A train has derailed near Stonehaven.

[TRP]

The RAIB has posted some of it's initial findings which reveals the the HST was travelling at 72.8 mph when it hit the landslide. It also gives details of the movements of the train leading up to the derailment.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...dated-21082020

Investigations are still taking place with further information to be published in due course.

Tony

[Beeyar Wunby]

Originally Posted by TRP

The RAIB has posted some of it's initial findings which reveals the the HST was travelling at 72.8 mph when it hit the landslide.

Ouch, I didn't realise it was going that quickly. It explains alot.

Maybe it would be a good idea in future for trains to run at caution whenever a landslide has occurred anywhere on the line? Makes it tedious, but better than wrecking a train.

Just a thought.

BW

[TRP]

Yes I was a bit surprised by the speed. What sort of speed would it be if you were instructed to run under caution BW?

Tony

[aussiesteve]

G'day,
Yes, the speed could be presumed by the derailment damage sustained along the perway and across the brick viaduct evident in the photo.
The NSW Illawarra is prone to landslip, and many moons ago land slip detectors were installed.
These being connected to the train control signal panel and putting signals back to stop when the sensors trip.
A rigmarole to then be granted permission to pass such a signal at stop within land slip detection territory.
This all was implemented after an interurban derailed where the track had been damaged due to landslip.
That interurban emu stomping its way towards a nearby house and knocking on the loungeroom windows.
Here we did have Caution Speed (aka 25 kph) to be implemented when ever signals had to be passed at stop due to failures.
But, after the Glenbrook Indian Pacific prang in 1999, that got hurled out of the rule book.
We now have RESTRICTED SPEED which has NO associated speed limit.
Trains MUST now travel at a speed which would permit stopping before any obstruction or track fault.
SO, all on the train hoggers head be it if he travels too fast and cannot stop in time.
Steve.

[TRP]

Interesting that you say it's all on the driver's head, as this driver's widow has complained about the reporting of this derailment (particularly the BBC) which she says has only taken parts of the initial RAIB report, whilst leaving some details out, making it sound like the driver was at fault. She has said that he was driving completely in accordance with his instructions.

https://news.sky.com/story/stonehave...-book-12054543

Tony

[Beeyar Wunby]

Originally Posted by TRP

Interesting that you say it's all on the driver's head....

Not sure who that was directed at, but that's not what I was suggesting. A train driver is required to drive at full speed when running under clear aspects. Any less than that and they'll be pulled up for not keeping to time.

I meant my comments to be directed towards Company Driving Policy / Rulebook requirements. And I stand by it - I believe drivers should be INSTRUCTED to run at caution whenever there is a significant risk of landslide or track damage.

I'm not looking to blame anyone for this, but these weather events seem to be increasing. Network Rail (who run the infrastructure) should have carried out a risk assessment of rivers and culverts in hilly country. I believe they should automatically impose blanket speed restrictions in heavy and continued wet weather, just as we regularly get them imposed in high winds out here on the Flatlands.

As regards to what speed to do under caution - I would drive at a speed which enabled me to stop short of any obstruction, EG maybe 30-50mph on a long straight, coming down to 15 or less on a tight curve if necessary. It's a judgement you make at the time.

But just to make it clear - the driver carries no blame for this if he has driven within the rules, and I don't believe anybody here is suggesting that he didn't.

As a side comment, we have a rule of thumb at my depot that we don't do Twitter or any other of the nasty Social Media - they seem to be full of nasty, angry people. It's very upsetting for a traincrew member or their family to read untrue and hurtful comments written by ignorant and misguided peole after an event they were involved in.

HTH, BW

[TRP]

Originally Posted by Beeyar Wunby

Not sure who that was directed at, but that's not what I was suggesting.

Sorry, not at you BW, this was reference to the last part of Steve's post where the Oz rail authorities have implemented "RESTRICTED SPEED which has NO associated speed limit.
Trains MUST now travel at a speed which would permit stopping before any obstruction or track fault.
SO, all on the train hoggers head be it if he travels too fast and cannot stop in time."
And it was this which seemed interesting considering the press reports which could be construed as scapegoating the driver in the Stonehaven accident.
Apologies for any offence, none intended.

Tony

[TRP]

Originally Posted by Beeyar Wunby

Not sure who that was directed at, but that's not what I was suggesting. A train driver is required to drive at full speed when running under clear aspects. Any less than that and they'll be pulled up for not keeping to time.

I meant my comments to be directed towards Company Driving Policy / Rulebook requirements. And I stand by it - I believe drivers should be INSTRUCTED to run at caution whenever there is a significant risk of landslide or track damage.

I'm not looking to blame anyone for this, but these weather events seem to be increasing. Network Rail (who run the infrastructure) should have carried out a risk assessment of rivers and culverts in hilly country. I believe they should automatically impose blanket speed restrictions in heavy and continued wet weather, just as we regularly get them imposed in high winds out here on the Flatlands.

As regards to what speed to do under caution - I would drive at a speed which enabled me to stop short of any obstruction, EG maybe 30-50mph on a long straight, coming down to 15 or less on a tight curve if necessary. It's a judgement you make at the time.

But just to make it clear - the driver carries no blame for this if he has driven within the rules, and I don't believe anybody here is suggesting that he didn't.

As a side comment, we have a rule of thumb at my depot that we don't do Twitter or any other of the nasty Social Media - they seem to be full of nasty, angry people. It's very upsetting for a traincrew member or their family to read untrue and hurtful comments written by ignorant and misguided peole after an event they were involved in.

HTH, BW

Thanks for answering the question BW - as a non-railwayman, I was curious if there was a specified speed for running under caution and whether it would be given as an instruction in situations such as these.

Tony

[Beeyar Wunby]

Hi Tony. Absolutely none taken. I always enjoy our discussions.

I hadn't appreciated that it was part of AS's post you were commenting on.

As usual, the media has hyped this and whipped up the lynchmob. We seem to be living in very angry and troubled times. I blame Murdoch for much of it, but I must bite my lip because as we've said before this is not the place for politics.

And here in Blighty, in the Good Book 'proceed with caution' requires you be able to stop short of any obstuction without mentioning a specific speed, except that you are required to (1) pass over points and crossings at 15 max, and (2) ensure that facing and trailing points are set for your intended route (which involves slowing down to walking pace as you get to one ).

Whereas Blanket Speed Restrictions do specify a given maximum speed.

Best wishes, BW.

[aussiesteve]

G'day Tony and BW,
Any time that fatalities occur within the transport industry, it is natural for the media to focus on the actions of the crew.
Such media attention can be more traumatic for the relatives of those crew members when those crew members are killed.
Society does like to apportion blame.
All accidents, road, rail, air and sea are tragic.
Nothing is totally perfect and never will be.
But, safety does tend to improve after the results of each accident.
I count myself fortunate to not having been personally involved in any fatal rail accident during my footplate career.
I have witnessed the inquests of a couple of fatal rail accidents, and such is not pleasant.
Steve.