Flying Scotsman has an Accident

[Michael Hodgson]

7 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. 

So do we know for sure that these kitchens were definitely common or garden domestic units or is that just part of the speculation?

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

So do we know for sure that these kitchens were definitely common or garden domestic units or is that just part of the speculation?

No we don't - but the interior damage pics on page 1 of this thread indicate they may not have been fit for purpose. 

[clachnaharry]

Why was the Flying Scotsman buffering up that end of the rake in the first place? The subsequent forward movement would be onto the main line - surely unlikely at that time of the evening. Are we certain that this was not intended as a run round, but the points had not been set for the loop? 

[adb968008]

9 minutes ago, clachnaharry said:

Why was the Flying Scotsman buffering up that end of the rake in the first place? The subsequent forward movement would be onto the main line - surely unlikely at that time of the evening. Are we certain that this was not intended as a run round, but the points had not been set for the loop? 

The train arrived hauled by a gbrf 66 from Edinburgh.

it regularly overnights at Boat of Garten, before returning to Aviemore and hence its next destination.

Scotsman would have replaced the 66 at Aviemore and hence to Boat of Garten.

 

various pictures show a 37 at the south end of the stock. Presumably that may have overnighted with the train and top/tailed… Yes Royal Scotsman may have had Cornish freight 37 mileage.

 

if you have Apple maps, you can actually see D5394 on the Royal Scotsman set parked at Boat of Garten station at some point in the past.

Edited October 1, 2023 by adb968008

[clachnaharry]

Ah, my mistake, I thought The incident occurred at the southern end of the rake. A quick look at street view corrects that!

13 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The train arrived hauled by a gbrf 66 from Edinburgh.regularly overnights at Boat of Garten, before returning to Aviemore and hence its next destination.

[kevinlms]

5 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Should have kept it on DC then!

Many DC controllers have inertia settings too. Easy to forget when they are turned on!

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

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

But the video does SUGGEST poor operating practice. But you're correct, it isn't proof.

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, Leicester Thumper said:

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

I agree that volunteers need to be properly trained, otherwise they are merely observers at best or worse distracters from the serious job at hand.

 

But they do seem to be lacking anyone around the end of the train, only the 2 people outside the fence, which is why I made the comment about the lack of 'volunteers'. Perhaps the visit by the 'Royal Scotsman' train is such a regular occurrence, that the novelty has worn off and members can't be bothered? Potentially less people than safely required to do the job properly - the last sentence is just speculation.

 

 

 

 

[Bon Accord]

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

But the video does SUGGEST poor operating practice. But you're correct, it isn't proof.

 

What it suggests is irrelevant without the full facts and has only led to some rather damning speculation, something which usually gets such threads locked long before now.

 

[Trestrol]

8 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

No we don't - but the interior damage pics on page 1 of this thread indicate they may not have been fit for purpose. 

They will be standard stainless steel restaurant/catering units. Designed for static situations.

[kevinlms]

40 minutes ago, Bon Accord said:

 

What it suggests is irrelevant without the full facts and has only led to some rather damning speculation, something which usually gets such threads locked long before now.

 

There is plenty of evidence provided by the video that FS was coming in much too fast. Of which I suspect a copy of that or similar will be made available to those investigating.

I seriously doubt that a full investigation, will deny that a slower speed in future light engine maneuvers approaching stock in a platform, would be advisable. Likely, stronger terminology.

[Mallard60022]

Still speculating here I see again this morning. I'd find being on a Jury with some on here, a very challenging situation to be in! 

However, today may well see some 'official statements'?

I know I'm not popular with Moderators, and that is my fault, but may I ask that this thread is locked for the time being?

Phil

[AMJ]

Until we have the accident report best to not speculate how this incident happened and who is at fault.  From the description of what should have happened I have a fair idea.  

[Bon Accord]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

There is plenty of evidence provided by the video that FS was coming in much too fast. Of which I suspect a copy of that or similar will be made available to those investigating.

I seriously doubt that a full investigation, will deny that a slower speed in future light engine maneuvers approaching stock in a platform, would be advisable. Likely, stronger terminology.

 

The fact she came in too fast is not in doubt, but you - nor anyone else here - has any definite knowledge as to precisely why that was the case, be that misjudgement, mechanical issue, medical issue etc.

Yet there seems to be a mad rush to damn the individuals concerned. 

 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

There is plenty of evidence provided by the video that FS was coming in much too fast. Of which I suspect a copy of that or similar will be made available to those investigating.

I seriously doubt that a full investigation, will deny that a slower speed in future light engine maneuvers approaching stock in a platform, would be advisable. Likely, stronger terminology.

Stronger emphasis, certainly, but the video footage points fairly clearly to established practice and/or approach speeds not being correctly followed, though not why.

 

The point that is beyond doubt is that the locomotive, for whatever reason, failed to slow down early enough.

 

The investigation will unearth exactly what caused the incident in due course.  

 

John

Edited October 2, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Jeremy Cumberland]

I blame whoever put those carriages there. No carriages = no accident. Obvious, innit?

[Dunsignalling]

12 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

No we don't - but the interior damage pics on page 1 of this thread indicate they may not have been fit for purpose. 

 

Or, at the very least, not installed adequately to cope with rail use.

 

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Bon Accord said:

 

The fact she came in too fast is not in doubt, but you - nor anyone else here - has any definite knowledge as to precisely why that was the case, be that misjudgement, mechanical issue, medical issue etc.

Yet there seems to be a mad rush to damn the individuals concerned. 

 

Where did I say that?

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours 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

Plenty of evidence there Phil, unfortunately.  The engine clearly did not stop 20 feet short of the train before restarting in order to very slowly buffer up and  couple - that alone is as basic an error as you can get.   The fact that it hit the trains without appearing to slacken speed shows that,  lack of stopping short apart, the movement was either not under proper control by someone on the ground or the Driver ignored their hand signals if there was someone on the ground.  and whoever was keeping alookout from the cab on the inside of the curve doesn't seem to have been paying attention either

 

So whether or not the crew was experienced on that engine (and that raises a serious question if they weren't) their very basic operational safety errors, irrespective of the train and engine involved, are clearly illustrated by that latest video.  Stopping 20 feet off serves too purposes - the secind one id sthat the engine is starting frn. adead stand before it buffers up so speed will be low unless a total idiot is driving.  But as importantly it means the engine will have been braking well before it gets to the train so there is an extra safety margin to act if the brake isn't working well including time to screw down he handbrake if nothing else..  and of course in any case any sensible Driver would make sure the brake works correctly before he even starts to set back towards a train.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Bon Accord said:

 

The fact she came in too fast is not in doubt, but you - nor anyone else here - has any definite knowledge as to precisely why that was the case, be that misjudgement, mechanical issue, medical issue etc.

Yet there seems to be a mad rush to damn the individuals concerned. 

 

But it very clearly failed to stop short of the train and then slowly restart in order to buffer up - that is such a basic error that I almost wonder what goes on there at other times.  There seems to be no sign of problems with the brake and indeed the Driver should have made sure it was working correctly before he needed to commence a setback movement to buffer up and couple to a loaded passenger train.

 

There were apparently three people on the footplate and one of them, on the inside of the curve, should have been able to see the train so why didn't anything happen to either slow the movement or attempt to stop short.? There is sound on that video and there is nothing in that sound to suggest that the wheels picked up.  And in any case that would have been very noticeable if the Driver had been braking to stop 20 feet off as he was supposed to..

[Rivercider]

Although I did spot this thread in the beginning I have only just watched the video, which is not a pleasant watch.

 

The collision must have been quite violent as you can see a ripple motion along the side of the loco tender

at the point of impact, particularly noticeable in the slowed down section of the video.

 

cheers

[hmrspaul]

I'll avoid comment on a "heavy bump".

If anyone is interested these are photos of the outside of the verandah Observation car 99965 https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/?q=99965

and this is Dining car 1 99967 which I am assuming is where the kitchen was damaged https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/?q=99967

 

Thanks to previous poster adb968008 for plans of the coaches. 

 

Paul

Edited October 2, 2023 by hmrspaul

[LMS2968]

The assumption being made, and this is also being made by Mike the Stationmaster, for whom I have the greatest respect, is that the driver knew the stock was where it was and not a lot further back. I'd suggest that the approach speed could indicate that this was the case, and being on a left-hand curve with that big tender in the way, he would not discover his error until the last minute. Of course, this would raise other questions, such as why he didn't know and why the fireman, who was looking back, did not intervene, at least in sufficient time. If this was so, stopping short of the stock has no relevance; you have to know where it is to do that.

 

I'm sure Mike will agree with me that, however many knowledgeable railwaymen there are, you do not condemn a men or jump to a conclusion until you have heard his side of the story. It might turn out that all the above was wrong and the earlier theories are correct, but we don't know. Let the inquiry establish ALL the facts.

[rab]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

I blame whoever put those carriages there. No carriages = no accident. Obvious, innit?

Reminds me of a comment made by the MD of a company I worked for, at a meeting discussing high levels of faulty product returned by customers:

If we didn't have any customers, we wouldn't have any problems! 

[john new]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

I blame whoever put those carriages there. No carriages = no accident. Obvious, innit?

A very flippant comment as until the facts come out we don’t know if wrongly/or differently positioned coaches vis-a-vis what the loco crew were told before the move commenced is in fact one of the things leading to the bump. As I mentioned above when things go wrong it is often from several things collectively occurring, none of which would have been a single cause. The need was for all to combine. Let us just wait for the official answer.