Train crash in Scotland

[saaby93]

anyone else think those landslips are puny and in the days of steam a couple of blokes with shovels could have cleared it out of the way?

[vaud]

saaby93 said:

anyone else think those landslips are puny and in the days of steam a couple of blokes with shovels could have cleared it out of the way?

No.

HTH.

[Europa1]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that articulated carriages are more likely to stay upright in a derailment - do you know if that is correct?

[ShampooEfficient]

Heartbreaking to read the wife having to fight her husband's corner. As if she doesn't have enough going on.

Lazy journalism mentioning the speed with no context, I don't know how they justify it to themselves.

[valiant]

Europa1 said:

I seem to recall reading somewhere that articulated carriages are more likely to stay upright in a derailment - do you know if that is correct?

More likely to stay coupled.

A train that stays coupled in the event of a derailment/accident will lead to fewer injuries/fatalities as a leading cause of injuries/fatalities is carriages riding up into the one in front causing catastrophic damage or carriages splitting from the train and hurtling in every direction as we’ve seen here..

If you look at the Greyrigg accident, a modern Pendalino train derailed and went down an embankment. Apart from the leading motor all the train remained together (albeit on its side) and there was only one fatality despite being over 100 passengers on board.

[irc]

The driver was following instructions but is seems unwise not have had the train return north at reduced speed. There was no timetable to keep to. No other trains following. Obvious risk of landslide as there had been torrential rain overnight and the train had already been stopped at one landslide.


It's what - 20 miles from the crash scene to Aberdeen. Returning at 35-40mph would hsve taken an extra 15 minutes. What does 15 minutes matter after the train had already been stopped over 2 hours?

I'm not criticising the driver. He was told to proceed at usual speed. I just wonder what rules/procedures are in place that cover this kind of situation.

According to wikipaedia there was a history of landslips on the track i the area.

"The stretch of railway line—part of the former Aberdeen Railway[5]—where the derailment occurred has had problems with mudslides in the past. On 22 October 2002, it was closed due to a landslide at Carmont, during torrential rain and gales.[6] A Network Rail report from 2014 included Carmont in a "list of sites which in recent years have been greatly affected by earthslips”. The track operator’s report said improvement work had been carried out at Carmont, specifically, "remediation of cutting slope following emergency, after mudslide due to flooding".[7] The Office of Rail and Road, responsible for the safety regulation of Britain's railways, noted a spike in lineside landslips, demonstrating the "vulnerability" of the network, in their 2019–2020 Annual Safety Report, published in July 2020.[8][9] At around the same time of the incident, Network Rail Scotland shared video footage of a landslip across the railway line in the Carmont area.[10]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehaven_derailmen...

[Rick101]

There are occasions where a blanket speed limit can be imposed on all or particular traffic.

As others have said above, the Driver would have been expected to run to time. There would be more questions asked if he decided off his own back NOT to keep to line speed.

[alangla]

valiant said:

Europa1 said:

I seem to recall reading somewhere that articulated carriages are more likely to stay upright in a derailment - do you know if that is correct?

More likely to stay coupled.

A train that stays coupled in the event of a derailment/accident will lead to fewer injuries/fatalities as a leading cause of injuries/fatalities is carriages riding up into the one in front causing catastrophic damage or carriages splitting from the train and hurtling in every direction as we’ve seen here..

If you look at the Greyrigg accident, a modern Pendalino train derailed and went down an embankment. Apart from the leading motor all the train remained together (albeit on its side) and there was only one fatality despite being over 100 passengers on board.

Modern (ie last 20 years) trains tend to have solid bar couplers that need big spanners in a depot to remove. Some older Sprinter type trains have also been retrofitted with these. HSTs on the other hand still have buckeye type couplers that can be undone by pulling a chain. Given the results of this crash, I do wonder whether the RAIB will recommend retrofitting bar couplers between the coaches in HST and the remaining ex-LNER IC225 sets. I can’t see them being introduced either to power cars or to the locomotives on IC225s.
Talking about articulation, this isn’t directly comparable as it didn’t encounter an obstruction, but an articulated Eurostar derailed at 180mph back in 2000 near Arras and came to a halt entirely upright and in line.

[wc98]

Robertj21a said:

wc98 said:

saaby93 said:

How do you know that wasnt what the 2 hours delay was for?

it wasn't though it should have been. easier to leak the driver might have been speeding than admit that no route proving took place as should have happened in the circumstances. usual management arse covering already in full flow.

Suggest you wait for the investigation rather than throw around your own silly comments.

given i had already made my post that is going to be a bit difficult, isn't it ? i know there are train drivers posting on here, ask them what protocol should have been in that situation and ask yourself how information only known to those involved closely got into the scumbloids so quickly.

mistakes happen, it's how they are dealt with once they have that counts and the early signs are not good in this case.

[Eyersey1234]

ShampooEfficient said:

Heartbreaking to read the wife having to fight her husband's corner. As if she doesn't have enough going on.

Lazy journalism mentioning the speed with no context, I don't know how they justify it to themselves.

That's journalism for you, they write what they like and don't give a damn how accurate it is or who they hurt.

[Teddy Lop]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'd echo the sentiments of the original poster, her statement was heartbreaking as is the fact she feels compelled to have to defend her husband publically, it utterly sums up journalism.

[The Mad Monk]

Teddy Lop said:

I'd echo the sentiments of the original poster, her statement was heartbreaking as is the fact she feels compelled to have to defend her husband publically, it utterly sums up journalism.

1. Well, of course, journalists should avoid this sort of journalism.

2. The "victims" would be best advised not to respond to this sort of journalism.

3. Internet discussion forums should perhaps not stoke the flames and generate even more public debate, until these things are officially investigated.

4. Individual posters on discussion forums should refrain from inflammatory comments and uninformed speculation.

[coppernorks]

The Mad Monk said:

4. Individual posters on discussion forums should refrain from inflammatory comments and uninformed speculation.

a number of posters contributing to this seem to work, or have worked in the rail industry, what makes you think
their comments are uninformed ?

[The Mad Monk]

coppernorks said:

The Mad Monk said:

4. Individual posters on discussion forums should refrain from inflammatory comments and uninformed speculation.

a number of posters contributing to this seem to work, or have worked in the rail industry, what makes you think
their comments are uninformed ?

I didn't say "workers in the rail industry are making uninformed comments".

I said posters "should refrain from.... uninformed speculation".

[coppernorks]

The Mad Monk said:

I didn't say "workers in the rail industry are making uninformed comments".

I said posters "should refrain from.... uninformed speculation".

I'm just asking [ again] who is deciding that an individual poster's post is uninformed ?

You maybe, are you informed re all things railway ? Or just a blowhard

[sim72]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not the first time he's been a d*ckhead.

[NRS]

coppernorks said:

The Mad Monk said:

I didn't say "workers in the rail industry are making uninformed comments".

I said posters "should refrain from.... uninformed speculation".

I'm just asking [ again] who is deciding that an individual poster's post is uninformed ?

You maybe, are you informed re all things railway ? Or just a blowhard

There has been uninformed speculation, like there always is for this sort of thing. The brake failure speculation was one, for example.

I have no idea about the poster, but just because someone posts saying not to speculate before we find out about the investigation it doesn't mean they think themselves as informed... More they're admitting they don't know the facts here.

[Rick101]

bristolracer]Awful headlines said:

Can anyone explain the fire?
I thought diesel was fairly stable and didn't ignite very well?

I think last nights incident has proved diesel can go up very well indeed


https://youtu.be/iE13pbeW0Kg

Edited by Rick101 on Thursday 27th August 12:06

[sim72]

Rick101 said:

bristolracer]Awful headlines said:

Can anyone explain the fire?
I thought diesel was fairly stable and didn't ignite very well?

I think last nights incident has proved diesel can go up very well indeed


https://youtu.be/iE13pbeW0Kg

Any fuel is flammable when an accident turns it into a vapour or spray with an ignition source. The 1984 Eccles crash involved tankers of fuel oil, which is even less volatile, and the damaged tankers went up instantly.

[Gilhooligan]

I’m guessing the diesel fuel ignited due to becoming a mist/ spray in the accident (when the fuel tanks ruptured) which will make it have a much lower flash point?