Flying Scotsman has an Accident

[Ian Hargrave]

Am I correct in the assumption that when FS is leased out to heritage lines,their own crew without overall supervision do the driving ? When heading  trains on the national system,e.g. the Settle & Carlisle,does just one private operator provide crew ? Much has been made of this locomotive in the guise of a national treasure so why treat it in what appears to be a cavalier manner ? 

[melmerby]

3 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

You also have to wonder about how well those MDF and kitchen unit conversions will perform in the event of a fire. 

MDF doesn't burn well.

Pine would burn more easily.

[Oldddudders]

44 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

I can't disagree, but  I'll just say Innocent until proven. It is imperative to not condemn without the full evidence and Report.

Phil

Unfortunately the video evidence is that the loco did not stop well-short of the rolling stock, as is mandatory, despite at least one crew member looking in the correct direction. Unless they can demonstrate a brake failure of some sort, to explain what looked like an unwise approach speed to stationary rolling-stock, innocence is not likely. We modellers spend much time searching for locos which can run really slowly - this is the prototypical situation when that is required. 

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, chris p bacon said:

 

I didn't realise it it hit it 4 times......🙄

Remember according to twitter..

 it was the coaches that were aggressively beating flying scotsman, around the back of the bike shed.

[Steadfast]

48 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Am I correct in the assumption that when FS is leased out to heritage lines,their own crew without overall supervision do the driving ? When heading  trains on the national system,e.g. the Settle & Carlisle,does just one private operator provide crew ? Much has been made of this locomotive in the guise of a national treasure so why treat it in what appears to be a cavalier manner ? 

On the mainline it will be a WCRC or DB driver, fireman and inspector, depending who is running the train, with a representative from the loco on hand.

 

On a preserved line, no idea, but it would follow the same logic that preserved line staff / volunteers that sign the road drive it, just like any other visiting loco, and no doubt accompanied by a rep from the loco owner.

 

Jo

[Ian Hargrave]

5 minutes ago, Steadfast said:

On the mainline it will be a WCRC or DB driver, fireman and inspector, depending who is running the train, with a representative from the loco on hand.

 

On a preserved line, no idea, but it would follow the same logic that preserved line staff / volunteers that sign the road drive it, just like any other visiting loco, and no doubt accompanied by a rep from the loco owner.

 

Jo

Thanks for that.Your final phrase interests me. Was such an individual present on the footplate on Friday ?

[AY Mod]

11 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Thanks for that.Your final phrase interests me. Was such an individual present on the footplate on Friday ?

 

It looks like at least three were on the footplate.

 

They need to find out who'd been mucking about with the inertia settings on the decoder.

[Ian Hargrave]

1 hour ago, Mallard60022 said:

I can't disagree, but  I'll just say Innocent until proven. It is imperative to not condemn without the full evidence and Report.

Phil

Whereas I appreciate your decency and common sense which I applaud,when I read Stationmaster Mike’s posts above I take due notice of his opinions as a professional railwayman of considerable experience. Another factor maybe unique to this  case and that is the perhaps inevitable matter of being caught on camera…which lays the whole thing open to public scrutiny and consequent judgement in the glare of media.I posted a few hours ago about the “X” video clip being transferred to YouTube. Well it’s already happened. Thus…trial by media is a consequence and something that many of us find hard to swallow.But the world moves on I’m afraid.

[Ian Hargrave]

4 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

It looks like at least three were on the footplate.

 

They need to find out who'd been mucking about with the inertia settings on the decoder.

And that says it all….by far the best post on the matter.I believe you’d say it was seminal. I’ll dine out on that for a bit .

 

[iands]

5 hours ago, adb968008 said:

A longer version has appeared here

 

there appears to be people on the footplate looking out on the drivers side also, and you hear a call out from the person on the firemans side too as the loco passes… so the crew were watching…

 

looks like 4 on the verandah.

 

 

Is the real story not the impact, but why the kitchens fell down ? Had this been ordinary Mk1’s would this have been news ?

 

Not defending it, but I reckon I’ve been in a rough shunt or two like that, one sent me a window length down the corridor and a little off balance but I still hand my beer in my hand afterwards and several other enthusiasts muttered expletives, but the job carried on.

Looking at the video again, I notice on the left what appears to be another coach end. Could it be that the (fireman?) looking out of the cab window was distracted by this and thought they had further to run (about another 4 coach lengths) than what was actually the case? Not saying this is an excuse, but if there wasn't anyone on the ground (i.e. a shunter?) conducting the movement, it might be a factor that is considered during any investigation.

[PhilH]

5 hours ago, adb968008 said:

A longer version has appeared here

 

there appears to be people on the footplate looking out on the drivers side also, and you hear a call out from the person on the firemans side too as the loco passes… so the crew were watching…

 

looks like 4 on the verandah.

 

 

Is the real story not the impact, but why the kitchens fell down ? Had this been ordinary Mk1’s would this have been news ?

 

Not defending it, but I reckon I’ve been in a rough shunt or two like that, one sent me a window length down the corridor and a little off balance but I still hand my beer in my hand afterwards and several other enthusiasts muttered expletives, but the job carried on.

Before I got old and lazy I was a driver on the Mid Hants for quite a few years. As such I obviously carried out a few thousand buffering up operations during the course of this. I don’t wish to be overly critical of someone else’s driving, it’s not an easy job, but I do have one observation. Whatever else went wrong in my opinion he came in far too ‘hot’ leaving himself not a lot of leeway in case things went wrong. Buffering up is a (hopefully controlled) collision, so the more outs you give yourself if things do go pear shaped the better. I used to err on the side of caution and didn’t have too many problems.

 

As I say it’s just my opinion but as soon I started watching the video it did make me wince a little.

 

 

[john new]

33 minutes ago, iands said:

Looking at the video again, I notice on the left what appears to be another coach end. Could it be that the (fireman?) looking out of the cab window was distracted by this and thought they had further to run (about another 4 coach lengths) than what was actually the case? Not saying this is an excuse, but if there wasn't anyone on the ground (i.e. a shunter?) conducting the movement, it might be a factor that is considered during any investigation.

Given absence of a warning whistle I also wondered if miscommunication regarding the manoeuvre and the stopping point  they were backing on to /where they were supposed to be stopping at had played a part. However, other than thinking that might account for it I am going to await the initial statement from RAIB and then their final report. In many incidents the cause is several factors all acting together; the perfect storm, and any one not happening would have prevented it

[Mallard60022]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

Unfortunately the video evidence is that the loco did not stop well-short of the rolling stock, as is mandatory, despite at least one crew member looking in the correct direction. Unless they can demonstrate a brake failure of some sort, to explain what looked like an unwise approach speed to stationary rolling-stock, innocence is not likely. We modellers spend much time searching for locos which can run really slowly - this is the prototypical situation when that is required. 

As I intimated, we don't know what actually happened, despite seeing Vids. I'm not trying to excuse anyone, just suggesting we await the actual facts. That's all.

I am sure we don't want to fall foul of the Found Guilty by Social Media before the Investigation folk have made their Report?

Phil

[stewartingram]

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

 

 

They need to find out who'd been mucking about with the inertia settings on the decoder.

Should have kept it on DC then!

[jcredfer]

13 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

Should have kept it on DC then!

 

Possibly not, for a "Live Steam" loco.....   🤭

 

[Mallard60022]

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

It looks like at least three were on the footplate.

They need to find out who'd been mucking about with the inertia settings on the decoder.

Ballistic settings in Normal (not Yard Mode) they call it (USA eh?) on NCE!

Weirdly, just today, I seem to have, after about 15 years, worked out how to adjust these settings on my Handsets and adjusted them from Factory Settings. I achieved super fine control starting and approach/stopping at a chosen spot. I suspect though,  the Control may differ across the variety of Decoders I have fitted over the Years?

I might have done this before, but have forgotten ?

I have no idea what they have, in the way of modern technology, on the Footplate of a 'real' Steam Loco these days, but someone did mention Black Box earlier. That would produce some relevant data no doubt?

Phil

[Steadfast]

35 minutes ago, PhilH said:

Buffering up is a (hopefully controlled) collision, so the more outs you give yourself if things do go pear shaped the better. I used to err on the side of caution and didn’t have too many problems.

Sounds eminently sensible to me. If you stop once too much, you can always ease up again. A bit like a red signal. Better to stop short and pull up than go sailing by...

 

Jo

[Flying Fox 34F]

I find the video implies poor operating practice.  I spent many years working alongside over volunteers uncoupling and coupling trains.  The basics are very simple.

Stop short, then observe the Shunter’s hand signals.  If no Shunter available, the Fireman or, (if present), the Cleaner, (Trainee Fireman), got down and carried out the Shunter’s duties.  Also Guards had to do it as well. 
What has to be remembered here is that it doesn’t matter if the crew on FS were Volunteers or paid GBRF staff, the responsibility is the same.  It is of utmost importance for all operational staff, whether paid or not of every Heritage Railway to remember this.

 

Paul

Edited October 2, 2023 by Flying Fox 34F
Missing words plus better choice of wording

[31A]

8 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

   I believe IIRC the train was facing South at the end of a day spent on the Speyside Railway. So where was it intended that 60103 would then be taking it ? The 66 being of screen somewhere and generated power being needed. 

 

I thought that too, but comparing the opening shot of the You Tube video with Google Maps Street View (notice the buildings in the background) it seems the loco was backing down onto the north end of the train in the Strathspey platform (from the direction of their depot etc.), so presumably Scotsman was supposed to be taking the train off down the Strathspey line.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@57.1906639,-3.8279459,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssP2Io94MeK_oB5yUWNY8tQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu

 

 

 

1 hour ago, iands said:

Looking at the video again, I notice on the left what appears to be another coach end. Could it be that the (fireman?) looking out of the cab window was distracted by this and thought they had further to run (about another 4 coach lengths) than what was actually the case? Not saying this is an excuse, but if there wasn't anyone on the ground (i.e. a shunter?) conducting the movement, it might be a factor that is considered during any investigation.

 

I can see how that could be the case.  Now I realise we're looking at the north end of the station, it looks as though the Royal Scotsman coaches were alongside the east face of the island platform but there seems to be other vehicles to the left of that train, on the run round line, which would have been in the line of sight of the fireman(?).   They certainly don't give the impression that they intended to stop where the Royal Scotsman coaches actually were!  I don't know what the view would have been from the driver's side but the line would be curving to his left (in direction of travel) so quite possibly any view of the Royal Scotsman coaches might have been obscured from his side by the tender?

 

[Mallard60022]

2 minutes ago, Flying Fox 34F said:

I find the video proves poor operating practice.  I spent many years working alongside over volunteers uncoupling and coupling trains.  The basics are very simple.

Stop short, then observe the Shunter’s hand signals.  If no Shunter available, the Fireman or, (if present), the Cleaner, (Trainee Fireman), got down and carried out the Shunter’s duties.  Also Guards had to do it as well. 
What has to be remembered here is that doesn’t matter, if the crew on FS were Volunteers or paid GBRF staff, the responsibility is the same.  It is of utmost importance for all operational staff, whether or not of every Heritage Railway to remember this.

 

Paul

I respect your words and, of course, your experience. However the Video does not prove poor operating practice Paul. 

Only RIAB can do that.

Phil

[Leicester Thumper]

On 30/09/2023 at 14:30, The Stationmaster said:

That should also happen on heritage/leisure railways as they were all sent a 'suitable  reminder and Instruction' following the fatality of a Guard during shunting on the NYMR some years ago.  If their Rule Book and procedues did not include coming to a stand c.20ft short before setting back to couple they were told that it should.  Really poor railway work to do anything else anyway so people should hardly need reminding or instructing. [SNIP]

 

[Snip] In fact it's pfteb easier to do it in the dark, poor light conditions, when it's easier to see a light than it is to see handsignals during daylight.  Any cmpetent Shunter and loco crew should have no difficyulty at all doing that although sometimes there can be a bit too heavy a bump when teh engine meets the train.  Good Driver and Shunter and people on the train won't even notice the engine arriving.

 

I'm sorry to quote so much of you Mike @The Stationmaster, but I resonate so well with your comments.

 

Regards shunting, as some know I am a current serving member of staff on the national network. As part of my duties at a previous location, I had to be involved with the stabling of units in our platforms overnight. This also facilitated giving handsignals and following RSSB GRT8000 rulebook modules stipulating the required process and distances involved. I agree with Mike, shunting at night could be seen as easier, due to the use of handlamps. In this day and age a good proportion of lamps used in shunting on the national network, and preserved railways, are of a modern LED type lamp. In line with best practice, and keeping a suitable unobstructed line of sight, it's easy to see the handsignals and understand them. In daylight, with the use of hand signals, it could be argued that shunting can be impeded, especially at busy locations, or ones with visual distractions as caused by the environment itself. 

 

The "20ft rule" thats quoted here is most interesting, as the 6ft/3ft distances for the mainline hwve not changed in a very long time. This could trigger w possible review of arrangement uk wide, perservation or mainline.

 

11 hours ago, kevinlms said:

You would have thought that having FS around, would mean volunteers are 10 a penny. Major events usually bring out existing, but normally MIA members out in droves.

 

Kevin, I will admit I take slight humour in your comment, it often seems to ring very true. I have friends who volunteer at various railways and the "out the woodwork" really holds true to type!! However, that said, whilst the number of volunteers might be better on such occasions, as a mainline operational worker, I can't help but to consider that this sort of scenario could be a hindrance rather than a help. 

 

Whilst operations staff will need to be assessed and have a safety and competency record for safety critical duties, each railway will work this in a slightly different way, although they will mandate to the requirements of the RSSB and the ORR. My thoughts are, that if you have volunteers who aren't regular in their tasks, even with assessments, they could potentially make mistakes. True, to err is to be human, but if you have trained skills you have to keep using them to make sure you don't lose them. If that makes sense?

 

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Enough was going wrong for me to wonfder if 'somebody' didn't even know which coupling they would be using.  Having now seen a video of the way in which the engine approached the train somebody has got some serious questions to answer despite the fact that it was no more than a 'heavy bump' when the engine hit the train.......

 

I concur, obviously, I will wait for a full or interim RSSB report to come out first before making full judgement etc, but I have my own private thoughts on this and I can't help but think the same. 

 

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

....Apart from that it is simple common sense and the railway has a legal duty to ensure that safety procedures such as this are not only in place but are properly trained in and then monitored to ensure that they are being followed.  For whatever reason they were clearly not being followed in this case and, as can be seen, even a slow speed movement can cause damage and minor injuries lus it has the potential to cause material damage to rolling stock etc

 

This,  right here.  If I made a mistake on such a scale at work, I would expect to be held to account in such fashion. Obviously, each incident is unique, no two are the same, but when the statutes of law for health and safety exist, and where there is a comprehensive rulebook mainframe and good guidance readily available to operators and railways,  a standard needs to be upheld for the safety of everyone.  The number one priority of any rail operation, whether that's a preserved railway, light rail system, national network, anything, is its safe operation. 

 

Whenever incidents do happen though, is always an opportunity to learn and progress, and we should all remember that. 

[Flying Fox 34F]

Phil,

 

I understand your views, and Yes, “Innocent until proven Guilty”, but HMRI will be alert and ensuring all operators on all Heritage lines are following the correct procedures, prior to RAIB identifying the causes of this Rough Shunt, to prevent another incident to grab the attention of the Press.
Comments by other members of this thread, hint at speed to high, distraction, no-one on the ground controlling the movement.  Hence my comment.

At this moment in time, this is very bad for the image of FS, the Strathspey Railway and Heritage railways in general.  People have to be Professional and Alert when moving trains around.

 

Paul

[Mallard60022]

22 minutes ago, Flying Fox 34F said:

Phil,

 

I understand your views, and Yes, “Innocent until proven Guilty”, but HMRI will be alert and ensuring all operators on all Heritage lines are following the correct procedures, prior to RAIB identifying the causes of this Rough Shunt, to prevent another incident to grab the attention of the Press.
Comments by other members of this thread, hint at speed to high, distraction, no-one on the ground controlling the movement.  Hence my comment.

At this moment in time, this is very bad for the image of FS, the Strathspey Railway and Heritage railways in general.  People have to be Professional and Alert when moving trains around.

 

Paul

Of course. However, those procedures need to be confirmed by HMRI and then RAIB. 

I'm just conscious of the way Social Media makes decisions in advance of the evidence and that's dodgy.

I fully expect that all the experienced commentators on here to be absolutely right in their conclusions, but I will just await rather than speculate. 

The people involved in this must be mortified and most probably stressed to the hilt. They won't be on here, but they may well be aware of the Twitter/X Storm and other Platforms.  

Phil.

[Bon Accord]

40 minutes ago, 31A said:

I can see how that could be the case.  Now I realise we're looking at the north end of the station, it looks as though the Royal Scotsman coaches were alongside the east face of the island platform but there seems to be other vehicles to the left of that train, on the run round line, which would have been in the line of sight of the fireman(?).   They certainly don't give the impression that they intended to stop where the Royal Scotsman coaches actually were!  I don't know what the view would have been from the driver's side but the line would be curving to his left (in direction of travel) so quite possibly any view of the Royal Scotsman coaches might have been obscured from his side by the tender?

 

 

The Royal Scotsman set also looks to have been overhanging the end of the platform by about three coach lengths.

That means the stopping point in this case prior to moving in to couple up would have been significantly further out than what their crews would be used to for the coach rakes in normal use on the Strathspey; with their own rakes the last coach is normally always inside the platform by at least a length or so.

That then means the required stopping point in this case would have been about 4-5 coach lengths further out than is normal routine.

If the crew were on autopilot and simply doing what they'd done a thousand times before that might explain the speed.

The RS set visits the Strathspey regularly, but it is diesel hauled by one of their own diesels up to Boat of Garten so a diesel crew rather than a steam crew would do the job.

 

 

 

[chris p bacon]

I actually passed through Aviemore on Thursday afternoon. I've been late for so many things in the past so this time I turned up early but there was nothing to see....

I knew we should have stopped in Pitlochry.