Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 15:35 28 Mar 2024
- Man held over stabbing in front of train passengers
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Jet2 launches first flight from Liverpool airport
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1917)
Bideford, Westward Ho! and Appledore closed (link)

Train RunningCancelled
13:28 Weymouth to Gloucester
15:10 Newquay to Par
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
15:16 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
15:30 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
16:04 Bristol Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood
16:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
17:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
Short Run
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
15:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
Delayed
13:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
13:59 Cardiff Central to Penzance
14:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 15:53:37 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[142] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[80] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[56] Return of the BRUTE?
[46] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[43] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[34] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12
  Print  
Author Topic: HST derailment, near Stonehaven, 12th August 2020  (Read 23931 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #105 on: January 16, 2021, 17:56:54 »

From The Scotsman

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 (High Speed Train)

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!
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #106 on: January 16, 2021, 18:01:03 »

Never rains but it pours and keeps pouring

From the Inverness Courier


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.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #107 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 (Ordnance Survey) 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.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2021, 22:40:15 by stuving » Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #108 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 (as far as I can tell) the BBC» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) photo (reply #97) shows fairly clearly it?s on the outside of a curve?
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: January 17, 2021, 12:17:57 »

I?m referring just to the latest incident.  AFAICT (as far as I can tell) the BBC» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) 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).
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #110 on: January 17, 2021, 21:44:36 »

From the Evening Express

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.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: January 18, 2021, 00:27:19 »

NR» (Network Rail - home page) 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:



It's also clear from their comments that "closed for week" does not imply anything about the date of reopening.
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #112 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
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #113 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» (Network Rail - home page) local managers - e.g. "urgent examination required of all masonry acting as a retaining wall even as a secondary function".
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #114 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
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #115 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» (Network Rail - home page) news item - but even the full resolution image 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.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #116 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.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: March 20, 2021, 15:54:04 »

You may recall that two task forces were set to work after the accident, and their reports have now been published. 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.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #118 on: April 19, 2021, 11:01:57 »

Interim RAIB (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) 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 Cool. 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.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: May 05, 2021, 13:44:10 »

The Sotsman carries an impassioned argument from a rail engineer for the removal from service of all HSTs (High Speed Train) 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» (London North Eastern Railway - about) 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 (United Kingdom) Department for Transport’s rail accident investigation branch (RAIB (Rail Accident Investigation Branch)), 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.
Logged

Now, please!
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the 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 the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page