Brett’s speed that was under the speed limit and the communications between scotrail and Brett record everything!! we also know Brett saw the landslide because the emergence breaks were applied. Many people don’t know that you can’t just stop a train! When the breaks are applied it could take up to a mile to stop a train, it’s not instant like a car. I can’t stand people implying that my beautiful kind husband was to blame. He did everything he was told to do. I can assure you Brett loved his job and did everything by the book. Unfortunately coming round that corner there was nothing he could have done. Please don’t assume things if you don’t know how the railway works as it’s very different from driving a car. It’s extremely hurtful to think people are judging Brett when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Nobody should go to work and not come home. I have 3 heartbroken children here who Brett adored. His family was his world and he cared so much about people. Nobody can say a bad word about my kind gentle husband. Steph x


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 21, 2020, 21:49:00
I think this quote, posted on Facebook by the driver's widow, Stephanie Mccullough, warrants posting here............

Absolutely it warrant posting here.  It is a vivid reminder that we (the general community) really must not speculate let alone judge, but leave the analysis to the experts.   



Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on August 21, 2020, 23:14:28
Notable is the amount of rainfall - 52mm or two inches in Imperial is an exceptional amount for the east side of Great Britain for just 4 hours (I always find percentage of monthly amounts unhelpful - it's not unusual in drier parts of Britain for the bulk of the rainfall in a month to fall on one or two wet days).

Not so very exceptional, I think. I'm sure I've been caught in rainfall on over 50 mm in less than 4 hours more than once - and it caused local flash flooding in each case.

There is some new data on this in the Royal Met Society's "State of the UK Climate 2019 (https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joc.6726)" report, in the form of annual counts of the number occasions any recording station measures 50 mm or more of rain in one day (Figure 32 on p 32, numbered 28). If that rain is frontal it may spread over many hours, but if it is convective (i.e. thunderstorms) its peak intensity will be much shorter. The data don't come with information about that split (so assume it's 50-50), and - rather bizarrely - the number of stations is normalised to the mean over the period 1960-2019, but they don't say what that is.

However, there is another pretty graph (Figure A1.2a on p 63, numbered 59), from which it can be worked out that the incidence of this intense rain at lowland met stations is about 0.4 times per year - having gone up from 0.3 in 1960. Since station sites are representative of places in general, the same will be true elsewhere. So for the two inches in two hours kind of rain, we are talking - very roughly - about once per five years.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 22, 2020, 05:51:10
Updated report from the RAIB giving further information relating to landslip itself.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/passenger-train-derailment-near-carmont-updated-21082020

The images in the latest report are higher resolution than displayed:
1. Annotated Google Map (http://www.wellho.net/pix/Carmont_figure_1.jpg)
2. Arial view of aftermath (http://www.wellho.net/pix/Carmont_figure_2.jpg)
3. Arial view of landslip site and landscape above (http://www.wellho.net/pix/Carmont_figure_3.jpg)
The last is of particular interest as it helps visualise the new material from the RAIB

Quote
In the area where the derailment occurred, on the left-hand side of the railway (in the direction of travel of the train) a slope rises steeply to a field which then slopes gently upwards away from the railway. A drain runs northwards along the lower edge of the field until it reaches an access chamber about 50 metres south of the landslip area, from where it runs diagonally down the steep slope, passing through two more access chambers, until it reaches an outfall structure at a track level ditch which takes water northwards towards Carron Water. The drain running diagonally consists of a 450 millimetre (18 inch) diameter plastic pipe laid at the bottom of a trench. After the drain was installed, the trench was filled with gravel. Water flowing from land above the railway washed some of this gravel onto the railway, together with some larger pieces of rock which had formed part of soil eroded from the sides of the trench.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on August 22, 2020, 16:42:19

Absolutely it warrant posting here.  It is a vivid reminder that we (the general community) really must not speculate let alone judge, but leave the analysis to the experts.   


Couldn't agree more. If there was ever a situation where the general public doesn't know enough to be able to make a judgment, this is it.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: eightonedee on August 23, 2020, 17:24:58
To resume my meteorological discussion with Stuving, I think it is a bit of a jump to assume thar most or even a substantial number of the 500mm per day readings result from convectional rainfall. My guess is that most would be from the kind of conditions we experienced in the winter of 2013/4 when deep Atlantic depressions gave days of long  steady rain to fill the rain gauges.

Entirely anecdotal, but as someone who records rainfall at home and have done so for about 30 years (admittedly in a rain shadow where we get low annual totals and more than an inch a day usually occurs once or twice a year at most), I can only think of one occasion when we had an intense storm producing 2 inches in a few hours, namely the exceptional storm in July 2007. That produced flash flooding and damage on a scale I have not seen before or since.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: ellendune on August 23, 2020, 18:58:36
To resume my meteorological discussion with Stuving, I think it is a bit of a jump to assume thar most or even a substantial number of the 500mm per day readings result from convectional rainfall. My guess is that most would be from the kind of conditions we experienced in the winter of 2013/4 when deep Atlantic depressions gave days of long  steady rain to fill the rain gauges.

Entirely anecdotal, but as someone who records rainfall at home and have done so for about 30 years (admittedly in a rain shadow where we get low annual totals and more than an inch a day usually occurs once or twice a year at most), I can only think of one occasion when we had an intense storm producing 2 inches in a few hours, namely the exceptional storm in July 2007. That produced flash flooding and damage on a scale I have not seen before or since.

Deep Atlantic depressions generally give long periods of rainfall which. while not necessarily that intense over a short period, accumulate to large amounts because of the duration of the rainfall.  These are often associated with winter river flooding though occasionally also in the summer.  Since they originate in the Atlantic they are more common and usually more severe in the west of the country.

Convectional summer storms are more commonly associated with short periods of very intense rainfall which lead to flash floods.  They are typically more common and more severe in the east of the country.

If you consider the average intensity of rainfall in a series of events we find a relationship of reducing intensity with increasing duration for the same probability of a rainfall event. 

So for a 1 in 1 year event it is not uncommon to find a distribution of 90 mm/hr over 5 mins reducing to say 60mm per hour over 15 minutes. If the report of  52mm of rain in 4 hours (12 mm/hr) is correct it does not sound that much so i do not expect it on its own to be very significant. However the wider context of rainfall may bring more significance was this 52mm on top of a lot of previous rainfall.

 


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on August 23, 2020, 22:44:18
To resume my meteorological discussion with Stuving, I think it is a bit of a jump to assume thar most or even a substantial number of the 500mm per day readings result from convectional rainfall. My guess is that most would be from the kind of conditions we experienced in the winter of 2013/4 when deep Atlantic depressions gave days of long  steady rain to fill the rain gauges.

Entirely anecdotal, but as someone who records rainfall at home and have done so for about 30 years (admittedly in a rain shadow where we get low annual totals and more than an inch a day usually occurs once or twice a year at most), I can only think of one occasion when we had an intense storm producing 2 inches in a few hours, namely the exceptional storm in July 2007. That produced flash flooding and damage on a scale I have not seen before or since.

I wasn't really trying to make such a precise numeric point, apart from that genuine measured value of 50 mm/day (500 mm really would be scary!) 0.4 times per year at any random place. How concentrated that is within the 24 hours is secondary, but certainly it will vary. And even for frontal rain, it will rarely come with most of it spread over more than twelve hours. And convective cells and thunderstorms do form along fronts.

As I hinted, assuming the fraction of such intense rain days that are convective in origin is 50% is not more than the modeller's standard assumption for a parameter that must lie between 0 and 1 but otherwise nothing is known about its value. So the two-hour burst of rain might indeed be once per ten or even twenty years - but more precise definitions would be needed for that to be truly meaningful. Of course, when talking about how often I'd come across such rain or its flooding, that's not going to reflect the statistics for a single place. Driving takes you a lot of places along the route - but then the same is true of a railway line.

A further point that blurs the division between day-long and shorter rain bursts is that the response time of catchments and drainage varies a lot too. Drains (meaning pipes) have a largely fixed capacity, which they can cope with, and then anything above that flow rate has to go elsewhere. Hard surfaces provide only limited storage too; here it's the short burst that give flooding. More natural areas will respond slower, and watercourses spread progressively, and so respond to a day (or more) of rainfall (at least, on flatter land).


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: southwest on August 24, 2020, 15:38:36
I think this quote, posted on Facebook by the driver's widow, Stephanie Mccullough, warrants posting here............  [ edit / Grahame to add link  ((here))  (https://www.facebook.com/stephanie.mccullough.12/posts/10220028316911727) to the post, which is public ]
Quote
I thought I had to post this because of the recent posts on various news channels implying my lovely husband was at fault.
When Brett was at carmont, he was actually held there for 2 hours, when Brett was told to proceed back north he was told it was good to proceed at line speed that was 75mph, he was under that!! at this point in time the storm had past and the sun was shining, Brett did what he was told we know this because the “black box” recorded Brett’s speed that was under the speed limit and the communications between scotrail and Brett record everything!! we also know Brett saw the landslide because the emergence breaks were applied. Many people don’t know that you can’t just stop a train! When the breaks are applied it could take up to a mile to stop a train, it’s not instant like a car. I can’t stand people implying that my beautiful kind husband was to blame. He did everything he was told to do. I can assure you Brett loved his job and did everything by the book. Unfortunately coming round that corner there was nothing he could have done. Please don’t assume things if you don’t know how the railway works as it’s very different from driving a car. It’s extremely hurtful to think people are judging Brett when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Nobody should go to work and not come home. I have 3 heartbroken children here who Brett adored. His family was his world and he cared so much about people. Nobody can say a bad word about my kind gentle husband. Steph x

Good to see someone posting the truth, obviously the family is bound to know more than the rest of us! It doesn't raise serious questions of Scotrail/Network Rail safety culture in bad weather, I know on my commutes of years ago during heavy rain/wind GWR have always slowed the trains down often to about 75mph on the 100mph between Starcross and Exeter.

I also dread to think what was going on in Brett's head when he saw that landslip and knew he didn't have time to stop, veyr terrifying to think about what was going on in those last few minutes.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 24, 2020, 16:07:50
Good to see someone posting the truth, obviously the family is bound to know more than the rest of us ...

The reposting of the message posted on Stephanie Mccollough's account onto the forum was 100% correct - and it's a message that stands well on its own.  Not, actually, obvious southwest that family is bound to know more about railway safety. My wife would not have claimed to have understood mutable and immutable objects which I was involved with many times while working.  But the post is a good one - indeed a remarkable one in the circumstances.



I ... wondered ... whether to follow up on Facebook with a personal note of sympathy and condolence onto that account.  In the end, I held back.  Seeing floods of support and messages and suspecting that even more might overwhelm - an educated guess on my part, and no more, and I don't know if I got it right.

But I am going to add here, in public, my condolences, respect and sympathy for the families and friends of all three people who died. And add my admiration for the way that Facebook message was handled by Steph (I call her that, because it's how she signed it) and those closely assisting her. This message of respect, admiration and sympathy should remain here on this forum. It may be found in a year or a decade's time and perhaps may bring sollace long, long after the spotlight has moved on, by friends and families of all. And, perhaps at a time when the message will not be part of a flood, and the more welcomed for that.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on August 25, 2020, 14:54:44
Network rail have announced two task forces (https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/network-rail-launches-task-forces-in-wake-of-stonehaven-tragedy) to provide expert advice on the weather and earthworks, with specific reference to the effects of the one on the other:
Quote
Network Rail launches task forces in wake of Stonehaven tragedy

Region & Route:    National

Network Rail has launched two independent task forces, led by world renowned experts, to help it better manage its massive earthworks (cuttings and embankments) portfolio and its understanding and response to severe weather events.

It follows the tragic events near Stonehaven on 12 August, where a train derailment led to driver Brett McCullough, conductor Donald Dinnie and passenger Christopher Stuchbury sadly losing their lives.

Dame Julia Slingo FRS, former chief scientist at the Met Office and a world-renowned expert in climatology, will lead a weather action task force with the objective of better equipping Network Rail to understand the risk of rainfall to its infrastructure, drawing on the latest scientific developments in monitoring, real-time observations and weather forecasting.

Meanwhile, Lord Robert Mair CBE FREng FRS will spearhead an earthworks management task force to see how Network Rail can improve the management of its massive earthworks portfolio, looking at past incidents, latest technologies and innovations and best practice from across the globe.

Network Rail's current safety management system provides a framework for the management of cuttings, embankments, structures and drainage. These have helped the company to limit the effects of rainfall on its infrastructure, but the events at Stonehaven on 12 August have shown that more understanding is needed to help mitigate the risks further.

Andrew Haines, Network Rail chief executive, said: “The Stonehaven tragedy resulted in three people losing their lives - this is a stark reminder that we must never take running a safe railway for granted.

“With more and more extreme weather and tens of thousands of earthwork assets across Great Britain, our challenge is massive. And while we are making record investment in these areas, we have asked world renowned experts, Dame Julia Slingo and Lord Mair, to help us address these issues as effectively as possible, and at pace.”


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: southwest on August 26, 2020, 19:26:52
Good to see someone posting the truth, obviously the family is bound to know more than the rest of us ...

The reposting of the message posted on Stephanie Mccollough's account onto the forum was 100% correct - and it's a message that stands well on its own.  Not, actually, obvious southwest that family is bound to know more about railway safety. My wife would not have claimed to have understood mutable and immutable objects which I was involved with many times while working.  But the post is a good one - indeed a remarkable one in the circumstances.



I ... wondered ... whether to follow up on Facebook with a personal note of sympathy and condolence onto that account.  In the end, I held back.  Seeing floods of support and messages and suspecting that even more might overwhelm - an educated guess on my part, and no more, and I don't know if I got it right.

But I am going to add here, in public, my condolences, respect and sympathy for the families and friends of all three people who died. And add my admiration for the way that Facebook message was handled by Steph (I call her that, because it's how she signed it) and those closely assisting her. This message of respect, admiration and sympathy should remain here on this forum. It may be found in a year or a decade's time and perhaps may bring sollace long, long after the spotlight has moved on, by friends and families of all. And, perhaps at a time when the message will not be part of a flood, and the more welcomed for that.

I do believe there is a JustGive page set up for the tragedy, maybe something to look into?


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 26, 2020, 19:50:51
I do believe there is a JustGive page set up for the tragedy, maybe something to look into?

Something of a discussion on several funds in "Frequent Posters" ((here)) (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=23893.msg292960#msg292960). You are very welcome to follow up those posts.  The utter support for the families and friends of those who lost their lives, and those hurt physically and mentally too, should go without saying (but I'll say it again anyway). How we can best deliver that or help others to do so is not so clear.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 29, 2020, 06:54:25
Yesterday's Scotsman (https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/stonehaven-rail-crash-line-stay-closed-least-another-month-2955719)

Quote
The site of a ScotRail train derailment in which three people died and six were injured will not re-open for at least another month, an industry source has told The Scotsman.

However, it is also understood that no significant problems have been found in checks at other at-risk sites across the Scottish network which were ordered in the wake of the crash.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on September 01, 2020, 06:56:15
It looks like it's still some time before the line will re-open past the accident site.

Scotrail have started an Aberdeen to Stonehaven shuttle service - https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/news/scotrail-introduces-stonehaven-shuttle-service-keep-customers-moving .   From the south, trains are terminating at Dundee - in view of the Stonehaven shuttles, can we expect a shuttle from Dundee to Arbroath and Montrose - both sizeable towns in their one rights, and (with the Stonehaven shuttle) deducting the rail gap from 66 miles to 23.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on September 10, 2020, 11:30:55
From the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-54099688)

Quote
Network Rail has admitted that the impact of climate change on its network "is an area that is accelerating faster than our assumptions".

It said a fatal derailment near Stonehaven on 12 August showed that the industry must improve its response to extreme weather.

Reference to Report from Network Rail to DfT (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/915898/resilience-of-rail-infrastructure-interim-report.pdf)


Quote
The derailment of a passenger train near Carmont on 12 August 2020 was a tragedy for the families and friends of the three people who lost their lives and will have a lasting effect on those injured and involved in responding, as well as the wider railway industry. It has raised questions about the resilience and safe performance of the railway, and how the risk of such an event happening again can be minimised.

Emerging findings from the investigations suggest that a significant contributing factor to the derailment was heavy rainfall washing material onto the track. Therefore, this report commissioned by the Secretary of State for Transport seeks to provide an initial review of the resilience of rail infrastructure, in particular in the context of severe weather. Because of the nature of events that led to the derailment at Carmont, the report focuses on the resilience of earthworks and drainage infrastructure to heavy rainfall.

It is critical to understand fully what went wrong, what is being done now and what more can and should be done. This report in no way pre-empts the outcome of formal independent investigations. It is a look at our current approach, procedures and risk; our immediate and longer- term plans and actions; and initial consideration of next steps.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Electric train on September 10, 2020, 18:51:10
There has been an "emergency" change to "The Rule Book" which adds some clarification and addition actions on how track workers, drivers etc should report land slips, washouts, flooding etc how signallers and control should respond.

There has always been items in the Rule Book regarding this, the change reinforces some Rules, clarifies actions and responses


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on September 12, 2020, 06:07:43
It looks like it's still some time before the line will re-open past the accident site.

Scotrail have started an Aberdeen to Stonehaven shuttle service - https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/news/scotrail-introduces-stonehaven-shuttle-service-keep-customers-moving .   From the south, trains are terminating at Dundee - in view of the Stonehaven shuttles, can we expect a shuttle from Dundee to Arbroath and Montrose - both sizeable towns in their one rights, and (with the Stonehaven shuttle) deducting the rail gap from 66 miles to 23.

A month on ...  Scotrail reports (https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/news/montrose-shuttle-service-start-next-week)

Quote
A new shuttle service between Montrose and Edinburgh will be introduced from Monday, 14 September to allow customers travelling in the north east to complete their journey by rail.

The service will run Monday to Saturday between Montrose and Edinburgh, and between Montrose and Dundee on Sundays.

It follows the introduction of a rail shuttle service between Aberdeen and Stonehaven last week.

Existing replacement bus services between Dundee and Aberdeen remain in place for customers travelling beyond Montrose.

Network Rail has begun work to reopen the railway at Stonehaven following the derailment on 12 August, however the full timescale for completion is not yet known.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: bradshaw on September 12, 2020, 08:16:36
According to Phil Haigh on Twitter the power car and two coaches have been lifted clear, with UKRail forums reporting the power car arriving at the old Springburn works in Glasgow


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on October 16, 2020, 20:51:08
From The Scotsman (https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/stonehaven-train-crash-work-starts-fix-tracks-after-derailment-3006188)

Quote
Network Rail engineers are now relaying over 500 metres of track following the recent completion of work to repair the bridge and embankment damaged in the accident.

Work will continue into November as engineers remove and replace the damaged track and relay 400 metres of telecoms cables.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: bradshaw on October 17, 2020, 08:17:09
Updated photos can be found here
https://twitter.com/philatrail/status/1317076825387008000?s=21

https://twitter.com/networkrailscot/status/1317197371357364225?s=21


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on November 02, 2020, 14:55:06
From Rail Advent (https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2020/11/aberdeen-dundee-railway-line-reopens-tomorrow-after-tragic-derailment-at-stonehaven.html)

Quote
Tomorrow, Tuesday, November the 3rd, will see the railway line reopen between Aberdeen and Dundee after repair works following the tragic derailment near Stonehaven back in August.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: bradshaw on November 02, 2020, 17:35:39
Two trains run over the section today as shown on RTT
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/CAARMNT/2020-11-02/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on January 09, 2021, 10:38:47
from the RAIB via email notifications linking to ((here)) (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/overspeeding-trains-between-laurencekirk-and-portlethen)

Quote
Between about 06:35 hrs and 07:40 hrs on 4 December 2020, two passenger trains passed through an emergency speed restriction located between Laurencekirk and Portlethen stations, at speeds of up to 100 mph (160 km/h), significantly exceeding the temporary maximum permitted speed of 40 mph (64 km/h). The first train was travelling north from Dundee to Inverness, the second was travelling south from Inverness to Edinburgh. The emergency restriction had been introduced as a precaution in case forecast heavy rainfall caused ground movements affecting the safety of the railway.

Neither of the train drivers was aware of the emergency speed restriction at the time they drove their trains over the affected section of track. The events were identified after a Network Rail signaller noticed the relatively short time taken for the second train to pass through the area. The first overspeed was then identified using electronic records of train movements. There were no injuries or damage as a result of these incidents.

Quote
Our investigation will determine the sequence of events that led to the incidents and include consideration of:
* the processes for advising train drivers of emergency speed restrictions
* any overlap with issues identified during the on-going RAIB investigation of the fatal accident on 12 August 2020 at Carmont, a location within the area covered by this emergency speed restriction (although there was no emergency speed restriction at Carmont on the 12 August)
* any relevant underlying factors.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on January 09, 2021, 10:47:16
Just after I posted than, found this (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeenshire/2798461/outrageous-negligence-sister-of-tragic-driver-hits-out-as-trains-reach-double-the-speed-limit-amid-landslip-fears-on-north-east-line/) in the Press and Journal

Quote
'Outrageous negligence': Sister of tragic driver hits out as trains reach double the speed limit amid landslip fears on north-east line

Rail bosses have come under fire after train drivers were clocked at 100mph on tracks where a 40mph emergency limit had been put in place amid landslip fears.

The drivers, who were on the Aberdeenshire stretch of line where there was a fatal crash just four months before, had not been told about the need to slow down due to the conditions by higher-ups.

Last night, the family of Brett McCullough, the driver killed in August's derailment, branded the dangerous incident in December "outrageous negligence" so soon after the tragedy which cost his life.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: FarWestJohn on January 09, 2021, 18:15:55
I thought the line speed through there was 75 mph before the restriction?


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on January 09, 2021, 18:54:12
I thought the line speed through there was 75 mph before the restriction?

Where "there"? At the accident site the limit was 65/HST75, but if (as implied by the RAIB text) the restriction applied over a longer section of track, higher limits would apply there. Through Laurencekirk it's 90/HST100, and through Portlethen it's 80/HST100, and elsewhere in between it's between 75 and 100. (Actually those are from 2016, but unlikely to have been changed.)


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on January 16, 2021, 09:35:44
From National Rail (https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/264142.aspx)

Quote
Disruption between Aberdeen and Dundee expected until the end of service on Sunday 17 January

Urgent repairs to a bridge between Laurencekirk and Stonehaven due to damage caused by severe weather has resulted in all lines being closed.

Disruption is expected to continue until at least the end of service on Sunday 17 January.

and from the Evening Express (Aberdeen) (https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/shock-as-part-of-north-east-rail-bridge-collapses-close-to-site-of-stonehaven-train-tragedy/) reported at 17:30 on 15.1.2021

Quote
Shock as part of north-east rail bridge collapses close to site of Stonehaven train tragedy

A trade union says the situation on Scotland?s railways is ?becoming terrifying? after part of a bridge collapsed approximately one mile from the site of the Stonehaven train derailment.

Train services from Aberdeen were disrupted earlier today after the side wall of a bridge near Stonehaven gave way ? close to the scene of the crash at Carmont last August, which left three men dead.

Unlike August?s tragedy, the most recent incident was not caused by a landslip.

Network Rail said the bridge was damaged ?due to weather conditions?.

[continues]


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on January 16, 2021, 12:17:51
Now reported on the BBC, with a picture (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-55681502):
Quote
Part of rail bridge collapses near fatal Stonehaven derailment site
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/A7FC/production/_116540034_bridge.jpg)
A 24m section of the bridge parapet collapsed one mile from where a fatal crash took place

Part of a rail bridge has collapsed near the site of the fatal Stonehaven train derailment.

A 24m (79ft) section of the side wall has fallen from the bridge, about a mile north of where three people died when a train left the track and crashed last August.

Network Rail said it was a "structural fault" and not caused by a landslip.

The line between Aberdeen and Dundee remains closed while structural engineers assess the fault.

The structure is located three miles north of Carmont signal box. The collapse was discovered just before 10:00 on Friday.

The rail company said the damage to the parapet was "extensive" and that the line was expected to be closed for a "significant" period of time while repairs to the bridge take place.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.View original tweet on Twitter
1px transparent line

The Network Rail Twitter account told followers engineers would be working around the clock to complete repairs.

Specialist staff are also checking similar bridges as a precaution.

The line between Aberdeen and Dundee had just reopened in November, nearly three months after the Stonehaven derailment.

It's really nearer two miles north-east, at East Croft of Carmont. Now, work was going on in the river Carron to protect that bridge's abutments from scour, from before the accident and finishing in September. There's a picture here on railsco (https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/74/450/)t showing it from below.

The collapse appears to be more off the bridge itself than on, where there does seem to be a lot of soil fill under the track. So presumably that got wet and pushed the parapet wall - and the sidewall of the bridge lower down - off. Of course Story's works may also have given it a bit of a shoogle to help it along.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: IndustryInsider on January 16, 2021, 12:26:15
Great view of the stratification of a railway line there.  :) I wouldn't have been wanting to be walking along the river below when the parapet fell!


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on January 16, 2021, 13:46:22
On second thoughts (or rather looks), I think it is "just" the parapet that's gone. Now, what's going to be the current Network Rail way of repairing that? Rebuilt it out of masonry as original? An engineered system, such as a steel wall pinned to the other side (with long pins, obviously)? It's not clear "the usual suspect" - reinforced concrete - is going to be any easier here.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyN on January 16, 2021, 16:46:11
On second thoughts (or rather looks), I think it is "just" the parapet that's gone. Now, what's going to be the current Network Rail way of repairing that? Rebuilt it out of masonry as original? An engineered system, such as a steel wall pinned to the other side (with long pins, obviously)? It's not clear "the usual suspect" - reinforced concrete - is going to be any easier here.

Looking at the attached photo of the derailment site after repair they have replaced the stone with reinforced concrete.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on January 16, 2021, 16:58:04
On second thoughts (or rather looks), I think it is "just" the parapet that's gone. Now, what's going to be the current Network Rail way of repairing that? Rebuilt it out of masonry as original? An engineered system, such as a steel wall pinned to the other side (with long pins, obviously)? It's not clear "the usual suspect" - reinforced concrete - is going to be any easier here.

Looking at the attached photo of the derailment site after repair they have replaced the stone with reinforced concrete.

Concrete blocks yes, but reinforced? You can string blocks together for strength, but those look like big separate blocks used as quick-build masonry. But if they've been practicing on the bridge next door, and already have them, no doubt that's exactly what they will do.

...actually I think there's a subtle difference between the two bridges, similar though they look. At West Carmont, the parapet taken off by the train was about half above the track level. This time, it's almost all below track level, retaining a deeper bed of fill. So I would not be surprised if NR feel they need to pin (or nail) the wall (not a true parapet) into the formation.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Bmblbzzz on January 16, 2021, 17:31:35
They appear to have reinforced the river bank as well (unless that had been done previously, but it looks new).


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on January 16, 2021, 17:33:52
They appear to have reinforced the river bank as well (unless that had been done previously, but it looks new).

I think that was part of the same work at both bridges, starting well before the accident, to protect them from scour.



Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: paul7575 on January 16, 2021, 17:55:40
On second thoughts (or rather looks), I think it is "just" the parapet that's gone. Now, what's going to be the current Network Rail way of repairing that? Rebuilt it out of masonry as original? An engineered system, such as a steel wall pinned to the other side (with long pins, obviously)? It's not clear "the usual suspect" - reinforced concrete - is going to be any easier here.

Looking at the attached photo of the derailment site after repair they have replaced the stone with reinforced concrete.
Concrete blocks yes, but reinforced? You can string blocks together for strength, but those look like big separate blocks used as quick-build masonry. But if they've been practicing on the bridge next door, and already have them, no doubt that's exactly what they will do.

...actually I think there's a subtle difference between the two bridges, similar though they look. At West Carmont, the parapet taken off by the train was about half above the track level. This time, it's almost all below track level, retaining a deeper bed of fill. So I would not be surprised if NR feel they need to pin (or nail) the wall (not a true parapet) into the formation.
I wonder if they?ve increased the track cant to improve overall line speed?  Does the other side of this bridge still have a bit more parapet above the ballast? 

Would be pretty scary if they?ve just generally increased the ballast depth and it?s introduced a failure mode...

Paul


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on January 16, 2021, 17:56:54
From The Scotsman (https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/rail-disruption-delays-some-scotrail-services-after-train-hits-stag-3103103)

Quote
Posting on Twitter, ScotRail wrote: "One of our trains has struck a stag between Blair Atholl & Dalwhinnie.

"It's caused a fault, which our crew are working to fix so we can get the train moving again."

Pictured ... an HST

With the double track mainline to Aberdeen blocked by the bridge collapse, the only way up north is the single track via Pitlochry and Aviemore .... strikes me as a bit similar to rail to The West with a dual track via Taunton, with a single track and hilly alternative via "The Mule" if the main line is down ... what I was writing on this morning.

HSTs were designed to manage the sea wall at Dawlish, but perhaps the outcome in confrontation with a Stag wasn't one of the original design principles!


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on January 16, 2021, 18:01:03
Never rains but it pours and keeps pouring

From the Inverness Courier (https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/collapsed-embankment-sparks-partial-closure-of-far-north-line-for-rest-of-day-225019/)


Quote
A COLLAPSED embankment has forced the cancellation of all trains on part of the Far North Line.

Network Rail Scotland has warned that the closure is expected to remain in place for at least the rest of the Saturday, after an embankment "alongside the line" came away between Fearn and Tain.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on January 16, 2021, 22:34:13
I wonder if they?ve increased the track cant to improve overall line speed?  Does the other side of this bridge still have a bit more parapet above the ballast? 

Would be pretty scary if they?ve just generally increased the ballast depth and it?s introduced a failure mode...

Paul

I thought that was part of it - being on the inside of a curve rather than the outside - but I don't think that's even true. Hard to be sure..

There is a third bridge, between those two, but I can't find a picture nor even what it's called. The names I used were railscot's - basically the nearest house named on the OS map - and on that basis it's either East Carmont or Upper Wyndings. It's even possible the collapse was there, but then the distances given would be even less accurate.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: paul7575 on January 17, 2021, 11:54:02
I wonder if they?ve increased the track cant to improve overall line speed?  Does the other side of this bridge still have a bit more parapet above the ballast? 

Would be pretty scary if they?ve just generally increased the ballast depth and it?s introduced a failure mode...

Paul

I thought that was part of it - being on the inside of a curve rather than the outside - but I don't think that's even true. Hard to be sure..

I?m referring just to the latest incident.  AFAICT the BBC photo (reply #97) shows fairly clearly it?s on the outside of a curve?


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on January 17, 2021, 12:17:57
I?m referring just to the latest incident.  AFAICT the BBC photo (reply #97) shows fairly clearly it?s on the outside of a curve?

Yes - what I meant was that so was the one rebuilt at West Carmont (not clear as worded, I admit).


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on January 17, 2021, 21:44:36
From the Evening Express (https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/north-east-railway-to-remain-closed-after-bridge-wall-collapse/)

Quote
A north-east railway line will be closed this week after part of a bridge wall collapsed ? close to the site of a fatal train crash.

Around 24 metres of the side wall of the bridge at Tewel near Stonehaven gave way on Friday.

It was less than a mile from the site of a fatal derailment which caused the deaths of Donald Dinnie, Brett McCullough and Christopher Stuchbury last August.

Network Rail said it was making good progress on the damage, which it had earlier described as "extensive".

Engineers are facing a number of challenges getting access to the site, including the height and location of the bridge.

As a result, the line between Stonehaven and Montrose will be closed for at least the next week.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on January 18, 2021, 00:27:19
NR Scotland's Twitter feed has an aerial picture, showing that in fact none of the lost section of parapet/wall is on the bridge proper:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Er87LSEXYAENeod?format=jpg&name=small)

It's also clear from their comments that "closed for week" does not imply anything about the date of reopening.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: paul7575 on January 18, 2021, 12:48:14
It all suggests to me that it?s actually a quite different problem to Carmont, where a power car or coaches on their side are believed to have broken away the parapet.   There will be hundreds if not thousands of similarly constructed parapet walls having to cope with a side load from the track formation, and that load may well have been gradually increasing over many years.

Is there usually going to be any sort of lateral reinforcement, or will the standard design be a simple wall, either brick or stone blocks on mortar courses?

Paul


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on January 18, 2021, 14:54:38
It all suggests to me that it?s actually a quite different problem to Carmont, where a power car or coaches on their side are believed to have broken away the parapet.   There will be hundreds if not thousands of similarly constructed parapet walls having to cope with a side load from the track formation, and that load may well have been gradually increasing over many years.

Is there usually going to be any sort of lateral reinforcement, or will the standard design be a simple wall, either brick or stone blocks on mortar courses?

Paul


That's pretty much how I see it. The force that pushed it off was quite diffferent, but rebuilding is the same problem. If the formation comes higher up this time, so it's more of a retaining wall, how much difference does that make? Mind you, we don't know whether the new bit at West Carmont is pinned into the formation.

But that does raise an even more general question about such a structure, even further down where it looks solid and only the outside is visible. Just what is behind the neat masonry? How stable is it, and does rainwater get in? You'd hope those looking after them know this sort of thing, though I suspect they may not for some that have never been a problem. But it could turn into another of those circular e-mails dreaded by NR local managers - e.g. "urgent examination required of all masonry acting as a retaining wall even as a secondary function".


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: paul7575 on January 18, 2021, 16:56:59
I think the new stuff below the ballast at Carmont is ?L shaped? concrete blocks, (on their side ie wide base, low wall), presumably for speed of build, but implicit in that is a much stronger parapet.

(Second link in reply #89, or reply #100 is what I?m thinking of.)

Paul


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on January 18, 2021, 18:46:30
I think the new stuff below the ballast at Carmont is ?L shaped? concrete blocks, (on their side ie wide base, low wall), presumably for speed of build, but implicit in that is a much stronger parapet.

(Second link in reply #89, or reply #100 is what I?m thinking of.)

Paul

There is a better view in the NR news item (https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/track-repairs-under-way-at-stonehaven) - but even the full resolution image (https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/download/da142b04ed294494883a723a2540418c) doesn't make that 100% clear. Behind the parapet might be concrete "planks" with the wall segments attached, or a poured slab, or even whatever the top of the bridge looks like when cleared but still with some gravel and stuff on it.

I did originally think there was no point going for a much more robust parapet, since having a train at full speed stop more suddenly on the bridge isn't likely to lead to a significantly better outcome. However, stopping a slower derailed train falling off is clearly a good thing, so I can see that the rigidity provided by reinforcement (even if it is only at the base) is worth having.

In that picture you can also see that, when that NR release said "a considerable amount of engineering work is also being carried out to repair and extend drainage systems on the railway track and lineside embankments at the site", they weren't kidding.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on January 27, 2021, 20:34:06
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-55828368

Quote
The rail line between Stonehaven and Montrose will be closed until 22 February after a bridge wall collapsed, Network Rail has said.

The 24m (79ft) section of side wall broke on 15 January, about a mile north of where three people died in last year's derailment.

The line had reopened in November, nearly three months after the tragedy.

Network Rail said full structural assessments had been completed by specialist engineers.

Plans are now in place to repair the bridge and reopen the line late next month.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on March 20, 2021, 15:54:04
You may recall (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=23891.msg293354#msg293354) that two task forces were set to work after the accident, and their reports have now been published (https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/our-approach-to-safety/stonehaven/). There's also an update on resilience from Andrew Haines and a letter. I'm not going to attempt a summary - but then the earthworks management report is 420 pages, mostly the main text.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on April 19, 2021, 11:01:57
Interim RAIB report at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/978504/IR012021_210419_Carmont.pdf

Quote
59. The train derailed after colliding with stones washed out onto the track from the gravel-filled crest drain and from the adjacent ground. Post-accident surveys of the track found no evidence suggesting the derailment occurred on the approach to the debris on the track, and verified pre-accident inspections which had found no track defects in this area. RAIB has not found any evidence of a train fault that could have played a part in its derailment.

61. The washout was caused by unusually heavy rain (paragraph 19) which washed stone from the gravel-filled crest drain near catchpit 18, and from surrounding ground, onto the adjacent track leaving the perforated drainage pipe exposed. Local ground topography directed large amounts of surface water onto the steeply sloping drain in the area from which gravel was washed (figure 8). Although surface water flow alone can dislodge gravel, and stones of other sizes, RAIB is continuing to investigate whether other factors, such as the drainage system’s design or the quality of installation, contributed to the displacement of material.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on May 05, 2021, 13:44:10
The Sotsman (https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/scrap-scotrail-train-fleet-involved-in-stonehaven-crash-rail-engineer-demands-3224452?fbclid=IwAR3ZgWT8B89BC-jk4kahttohqQ0oWe1oYn1dugUbVIut0_WJCBkivhqjY4M) carries an impassioned argument from a rail engineer for the removal from service of all HSTs working in Scotland.

Quote
Scrap ScotRail train fleet involved in Stonehaven crash, rail engineer demands

The type of ScotRail train involved in the fatal Stonehaven derailment should be withdrawn from service because of their lack of crashworthiness, a rail engineer has urged.

Gareth Dennis said the “High Speed Trains” (HSTs), which are based on a 50-year-old design, should no longer operate because of the lack of protection they offered in a crash compared to more modern trains, including for drivers.

While other companies such as LNER have scrapped their fleets, ScotRail operator Abellio has acquired and refurbished the trains for use on inter-city services.

One of the trains derailed last August after it hit stones washed onto the tracks by heavy rain, killing the driver, Brett McCullough, 45, conductor Donald Dinnie, 58, and a passenger Christopher Stuchbury, 62.

he six other people on the train – five passengers and a conductor travelling to join another train – were injured.

An interim report into the incident at Carmont, south west of Stonehaven, by the UK Department for Transport’s rail accident investigation branch (RAIB), said its main areas of investigation included the “crashworthiness of rail vehicles in high energy accidents”.

Mr Dennis told The Scotsman: “The HST has no modern crashworthiness features – none at all.

"I think it’s pretty appalling that we’re still using those trains in front line service.”


He said of particular concern was the lack of protection for drivers, which he described as “unacceptable”.

The engineer said of the HST on his latest Rail Natter podcast: "I adore it but it's a museum piece.

"It shouldn't be running in regular service any more.

"Drivers should not be operating these trains. It is as simple as that.

The article continues with more detailed reasoning. It will not be a view held by those devotees of the HST for whom the class is perfect and can do no wrong, but it does raise the question of whether fondness for the HST has blinkered judgment.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 05, 2021, 15:02:07
There’s no question that the chances of surviving a crash in a Mk III is less so than in something more modern, but of course the risk of being involved in a crash in the first place is incredibly small.  On balance I think allowing them to carry on in service is an acceptable risk.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on May 05, 2021, 15:10:59
I for one would much prefer a "proper HST" to the modern alternative. The risk of a serious accident is so minute that from my point of view it is far below passenger comfort and facilities.

Perhaps Scotland would some nice new IETs ?  in return for some HSTs ?


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on May 05, 2021, 15:34:52
I for one would much prefer a "proper HST" to the modern alternative. The risk of a serious accident is so minute that from my point of view it is far below passenger comfort and facilities.

Perhaps Scotland would some nice new IETs ?  in return for some HSTs ?

I dare say they would, but they ain't having them.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: ellendune on May 05, 2021, 16:08:51
I for one would much prefer a "proper HST" to the modern alternative. The risk of a serious accident is so minute that from my point of view it is far below passenger comfort and facilities.

Perhaps Scotland would some nice new IETs ?  in return for some HSTs ?

I know someone who was in the HST at Ladbrook Grove I don't think I will ask her opinion. 


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: bradshaw on May 05, 2021, 16:37:01
Here is the link to Gareth Dennis's Twitter feed on the subject

https://twitter.com/garethdennis/status/1389853928104284166?s=21


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on May 05, 2021, 16:56:47
Punches are not pulled in the accompanying article:

Quote
"The HST cab is essentially an upturned bath tub mounted facing outwards with a driver inside it.

"There is zero crash structure for the cab – absolutely zero crashworthiness whatsoever.

"Zero protection for the driver.

"All there is the base of the front of the HST with a fibreglass shell over the front.


"There is no crash structure at all."


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: didcotdean on May 05, 2021, 17:25:20
I for one would much prefer a "proper HST" to the modern alternative. The risk of a serious accident is so minute that from my point of view it is far below passenger comfort and facilities.

Perhaps Scotland would some nice new IETs ?  in return for some HSTs ?

I know someone who was in the HST at Ladbrook Grove I don't think I will ask her opinion. 
As someone who was in the HST at Ladbroke Grove I think there is a need to develop a retirement schedule for them by the rail companies and/or the DfT.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 05, 2021, 17:53:08
I can certainly see how anyone directly involved in Ladbroke Grove, or one of the other crashes involving HSTs, would have that opinion.  But presumably you would then have to have the same opinion about the Turbo that was a write off in that same crash, and anything else constructed during the last century.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Oxonhutch on May 05, 2021, 19:55:50
As someone who was in the HST at Ladbroke Grove I think there is a need to develop a retirement schedule for them by the rail companies and/or the DfT.

I raise my cap sir. I believe I was in the last down HEX that passed you in close proximity before your collision. I wish you well.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: didcotdean on May 05, 2021, 20:50:04
You can never have everything up to the current new build standards. I don't really want to make too strong a point over this but I was somewhat surprised particularly of the choice to introduce the short HSTs in Scotrail. Less so by GWR as this was more of a direct repurposing within a organisation familiar with them over decades.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on November 08, 2021, 12:17:02
From the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59200887):
Quote
Stonehaven derailment: Crash report delayed until 2022

A final report into the fatal train derailment near Stonehaven will not be ready this year, BBC Scotland understands.

Three people died when a train left the tracks after hitting a landslip in August 2020.

An interim Rail Accident Investigation Branch report said a signaller was not aware of any obstruction on the line.

But the final report, which had been expected this autumn, will not be published until January...


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: MVR S&T on March 10, 2022, 00:16:52
Now published.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-60654251



Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: JayMac on March 10, 2022, 01:27:20
The full report can be read here:

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-02-slash-2022-derailment-of-a-passenger-train-at-carmont

At 298 pages it would appear to be one of the most comprehensive investigations ever conducted by the RAIB.

A video summary, including animation of the derailment, has also been uploaded to YouTube:


Also on YouTube is a visualisation of the drainage in place at the time of the incident, with animation showing how the washout occurred and how the topography contributed to washout debris making its way onto the railway:


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on March 10, 2022, 06:51:04
Summary ...

Now published.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-60654251



Headlines:

Quote
A series of failures contributed to a rail crash in Aberdeenshire which claimed three lives, an investigation has found.

A report said the train hit a landslide near Stonehaven in August 2020 after heavy rain in an area where a drainage system had been incorrectly installed.

Investigators also highlighted problems with operational procedures in dealing with the effects of severe weather.

The full report can be read here:

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-02-slash-2022-derailment-of-a-passenger-train-at-carmont

At 298 pages it would appear to be one of the most comprehensive investigations ever conducted by the RAIB.



Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: ellendune on March 10, 2022, 08:05:10
This report does not offer much comfort for those who would like to see HSTs continue in service. 

Among other things it recommends:

1)
Quote
Establish criteria for the allowable extent of corrosion in safety critical areas of rolling stock
 
2)
Quote
Assessment of the additional risk to vehicle occupants associated with the lack of certain modern crashworthiness features on HSTs, and the development of industry guidance for assessing and mitigating the risk associated with the continued operation of HSTs and other types of main line passenger rolling stock designed before the introduction of modern crashworthiness standards in 1994

I wonder if when these are done for HSTs we might find a few more of them going for scrap.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: bradshaw on March 10, 2022, 09:04:15
Given the report’s concerns on the HSTs the plans of GWR to replace them with IETs seems to be a sound judgement.
Note that a risk assessment has to be carried out on the HST relating to their further use and to ALL pre-1994 rolling stock(the date that the crashworthiness standards came in. That covers all the 15x series, 165 and 166. This might have implications for the GWR and the WoE lines 159s.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: paul7575 on March 10, 2022, 13:10:03
Given the report’s concerns on the HSTs the plans of GWR to replace them with IETs seems to be a sound judgement.
Note that a risk assessment has to be carried out on the HST relating to their further use and to ALL pre-1994 rolling stock(the date that the crashworthiness standards came in. That covers all the 15x series, 165 and 166. This might have implications for the GWR and the WoE lines 159s.
Presumably the Sleeper coaches are Mk3 and have the same issue of unsecured bogies?  (The context being that restrained bogies can dig into the ballast and decelerate the coaches.)


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: eightonedee on March 10, 2022, 13:40:32
Bradshaw's comments above would also apply to the 769s which use 1980s class 319 bodyshells too.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on March 10, 2022, 14:03:14
Bradshaw's comments above would also apply to the 769s which use 1980s class 319 bodyshells too.

Indeed, when the 319s were stripped to modify them to add the motor/generators, many were found to have serious rust in the sole bars. That's the main lengthwise structural member of the body, so they had to be patched up by welding. No doubt other types approaching their age will also have corrosion if you can get in to find it.

Switching to aluminium alloy won't necessarily help, as their Achilles' metallurgical process is fatigue cracking. That too can be hard to spot, and needs good access to check for it. In both cases you first need to know you have to look for something, of course.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: onthecushions on March 10, 2022, 17:23:11

I seem to remember the crash-worthiness of the Mark 3's being highly praised after Bushey, Morpeth etc. The identification of a further marginal improvement is no argument for premature scrappimg, which only leads to less rolling stock, fewer train seat miles, more road journeys and more travel deaths.

I am surprised that thorough inspection of vehicle body condition (as in MoT tests!) is not done, or provided for in design and construction, either by access viewing or "oil rig" coatings.

Weren't the Mark 3's built out of "Corten", BSC's higher tensile, lower corrosion steel?

The drain design owed more to a rigid design spec than common sense. Every drain will overflow and gravity must win, so let it!

OTC


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Electric train on March 10, 2022, 18:56:37

I seem to remember the crash-worthiness of the Mark 3's being highly praised after Bushey, Morpeth etc. The identification of a further marginal improvement is no argument for premature scrappimg, which only leads to less rolling stock, fewer train seat miles, more road journeys and more travel deaths.

I am surprised that thorough inspection of vehicle body condition (as in MoT tests!) is not done, or provided for in design and construction, either by access viewing or "oil rig" coatings.

Weren't the Mark 3's built out of "Corten", BSC's higher tensile, lower corrosion steel?

The drain design owed more to a rigid design spec than common sense. Every drain will overflow and gravity must win, so let it!

OTC

The weakness of the HST Mk3 is the inter vehicle coupling.  Mk3 use buckeye type of couplings which loose attachment in the event of a severe vertical movement, which looks like the case in this accident. 

I think what RAIB were questioning had a full risk assessment been carried out for the change of how the trains were configured.

The part that is damming is the signing off of contractors work and the control of CDM Health and Safety File.  One of the major failing of the current contract arrangements is the contractor has received 90% of the contract payments when a project is commissioned. 

Both NR and the contractors project teams have often moved onto other projects after the commissioning happens so the project close out process along with as built drawings, operation and maintenance manuals can take years to get back to the NR Asset Manager and Maintainer.   Part of this hand back process in to place the asset into the Asset Maintenance system if hand back does not happen assets get left out of the system.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on March 10, 2022, 19:17:21
I can not support the withdrawal of HSTs simply because a newer and safer alternative is available.
Fatal accidents are extremely rare, Stonehaven was the first for many years.

Apart from my personal preferences, rail travel is demonstrably very much safer than driving. Any reduction in rail capacity, or downgrading of comfort and facilities on trains will drive people away from very safe trains and into much less safe cars.

I am aware of people who would take the train, but who choose to drive because the trains are overcrowded, uncomfortable, or hugely expensive.

Despite all the above, I fear that HSTs will be withdrawn from general use. The Stonehaven accident is a splendid excuse to reduce capacity by withdrawing serviceable trains, and to downgrade from inter city trains to types more suited for local services.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: ellendune on March 10, 2022, 20:39:30
It depends what corrosion criteria they come up with.  If they do a proper assessment on that it could lead to more being scrapped. 


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: onthecushions on March 10, 2022, 20:48:36
I can't quite get my head around the concept that the fixed head, Alliance "Buckeye" coupling used within  many sets is suddenly unsafe. Accidents are rare and so are coupling breaks.

I accept that the MU future is Dellner and Tightlock, but at the ends of new stock. Could anything survive a high speed derailment on a curve? If a replacement is really sought would not the in-set bar coupler suffice?

OTC


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: stuving on March 11, 2022, 00:18:15
I can't quite get my head around the concept that the fixed head, Alliance "Buckeye" coupling used within  many sets is suddenly unsafe. Accidents are rare and so are coupling breaks.

I accept that the MU future is Dellner and Tightlock, but at the ends of new stock. Could anything survive a high speed derailment on a curve? If a replacement is really sought would not the in-set bar coupler suffice?

OTC

I know what you mean. I can remember it being said that Buckeye couplings had kept derailed trains largely upright, in particular after Morpeth Curve - where that is debatable. But the report is rather confused on this subject.

It does identify the couplings as more likely to break than those on newer trains, but the main advantage it gives is the prevention of overriding. That seems fair enough: if there are large longitudinal forces between vehicles, they are less destructive if the vehicles stay in line.

As to whether keeping the vehicles attached in a string as they start to concertina is a good idea, they suggest it is. Paragraph 533 directly addresses this question, in the context of the leading power car running off the bridge. They conclude that on balance staying coupled would have limited the power car's deviation off line so it would probably crossed the bridge before leaving the formation. I can't see that, myself.

Thus their conclusion is that couplings that stayed intact would have given a better outcome in this accident. Probably. But accidents vary greatly, and the part played by collisions with solid objects in derailments might be secondary or dominant. If you design a coupling to collapse, then break, at force levels you have chosen, I can't help feeling that the first accident that happens will be the one that proves you chose the wrong values! Like Neville Hill, for example.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: JayMac on March 11, 2022, 02:01:37
Had the leading power car remained attached to the rest of the train then I can see the possibility of the impact forces after coming off the bridge being lessened. It would have had 200 odd tonnes of train still attached to it, slowing it, anchoring it. With it still attached and no overriding, damage to the leading vestibule area of Coach D may also have been lessened.

Whether that would have prevented the fatal injuries to the conductor and driver from secondary impacts is of course impossible to know.

On the issue of the future of HSTs, nostalgia and potential stock shortages should not come before safety.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Mark A on March 11, 2022, 12:17:08
Punches are not pulled in the accompanying article:

Quote
"The HST cab is essentially an upturned bath tub mounted facing outwards with a driver inside it.

"There is zero crash structure for the cab – absolutely zero crashworthiness whatsoever.

"Zero protection for the driver.

"All there is the base of the front of the HST with a fibreglass shell over the front.


"There is no crash structure at all."

The 'Upturned bathtub' analogy seems to have gained traction but I'm surprised that it's made it into print. Next, it'll be said that the HST windscreen is a standard domestic double glazing unit.

While I'd wish the experience on no member of railway staff: it's worth revisiting the RAIB report on the July 10th 2010 Lavington accident. (Ash tree vs HST cab at 90 miles an hour).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c8feced915d4c10000159/R082011_110407_Lavington.pdf


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on March 11, 2022, 13:29:40
My understanding is that the cab of an HST is of substantial construction, but ONLY UP TO THE HEIGHT OF THE CONTROLS. Advice, whether official or otherwise, was to duck or crouch down if accident was imminent.

In the Lavington accident, the driver did this and escaped with only slight injuries, a broken wrist and numerous minor cuts IIRC. The damage suggested that remaining seated could have had very serious consequences.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: IndustryInsider on March 11, 2022, 14:18:43
I can not support the withdrawal of HSTs simply because a newer and safer alternative is available.
Fatal accidents are extremely rare, Stonehaven was the first for many years.

The trouble is of course, should an extremely rare accident happen again, and recommendations have been made to retire the fleet ASAP or instigate very expensive examinations and repairs on a very old fleet, if you're the one who made the decision that said 'Disregard those recommendations, it's highly unlikely to happen again' then you'll have some extremely difficult questions to answer.  So I can understand nervousness...even if I agree with you in principle.

Advice, whether official or otherwise, was to duck or crouch down if accident was imminent.

The unofficial advice was to leg it as far as you could into the clean air compartment behind the cab and lie on the floor!


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on March 12, 2022, 14:37:31
I would go as far as to say that "nostalgia and stock shortages" SHOULD override safety, provided of course that the risk to safety is very small as appears to be the case.

Rail travel is very safe, and HSTs have a reasonable safety record if considering the numbers in use and the huge mileages covered, often at high speeds.
I would be happy to travel in an HST even if something newer, shorter, and less comfortable is slightly safer.
I would be happy to drive an HST, after proper training of course.

The safest train is one that never leaves the depot.
The next safest is probably one limited to low speeds, and with only backwards facing seats, all with seatbelts. No food or drink of course, and luggage to be checked in and conveyed in a dedicated area as on aircraft.

Or we could all stay at home, though that carries risks.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: JayMac on March 12, 2022, 19:41:57
It would appear that ScotRail Trains (the nationalised operator from 1st April 2022) are looking to withdraw their HSTs as soon as practicable.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/19984106.stonehaven-rail-crash-ministers-look-removal-old-high-speed-trains-amidst-safety-review/

Questions to be asked. Can safety be improved? Can survivability in the event of an accident be improved? How can this be achieved?

My answer would be to replace near 50 year old rolling stock with more modern trains. Particularly after accident investigators concluded that it was; "more likely than not that the outcome would have been better if the train had been compliant with modern crashworthiness standards."


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: bradshaw on March 12, 2022, 20:28:43
Do they go with bimodes, possibly from Hitachi, with the intent that electrification can follow after?


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: JayMac on March 12, 2022, 20:53:35
Perhaps bimodes. Both Hitachi and Stadler have suitable products. Loco hauled Mark 5a carriages could also be a possibility.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Mark A on March 13, 2022, 08:42:22
Paragraph 487 from the report. Does it suggest that this may have been unsurviveable for the driver in a train built to current standards e.g. an Azuma? (Of course the entire train would likely behave in a different way so many variables here.)

487 The cab was subjected to severe impact conditions. The speed of impact was significantly beyond the collision speeds for which even modern cabs are designed to provide protection for occupants. For example, the cab ends of more modern trains (since around 2000) were designed to absorb energy and protect the driver in collisions with an identical train at a closing speed of up to 60 km/h (37 mph).53 Later train designs (since around 2010) were designed for a closing speed of up to 36 km/h54 (22 mph), in line with European Technical Specifications for Interoperability. These design collision speeds are equivalent to a single train colliding with an immovable object (or plane of symmetry) at half the design speed. The estimated speed of impact between the power car and the ground at Carmont (paragraph 484) was over twice the higher of the equivalent design speeds into an immovable object. Given the severity of the collision conditions, significant damage to this or any other cab’s structure was inevitable.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on March 13, 2022, 09:02:15
Paragraph 487 from the report. Does it suggest that this may have been unsurviveable for the driver in a train built to current standards e.g. an Azuma? (Of course the entire train would likely behave in a different way so many variables here.)

Personal comment - not the view of the forum ...

Indeed it does.   I may be a lone voice here, and swimming against the tide, but I have a very uneasy feeling that the report provides a very convenient way to justify the final withdrawal of HSTs based on safety against which no-one dare argue without being accused of not caring about someone's life.  The HSTs have - overall - a good track record (and I am aware, close to home, of members actually in the most appalling disasters) and have not suddenly become so dangerous they must be withdrawn as quick as possible - or are we being told that they have become more dangerous because there's now a greater chance of infrastructure failure from Network Rail, requiring more robust trains?

That said, Mark, while the driver of an Azuma might not have survived in the circumstances, perhaps the other two who died might have done?


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: bobm on March 13, 2022, 09:25:11
We should also not overlook the cause of the incident was an incorrectly installed drainage system that had gone undetected for a decade.  As usual there are many pieces which contribute to the overall picture.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on March 13, 2022, 14:47:13
I agree that the report is or will be used as a very convenient way to remove HSTs from service.

The future is shorter, less comfortable trains, with reduced facilities, all in the interests of safety of course.

This might save a few lives per century in railway accidents. Total lives lost in transport accidents will increase as people are driven from the railways and into much more dangerous cars.

And of course the climate emergency is now very last year, so no need to worry about the carbon emissions from the extra driving and flying.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: ellendune on March 13, 2022, 17:52:49
We should also not overlook the cause of the incident was an incorrectly installed drainage system that had gone undetected for a decade.  As usual there are many pieces which contribute to the overall picture.

I quite agree, but crashworthiness of vehicles still has to be considered. Fatalities are almost always the result of more than one factor.

I may be a lone voice here, and swimming against the tide, but I have a very uneasy feeling that the report provides a very convenient way to justify the final withdrawal of HSTs based on safety against which no-one dare argue without being accused of not caring about someone's life.  The HSTs have - overall - a good track record (and I am aware, close to home, of members actually in the most appalling disasters) and have not suddenly become so dangerous they must be withdrawn as quick as possible - or are we being told that they have become more dangerous because there's now a greater chance of infrastructure failure from Network Rail, requiring more robust trains?

I am mindful however that whatever it once was, the crashworthiness of the HSTs may have been degraded by the corrosion issues that are also highlighted in the report. When the recommendation to investigate what level of corrosion is acceptable has been carried out, we may find that more HSTs either need expensive heavy repairs to extend their lives. Bearing in mind that IIRC they are already more expensive to maintain than new stock and this will get worse as the numbers in service decrease, such heavy repairs might not be considered economic. Is that an excuse? No it is cold hard economics at a time when the railway is under considerable pressure to reduce costs. 

And of course the climate emergency is now very last year, so no need to worry about the carbon emissions from the extra driving and flying.

Of course there are those who do not see the importance of this, but the need to be self sufficient in energy and not dependent on Russian oil and gas, is now a necessity that pushes us in the same direction as net zero.  Those who say we should continue to rely on fossil fuels could now be said to be unpatriotic. 


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on March 15, 2022, 15:33:31
Fatalities are almost always the result of more than one factor.


When learning to fly, I was taught that no accident has a single cause. Since then, I haven't seen a single accident that had only a single cause, whereas there were lots before.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Electric train on March 16, 2022, 07:20:42
Fatalities are almost always the result of more than one factor.


When learning to fly, I was taught that no accident has a single cause. Since then, I haven't seen a single accident that had only a single cause, whereas there were lots before.

Often referred to as the 'Swiss cheese' model.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on August 30, 2022, 21:56:11
From the Press and Journal (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen-aberdeenshire/4729738/police-investigation-into-stonehaven-rail-crash-submitted-to-crown-office/)

Quote
Police confirmed they have now concluded their “complex investigation” and submitted the report to the procurator fiscal.

The report compiled by Police Scotland, British Transport Police and the Office of Rail and Road is one of two investigations which was launched following the derailment in August 2020.

On the two year anniversary of the crash, politicians urged them to finish their probe as soon as possible to help “heal the pain” of the families.

The other investigation was published by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) back in March.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on August 31, 2022, 19:33:24
Why was a police inquiry even needed ?
We regularly hear that the police have not the resources to investigate most crimes, so why spend a substantial amount on investigating a railway accident when the RAIB are the acknowledged experts in such matters.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: JayMac on August 31, 2022, 19:50:15
Why was a police inquiry even needed ?
We regularly hear that the police have not the resources to investigate most crimes, so why spend a substantial amount on investigating a railway accident when the RAIB are the acknowledged experts in such matters.

RAIB do not apportion blame, or prosecute if laws are broken. They police should always investigate when there's loss of life, lest any negligence or deliberate actions causing those deaths go unpunished.

It would be a huge disservice to the families of victims if there were no police investigation to determine if anyone were at fault.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on August 31, 2022, 20:11:12

RAIB do not apportion blame, or prosecute if laws are broken. They police should always investigate when there's loss of life, lest any negligence or deliberate actions causing those deaths go unpunished.

It would be a huge disservice to the families of victims if there were no police investigation to determine if anyone were at fault.

In addition, the Procurator Fiscal, who performs the functions of an English coroner, does not investigate as such. The RAIB report will inform him of the causative factors, with the police investigation helping to establish a verdict. I would assume BTP will have been involved, and they will have some expertise in such matters.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on September 01, 2022, 03:59:56
Why was a police inquiry even needed ?
We regularly hear that the police have not the resources to investigate most crimes, so why spend a substantial amount on investigating a railway accident when the RAIB are the acknowledged experts in such matters.

RAIB do not apportion blame, or prosecute if laws are broken. They police should always investigate when there's loss of life, lest any negligence or deliberate actions causing those deaths go unpunished.

It would be a huge disservice to the families of victims if there were no police investigation to determine if anyone were at fault.

Thanks for the information. I believed that the police only investigated if there was a suspicion of crime, and not as a matter of routine for any fatal accident.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TonyK on September 03, 2022, 14:24:53

Thanks for the information. I believed that the police only investigated if there was a suspicion of crime, and not as a matter of routine for any fatal accident.

The police will always be involved in a fatal accident of any kind, if only to make sure that no foul play was involved before letting the appropriate experts - fire, RAIB, AAIB, Health and Safety Executive, whoever - get on with their own investigation. There is seldom an accident with a single cause, and any one of the pieces that add up to the whole thing could have involve criminal action or inaction.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: paul7575 on September 04, 2022, 11:50:27
I think there was a question about who’s responsibility it was at Carmont, with some debate at the time about the BTP being sidelined.  But I also think Scottish fatal accident law is perhaps different to English law, and as I’m no expert maybe others can chip in?


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: broadgage on August 22, 2023, 13:02:51
Network rail to be prosecuted over Stonehaven accident.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65017289 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65017289)


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TaplowGreen on September 07, 2023, 10:31:07
.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: TaplowGreen on September 08, 2023, 11:48:28
Network rail to be prosecuted over Stonehaven accident.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65017289 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65017289)

A huge fine for Network Rail in respect of their fatal errors in this incident......but given that they are nationalised, who pays the fine? (Ultimately the taxpayer I guess?) And to whom?

BBC News - Stonehaven crash: Network Rail fined £6.7m over fatal derailment
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66749546


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: grahame on September 08, 2023, 12:04:56
Network rail to be prosecuted over Stonehaven accident.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65017289 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65017289)

A huge fine for Network Rail in respect of their fatal errors in this incident......but given that they are nationalised, who pays the fine? (Ultimately the taxpayer I guess?) And to whom?

BBC News - Stonehaven crash: Network Rail fined £6.7m over fatal derailment
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66749546

It's a hugely awkward question.   I find myself wondering if the effect is to pull nearly £7 million out of the rail budget / industry and pass it to the Treasury. It's not compensation to the people effected, is it?  Nor will it come out of the pockets of managers who got it wrong or shareholders or directors.   But then  "Network Rail" - in whatever guise they are represented - cannot be a law unto themselves and consequences need to be there.


Title: Re: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020
Post by: Electric train on September 08, 2023, 18:07:35
Network rail to be prosecuted over Stonehaven accident.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65017289 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65017289)

A huge fine for Network Rail in respect of their fatal errors in this incident......but given that they are nationalised, who pays the fine? (Ultimately the taxpayer I guess?) And to whom?

BBC News - Stonehaven crash: Network Rail fined £6.7m over fatal derailment
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66749546

It's a hugely awkward question.   I find myself wondering if the effect is to pull nearly £7 million out of the rail budget / industry and pass it to the Treasury. It's not compensation to the people effected, is it?  Nor will it come out of the pockets of managers who got it wrong or shareholders or directors.   But then  "Network Rail" - in whatever guise they are represented - cannot be a law unto themselves and consequences need to be there.

Fines paid by NR come out of its overall budget, the ORR will still expect NR to continue to fund renewals and to operate the system normally.  In other words it has to find the money internally.

There has been a very high level internal investigation into the root cause, as a result investments in other assets have been diverted into the Geotech assets




This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net