HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

It would appear that ScotRail Trains (the nationalised operator from 1st April 2022) are looking to withdraw their HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) 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."

[bradshaw]

Do they go with bimodes, possibly from Hitachi, with the intent that electrification can follow after?

[JayMac]

Perhaps bimodes. Both Hitachi and Stadler have suitable products. Loco hauled Mark 5a carriages could also be a possibility.

[Mark A]

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^▸ (Brand name for Class 80x trains on LNER)? (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.

[grahame]

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^▸ (Brand name for Class 80x trains on LNER)? (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^▸ (High Speed Train) 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?

[bobm]

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.

[broadgage]

I agree that the report is or will be used as a very convenient way to remove HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) 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.

[ellendune]

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^▸ (High Speed Train) 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^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) 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. 

[TonyK]

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.

[Electric train]

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.

[grahame]

From the Press and Journal

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^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch)) back in March.

[broadgage]

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^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) are the acknowledged experts in such matters.

[JayMac]

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^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) 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.

[TonyK]

RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) 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^▸ (British Transport Police) will have been involved, and they will have some expertise in such matters.

[broadgage]

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^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) 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.