Train crash in Scotland

[valiant]

monkfish1 said:

abzmike said:

Max_Torque said:

Question for PH train experts:

"is modern rolling stock explicitly designed for crash resistance"?

If you look at passenger cars, we now design our car EXPLICITLY for crash performance. In as little as roughly 40 years we have gone from driving cars that basically pretty much any accident would result in serious injury or death to driving cars that are both incredibly strong but also incredibly protective of their occupants. If we can do this for cars, why not for trains?

The rolling stock involved here is not modern... Refurbished stuff, probably 40 years old itself.

Old yes. But Mk3 have proven themselves extremeley robust over the last 40 years.,

They are robust no doubt but it is a bit like comparing a Ford Cortina to Ford Focus in terms of safety.

What you don’t want in a crash is for carriages to become uncoupled where they can ride up into one another or simply do their own thing and end up God knows where. You want the train to remain together as much as possible as this massively reduces the chances of severe injuries or fatalities and has more chance of remaining upright. Take a look at pictures of the Greyrigg crash which was a modern stock and you’ll see that only the leading motorcar separated and whilst there were fatalities, it could have been far, far worse.

I love the MK3 coach and used them regularly on my commute - there simply isn’t a more comfy carriage (squeaky buggers though ) but they are old tech and a modern unit is night and day more safe.

Edited by valiant on Thursday 13th August 15:21

[anonymous-user]

monkfish1 said:

Old yes. But Mk3 have proven themselves extremeley robust over the last 40 years.,

Wel it's all well and good the carriages are themselves robust, but as we found in the automotive world, a very strong / stiff structure still injurers or kills it's occupants. The big change in automotive is in the control of crash forces and the restraint and control of occupants.

[valiant]

Max_Torque said:

monkfish1 said:

Old yes. But Mk3 have proven themselves extremeley robust over the last 40 years.,

Wel it's all well and good the carriages are themselves robust, but as we found in the automotive world, a very strong / stiff structure still injurers or kills it's occupants. The big change in automotive is in the control of crash forces and the restraint and control of occupants.

Modern stocks will also have things like crumple zones and anti-riders to help dissipate forces and help prevent a carriage from rising up and ripping the st out of the carriage in front.

[P5BNij]

New drone footage of the site.....

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/vid...

Looks like evidence of a small land slip roughly three hundred yards south of the bridge (at 00.53 secs).

Edited by P5BNij on Thursday 13th August 16:44

Edited by P5BNij on Thursday 13th August 16:45

[saaby93]

P5BNij said:

New drone footage of the site.....

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/vid...

Looks like evidence of a small land slip roughly three hundred yards south of the bridge (at 00.53 secs).

[dudleybloke]

Did that bridge have a wall or other parapet before the crash?

[TheJimi]

P5BNij said:

New drone footage of the site.....

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/vid...

Looks like evidence of a small land slip roughly three hundred yards south of the bridge (at 00.53 secs).

Edited by P5BNij on Thursday 13th August 16:44

Edited by P5BNij on Thursday 13th August 16:45

Yeah, very much looks like that.

[Munter]

Nasty. Looks to my untrained eye like it derails on that landslip, then is "dragging" over the side of the bridge and presumably impacts the side of the "valley" head on and throws carriages all over the shop. That's really bad luck to have it happen right there, rather than somewhere without a bridge etc.

[Digga]

Munter said:

Nasty. Looks to my untrained eye like it derails on that landslip, then is "dragging" over the side of the bridge and presumably impacts the side of the "valley" head on and throws carriages all over the shop. That's really bad luck to have it happen right there, rather than somewhere without a bridge etc.

Yes. Not wanting to be an Internet/armchair 'expert', I would be extremely surprised (see my earlier comment) if this is not the cause of derailment of the first carriages.

We've had unprecedented weather and these sorts of incidents, in this sort of terrain, are terrifically difficult to predict and prevent, because the natural environment changes and evolves all the while.

[sim72]

There is speculation that the appalling damage to the front PC was because it derailed south of the bridge and the nearside hit the parapet "end on". The momentum (and the rear PC may still been powering if the driver didn't have time to shut off) pushed it over the bridge, dragging against the bridge wall, and at the end of the bridge it toppled over and into the wooded area.

[monkfish1]

Max_Torque said:

monkfish1 said:

Old yes. But Mk3 have proven themselves extremeley robust over the last 40 years.,

Wel it's all well and good the carriages are themselves robust, but as we found in the automotive world, a very strong / stiff structure still injurers or kills it's occupants. The big change in automotive is in the control of crash forces and the restraint and control of occupants.

Slightly more difficult on a railway vehicle as we dont have a bunch of wasted space each end to call crumple zones. But as posted above, there is effective cruple and anti-overide features on modern stock.

[monkfish1]

sim72 said:

There is speculation that the appalling damage to the front PC was because it derailed south of the bridge and the nearside hit the parapet "end on". The momentum (and the rear PC may still been powering if the driver didn't have time to shut off) pushed it over the bridge, dragging against the bridge wall, and at the end of the bridge it toppled over and into the wooded area.

Looking at the pics, you would have to agree the PC either took the wall out, or missed the bridge altogether, the wall being demolished by the rest of the train. Even if it was only doing 50mph by then, thats some serious retardation rate to have come to a stop such a short distance from the visible landslip.

[pinchmeimdreamin]

TheJimi said:

P5BNij said:

New drone footage of the site.....

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/vid...

Looks like evidence of a small land slip roughly three hundred yards south of the bridge (at 00.53 secs).

Edited by P5BNij on Thursday 13th August 16:44

Edited by P5BNij on Thursday 13th August 16:45

Yeah, very much looks like that.

Definitely

[sim72]

monkfish1 said:

sim72 said:

There is speculation that the appalling damage to the front PC was because it derailed south of the bridge and the nearside hit the parapet "end on". The momentum (and the rear PC may still been powering if the driver didn't have time to shut off) pushed it over the bridge, dragging against the bridge wall, and at the end of the bridge it toppled over and into the wooded area.

Looking at the pics, you would have to agree the PC either took the wall out, or missed the bridge altogether, the wall being demolished by the rest of the train. Even if it was only doing 50mph by then, thats some serious retardation rate to have come to a stop such a short distance from the visible landslip.

The fact that the first coach is fire-damaged despite landing quite a way from the PC suggests that the PC was on fire before it separated from the rest of the train, which further suggests that it was badly damaged enough for the fuel system to have been breached.

[rigga]

sim72 said:

shed driver said:

Do the HST sets have forward facing CCTV? And is that likely to have survived the impact and subsequent fire?

Judging by the image of the front power car, the cameras will not have survived, but I'm unsure where the OTMR boxes that store the data are situated on a HST, someone more knowledgable may know. If they're not in the cab they may be OK (and in fact even if they are, they're built to withstand huge trauma).

Camera front facing may well have not survived, its recording hardrive most likely will as its positioned elsewhere in the unit, not sure on HST, but on our class of trains, cctv recorder is midpoint in the roof, OTMR which will record all driver actions and train signals is either behind the cab, or rear of the carriage in the body end cupboard, hopefully both will have remained intact to allow full facts to be revealed.

[IamJacksContempt]

I see the Scum are at it again...

Respectful as ever.

[theboss]

IamJacksContempt said:

Respectful as ever.

Deplorable.

[DAVEVO9]

You could wipe your bum with that rag and more st would come off the paper

[Troubleatmill]

IamJacksContempt said:

I see the Scum are at it again...

Respectful as ever.

Naw.... that is lightweight.
Now - if the train driver's octogenarian mum voted for Brexit - There is a forum member on here who could make the most far more offensive attacks than that.

[Leicester Loyal]

Lily the Pink said:

P5BNij said:

He arrived at Carmont Signalbox at around 10.30 but the alarm had already been raised by a member of the public about an hour earlier.

Would an alarm have been raised as a matter of course when the train failed to appear at the next signal box or station ?

I was thinking this too, the signaller would surely realise the train stopped in a section? They should have known something had gone wrongway before he arrived at the Signalbox, around the same time the member of public rang up (assuming they rang up not long after the crash)