'Action still needed' five years after fatal derailment


Donald Dinnie, Christopher Stuchbury and Brett McCullough died in the 2020 crash

"Urgent action" is still needed to improve rail safety after the Stonehaven train derailment which left three men dead five years ago, a union has warned.

The Aberdeen to Glasgow train derailed at Carmont in Aberdeenshire on 12 August 2020 after hitting a landslide following heavy rain.

Driver Brett McCullough, 45, conductor Donald Dinnie, 58, and passenger Christopher Stuchbury, 62, died. Network Rail was fined £6.7m in 2023 after admitting a series of failings which led to the deaths.

The RMT union said eight of 20 safety recommendations still remained incomplete. Network Rail said "meaningful progress" had been made.

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) annual report for 2024, published earlier this year, revealed eight of its 20 safety recommendations remained "open".

These included control room capability and drainage design. It was based on information provided by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) about work carried out before 31 March this year.

"Open" is described as the recommendation being taken into consideration and action being taken to implement it.

The ORR said the rail industry had taken "significant steps", and recommendations which remained open had "agreed plans to implement the recommended actions".



On the 5th anniversary, RMT general secretary Eddie Dempsey said: "Our thoughts are with the families of Donald, Brett and Chris, and with those injured and traumatised in the crash. But remembrance alone is not enough - there must be action, and it needs to be urgent. It is outrageous that five years after the accident took place, and three years since the RAIB set out what needed to change, that so many safety recommendations are still outstanding."

He added: "We demand better - for those we lost, for those who survived, and for the safety of every worker and passenger going forward."

Network Rail also said its thoughts were with everyone involved in the Carmont tragedy. "Since August 2020, we've been working hard to make our railway safer for passengers and colleagues," a statement said. "We're investing more than £400m in projects to strengthen the railway's resilience to increasingly unpredictable weather."

It added: "Meaningful progress has been made on the recommendations from the Carmont investigation, which includes co-ordinated action across all Network Rail routes, and we continue to work closely with the ORR, train operators, and other key stakeholders."


(BBC article continues)

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.

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

Network rail to be prosecuted over Stonehaven accident.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65017289

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fatalities are almost always the result of more than one factor.

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 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?

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.

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.)

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.

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

Punches are not pulled in the accompanying article:

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 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

Bradshaw's comments above would also apply to the 769s which use 1980s class 319 bodyshells too.

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.

Establish criteria for the allowable extent of corrosion in safety critical areas of rolling stock

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

Now published.

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

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.

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...

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

"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."

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 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 ?

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.

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 . 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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 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

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.

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."

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.

They appear to have reinforced the river bank as well (unless that had been done previously, but it looks new).

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

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.

Part of rail bridge collapses near fatal Stonehaven derailment site

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.

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.

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]

I thought the line speed through there was 75 mph before the restriction?

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.”

Good to see someone posting the truth, obviously the family is bound to know more than the rest of us ...

I think this quote, posted on Facebook by the driver's widow, Stephanie Mccullough, warrants posting here............  [ edit / Grahame to add link ((here)) to the post, which is public ]

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.

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.

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.