Carmont derailment - report today

[Carl]

The train was in no immediate danger while it waited for the crossover to be secured, and the fact it took 2 hours to secure the crossover isn't what caused the accident.

 

One of the areas on on-going investigation - and in my opinion, will be cited as a causal factor in the final report - is "the railway’s management systems and decision-making processes at times of wide-spread disruption caused by severe weather and/or multiple instances of infrastructure failure."

 

On the line, there had been two known landslips, and an area of flooding, with trains held at all three locations at the time 1T08 turned back.  Yet the train accelerated to 73mph.  As the report notes "as the signaller was not aware of any obstruction on the line, railway rules did not require him to instruct the driver to travel at a speed slower than the maximum normally permitted."

 

But common sense should have told the signaller and the driver that travelling at line speed was probably dangerous.

 

Would the accident have happened if 1T08 was turned back sooner?  Maybe, maybe not.  We don't know when the landslip it hit occurred.  But with a high certainty, the fatalities would have been avoided if the train was travelling at a lower speed.

 

I should make it clear I don't intend to blame either the driver or the signaller, nor ScotRail.  I'm just making the point that most people in this thread seem to be concentrating on the wrong thing.

[phil-b259]

15 hours ago, iands said:

At the risk of causing a drift off topic, the use of the word emergency in association with "crossover" is a bit misleading, implying (as per a dictionary definition) that there is a "dangerous situation requiring immediate action".

 

 

An Emergency crossover is one that is only required in Emergencies - Simples.

 

Given Carmont had no station, there would be no other reason to use it during normal traffic hours other than an emergency situation!

 

Crossovers at stations (e.g. Stonehaven) are a bit different - engineering work can well see crossovers to be used on a pre-planned / scheduled basis to shunt trains back right line and consequently they are not normally thought of as an 'emergency' facility.

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

16 minutes ago, Carl said:

The train was in no immediate danger while it waited for the crossover to be secured, and the fact it took 2 hours to secure the crossover isn't what caused the accident.

 

One of the areas on on-going investigation - and in my opinion, will be cited as a causal factor in the final report - is "the railway’s management systems and decision-making processes at times of wide-spread disruption caused by severe weather and/or multiple instances of infrastructure failure."

 

On the line, there had been two known landslips, and an area of flooding, with trains held at all three locations at the time 1T08 turned back.  Yet the train accelerated to 73mph.  As the report notes "as the signaller was not aware of any obstruction on the line, railway rules did not require him to instruct the driver to travel at a speed slower than the maximum normally permitted."

 

But common sense should have told the signaller and the driver that travelling at line speed was probably dangerous.

 

Would the accident have happened if 1T08 was turned back sooner?  Maybe, maybe not.  We don't know when the landslip it hit occurred.  But with a high certainty, the fatalities would have been avoided if the train was travelling at a lower speed.

 

I should make it clear I don't intend to blame either the driver or the signaller, nor ScotRail.  I'm just making the point that most people in this thread seem to be concentrating on the wrong thing.

Comes back to how risk averse you want the railway to be. Nobody wants an accident of any kind, but also nobody wants to have services routinely suspended or running at severely reduced speeds "just in case". The one bit of line the driver of 1T08 considered to be clear was Carmont to Stonehaven on the down as he had observed it to be clear from the up road, and still this happened. We have already started to see knee-jerk heavy TSRs and service suspensions on the strength of a maybe, which will force passengers onto the roads where they are statistically far more likely to be involved in an accident and vastly more likely to be involved in a fatal accident.

 

[Carl]

1 minute ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Nobody wants an accident of any kind, but also nobody wants to have services routinely suspended or running at severely reduced speeds "just in case".

 

The train wasn't going to end up at its destination, and it was running on the only route open in central or eastern Scotland, and already had three identified locations on that route where there had been landslips or flooding.

 

That's far from "just in case".

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

4 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

The train wasn't going to end up at its destination, and it was running on the only route open in central or eastern Scotland, and already had three identified locations on that route where there had been landslips or flooding.

 

That's far from "just in case".

But it was still the middle of August on a railway that is resilient to all weathers. It appears you are advocating blanket closure or effective closure of the railway network after heavy rainfall (or indeed after any weather incident including wind or snow), which would certainly reduce the risk to railway staff and passengers. My point is that by making the railway that fickle will force passengers to use other less safe modes.

[Carl]

15 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

But it was still the middle of August on a railway that is resilient to all weathers. It appears you are advocating blanket closure or effective closure of the railway network after heavy rainfall (or indeed after any weather incident including wind or snow), which would certainly reduce the risk to railway staff and passengers. My point is that by making the railway that fickle will force passengers to use other less safe modes.

 

Nah, I'm not advocating anything, I really don't know what the answer is.  As you imply, there is a very complex set of considerations.

 

I was just making the point that a lot of people in the thread were focussing on the delay in securing the crossover, but it wasn't the delay that killed three people, it was hitting the landslide at 73mph.

[Reorte]

24 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

Nah, I'm not advocating anything, I really don't know what the answer is.  As you imply, there is a very complex set of considerations.

 

I was just making the point that a lot of people in the thread were focussing on the delay in securing the crossover, but it wasn't the delay that killed three people, it was hitting the landslide at 73mph.

 

Implying the delay to be a cause does feel like it's stretching things somewhat; a delay could just as easily result in a disaster being missed.

[john new]

3 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Comes back to how risk averse you want the railway to be. Nobody wants an accident of any kind, but also nobody wants to have services routinely suspended or running at severely reduced speeds "just in case". The one bit of line the driver of 1T08 considered to be clear was Carmont to Stonehaven on the down as he had observed it to be clear from the up road, and still this happened. We have already started to see knee-jerk heavy TSRs and service suspensions on the strength of a maybe, which will force passengers onto the roads where they are statistically far more likely to be involved in an accident and vastly more likely to be involved in a fatal accident.

 

Sorry but I totally disagree. I would rather be late home because my train back from London is running slowly through the New Forest in gale conditions (and able to stop if the driver sees a downed tree) than have it crash at line speed and derail. It is the same reason as the need when driving the car to go more slowly in bad/wet weather; sadly something many motorists don’t seem to do.

[Reorte]

10 minutes ago, john new said:

Sorry but I totally disagree. I would rather be late home because my train back from London is running slowly through the New Forest in gale conditions (and able to stop if the driver sees a downed tree) than have it crash at line speed and derail. It is the same reason as the need when driving the car to go more slowly in bad/wet weather; sadly something many motorists don’t seem to do.

 

If conditions are bad enough that trains have to be driven on sight (and you could well say that reports of landslides indicate conditions are that bad) then isn't it really a case of getting passengers to the nearest safe place where they can detrain, because conditions aren't safe then to run trains at all?

[john new]

2 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

If conditions are bad enough that trains have to be driven on sight (and you could well say that reports of landslides indicate conditions are that bad) then isn't it really a case of getting passengers to the nearest safe place where they can detrain, because conditions aren't safe then to run trains at all?

Balancing act, I concur. What I was commenting on was fifty four fifty four’s statement that no one wants trains to go slower when necessary.   
 

We have a one road on off the Island causeway, annoying when shut due to adverse weather but yes sometimes safety does mean too dangerous to allow transit.

[rab]

Reading through this thread reminds me of the film Sully: Miracle on the Hudson, about the pilot who landed a passenger plane on the Hudson river after it developed a problem.

 

At a subsequent investigation attempts were made to prove the pilot was at fault.  Numerous simulations were run and used as evidence to prove this point.  It was pointed out however that those running the simulations had numerous chances to rerun them. At the time of the incident, the pilot had one chance!

 

While I accept that the incident at Carmont  developed much more slowly, and therefore gave much more time for decision making, (except of course, for the driver encountering the landslide), the above echoes my earlier comment about hindsight.

 

We can sit back in the comfort of our armchairs and discuss what should and should not have been done, but I have no doubt that those involved did what their training and experience led them to believe was the best course of action under the difficult circumstances facing them at the time

Edited April 20, 2021 by rab

[PerthBox]

5 hours ago, Carl said:

The train was in no immediate danger while it waited for the crossover to be secured, and the fact it took 2 hours to secure the crossover isn't what caused the accident.

 

One of the areas on on-going investigation - and in my opinion, will be cited as a causal factor in the final report - is "the railway’s management systems and decision-making processes at times of wide-spread disruption caused by severe weather and/or multiple instances of infrastructure failure."

 

On the line, there had been two known landslips, and an area of flooding, with trains held at all three locations at the time 1T08 turned back.  Yet the train accelerated to 73mph.  As the report notes "as the signaller was not aware of any obstruction on the line, railway rules did not require him to instruct the driver to travel at a speed slower than the maximum normally permitted."

 

But common sense should have told the signaller and the driver that travelling at line speed was probably dangerous.

 

Would the accident have happened if 1T08 was turned back sooner?  Maybe, maybe not.  We don't know when the landslip it hit occurred.  But with a high certainty, the fatalities would have been avoided if the train was travelling at a lower speed.

 

I should make it clear I don't intend to blame either the driver or the signaller, nor ScotRail.  I'm just making the point that most people in this thread seem to be concentrating on the wrong thing.

I know you say you’re not blaming the staff involved but the bit I’ve highlighted in bold does rather seem that way to me. The signaller and driver simply followed the rules as the were at the time of the accident; one of them paid with his life and the other was left struggling to cope with the trauma of what happened though he is, thankfully, back at work now.
 

One of my colleagues said to me a few days after the accident “I would have cautioned that train” but I don’t believe him for a second, it’s simply hindsight talking. In the same situation I certainly would have done exactly the same as the signaller at Carmont. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by PerthBox

[caradoc]

5 hours ago, Carl said:

but it wasn't the delay that killed three people, it was hitting the landslide at 73mph.

 

Plus the fact that the train then immediately struck a bridge parapet leading to the catastrophic destruction of which we are all aware; There have been many other landslip-strike incidents with results nothing like as severe. The proximity of the bridge to the landslip was a factor which severely exarcebated the disaster. 

 

[PaulRhB]

  The effects of the weather changes are being studied and it’s not just here. There was a derailment, no serious injuries fortunately, near Thusis in Switzerland just a few weeks ago in a place they’d only just noticed was moving unusually and they were studying to see if it was the climatic change causing the ground to shift differently. It surprised them moving much faster than they expected. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by PaulRhB

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

18 hours ago, john new said:

Sorry but I totally disagree. I would rather be late home because my train back from London is running slowly through the New Forest in gale conditions (and able to stop if the driver sees a downed tree) than have it crash at line speed and derail. It is the same reason as the need when driving the car to go more slowly in bad/wet weather; sadly something many motorists don’t seem to do.

You may be patient and not mind how long it takes (Totton to New Milton at 20mph is probably going to stick an hour on the journey and by necessity cut the service by at last half due to crew and stock displacement) but how frequently is it windy, or at least windy enough for there to be some risk that a tree has fallen? We cannot have zero risk, and the fact that Carmont is the first weather related fatal accident in decades suggests the level of aversion to risk had been about right. And I still stand by my point; your train arrives at Southampton and they decide that it's not going any further because its been a bit windy and eventually direct you onto replacement road transport which do YOU think poses the largest risk to your safety, the train running at line speed or the bus running along the A31 at 60mph?

 

[PaulRhB]

NR is also still a business answering to the government and public pressure and there are massive financial penalties to blanket speeds. I can also tell you that the fury directed at operating and station staff when we do implement precautions and cause delay is appalling. A vocal minority of public on scene and usually soon after the press have little patience with delays but are also vehemently against the costs involved in preventing or having instant response on the scale necessary for a storm we may see once every few years. I’ve been to crossings, where weather has failed them, lifted the barriers and been subjected to torrents of abuse by people not seeing the irony in then stopping on the crossing to abuse me holding up traffic again! 
Some are acting like the railway never had weather response before, we do and it costs a lot in extra manpower and hired in 4x4’s though and 99% of the time you don’t notice because it works well. 
Let’s also take another moment to consider the Signaller mentioned above, the conductor who had to make the terrible choice whether to stay and help or walk on to try and protect another train ploughing into it, the contractors by the river who helped out and the response teams and emergency services personnel who had to help the victims. 
RAIB are doing what they are there for, learning the lessons, and they and their predecessors have created the rulebook over 150+ years. The world is physically changing too and new procedures coming in as seen here and recently in Switzerland. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by PaulRhB

[PerthBox]

35 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Let’s also take another moment to consider the Signaller mentioned above, the conductor who had to make the terrible choice whether to stay and help or walk on to try and protect another train ploughing into it, the contractors by the river who helped out and the response teams and emergency services personnel who had to help the victims.

 

With no mobile phone signal the conductor who was travelling passenger ran about a half a mile north from the crash to place dets on the Up line until she came to a lineside phone (to me the fact this phone was working is probably the most remarkable bit of the whole story!) where she was able to contact the signaller to make sure the train was protected, then ran back past the crash scene for another two miles or so to go to Carmont signalbox. She did all this with a broken ankle. There were many brave and selfless acts that day and you might say 'well that's just what every member of railway staff is trained to do' but it's one thing talking about it in a classroom or a rules exam and quite another actually doing it.

Edited April 21, 2021 by PerthBox

[Railpassion]

We shall learn more when the full report is published but I wonder if the lack of obstacle deflectors on the HST may have played a role in the initial derailment. 

['CHARD]

2 hours ago, Railpassion said:

We shall learn more when the full report is published but I wonder if the lack of obstacle deflectors on the HST may have played a role in the initial derailment. 

 

In common with other diesel locos, Class 43s are fitted with lifeguards, as the loco's mass  is adequate for shifting the usually encountered railhead debris out of harm's way. 

 

It could be suggested that the body of earth and vegetation would be sufficient to derail anything, fitted with whatever obstacle deflector, travelling at line speed or substantially below it.

[Railpassion]

Yes, lifting of the first bogie occurred at Ufton Nervert. Obstacle deflectors were discussed on HST's to prevent lift but the HSTs were thought to be due for replacement. In the end the HST's have stayed around far longer.  

 

 

[Zomboid]

Didn't Ufton Nervert go quite so badly wrong partly because the engine block got caught in just the wrong place? You could probably repeat the incident many times and not get the same result. Just one layer of swiss cheese on they instance, but a car is a very different obstacle to a landslide.

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

I fear there may still be some comment made officially about the ongoing use of 45 year old stock with its 1970's crash worthiness and/or the wisdom of having a lot of weight at the back of a train and the effect that has on the coaches when in a collision like this. 

 

Ufton Nurvet was an unfortunate one, if it had struck the car any differently and if there hadn't been the start of a loop just after the crossing that train would probably have been derailed but stayed upright and aligned. Proves that sometimes all you need is an element of bad luck, same went for Great Heck which would have had a different outcome if it hadn't been for the freight on the down.

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by fiftyfour fiftyfour

[Kris]

18 hours ago, Railpassion said:

We shall learn more when the full report is published but I wonder if the lack of obstacle deflectors on the HST may have played a role in the initial derailment. 

They would have made no difference in this case. The amount of soil, stone and vegetable matter on the line was significant and would have derailed anything that came along the line. 

[billbedford]

There was a new RAIB report publish this morning: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summary-of-learning-7-the-safe-management-of-weather-related-events-which-affect-train-operation

 

This contain an interesting passage which ties in with what other posters have been saying:

Quote

...but the recent accident at Carmont shows that there are still gaps in the railway’s preparedness. When bad weather is forecast for, or already occurring in, a specific area, it may be necessary to close lines, or to reduce the speed of trains to mitigate the consequences of collisions or derailments. The decision to initiate such measures must be actively taken, informed by adequate data and in accordance with sound evidence-based criteria and established processes. 

 

[caradoc]

13 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Proves that sometimes all you need is an element of bad luck, same went for Great Heck which would have had a different outcome if it hadn't been for the freight on the down.

 

Absolutely, similarly IMHO the bridge parapet immediately beyond the landslip at Carmont was the factor that turned an accident into a disaster.