Stewarton derailment

[Jamie]

The Herald reports the RAIB have published findings of their investigation into the Stewarton derailment last year, when the Riccarton oils came off the line in a big way.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/report-corrosion-led-to-ayrshire-freight-train-crash-1.1003584

 

 

I offer this news FYI only, as follow up to a thread on the old forum and without having read the RAIB report itself.

[Caledonian]

The Herald reports the RAIB have published findings of their investigation into the Stewarton derailment last year, when the Riccarton oils came off the line in a big way.

 

Or rather, as the report says, the line dropped from under it...

[martin_wynne]

Full report: http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources/100203_R022010_Stewarton.pdf

[jamie92208]

Yes it makes very interesting reading with mistakes going back for many years that allowed a bridge that was rusting apart to be classified as RA10.

 

I would imagine that the lawyers will make a killing with the environmental damage claims from the spilt fuel.

 

Its just very lucky that no one was on the road when the bridge collapsed and that no one got hurt in the fire. The interesting thing about the damage to the tankers is that the americans have been taking measures against couplers puncturing the ends of tanks for over 20 years to avoid just this type of accident and have recently started sorting out the problem of valves that get knocked off when the tanks roll over. Perhaps we have n't taken action becasue damage payouts are so much lower this side of the pond.

 

Jamie

[Fat Controller]

Yes it makes very interesting reading with mistakes going back for many years that allowed a bridge that was rusting apart to be classified as RA10.

 

I would imagine that the lawyers will make a killing with the environmental damage claims from the spilt fuel.

 

Its just very lucky that no one was on the road when the bridge collapsed and that no one got hurt in the fire. The interesting thing about the damage to the tankers is that the americans have been taking measures against couplers puncturing the ends of tanks for over 20 years to avoid just this type of accident and have recently started sorting out the problem of valves that get knocked off when the tanks roll over. Perhaps we have n't taken action becasue damage payouts are so much lower this side of the pond.

 

Jamie

Of course, our lack of action regarding over-ride protection, and provision of protection for valves, might just be because we don't suffer as many freight train derailments as the folk on the other side of the pond....

I'm trying to think of accidents involving tank wagons over the last twenty years or more, and few come to mind:

Summit Tunnel (axle-failure)

One in East London when a freight set back after slipping to a halt- the driver had forgotten the catch points...

A rear-end collision in the Manchester area.

There have doubtless been others, but I'm pushed to think of them.

[Guest stuartp]

Interesting - both from the point of view of having worked with bridge examiners in the past and also as someone who needs to build a G&SWR underbridge in the not-too-distant future (there's some useful diagams/drawings in there).

 

Slightly disconcerting too...

[Glorious NSE]

The interesting thing about the damage to the tankers is that the americans have been taking measures against couplers puncturing the ends of tanks for over 20 years to avoid just this type of accident and have recently started sorting out the problem of valves that get knocked off when the tanks roll over. Perhaps we have n't taken action becasue damage payouts are so much lower this side of the pond.

 

I doubt it's to do with litigation - the rules over here are developed as a response to accidents, incidents and learning from them rather than by how exposed you are if something goes wrong.

 

From my reading of that and following some of the stuff from across the pond in terms of the lower valve we are ahead of them, these tanks had lower valves that broke off but still left the tank sealed, the US is still working on that, and the upper valve only failed on one tank.

 

Keep in mind as well that these are 1960s built vehicles so you have to presume near the end of their lives, more modern designs have both end protection (although the report says this wouldn't have been foolproof in this case) and protection round the upper valves designed-in from new.

 

I'd be very surprised if it was thought cost effective to start retro-fitting features like that to tanks that are 40+ years old!

 

US railroading is a very different environment as well, we have very little hazmat traffic running around in tanks on mixed trains, they have a substantial amount - train sizes as well mean that even a minor derailment to a freight quickly becomes a serious issue with momentum causing a large pileup, and the strength and design required for the buckeye couplers puts them in a perfect position to bust the ends of tanks - the driver of heavy end protection (as on some LPG tanks) & anti-override couplers over there has been the far larger likelihood of something serious happenning, as it could, did, and still does fairly frequently.

 

I'm still impressed by the impact needed to "break" the tanks that didn't derail - ouch!

 

(edit to tighten up quote)

[BR60103]

Different cause, but some comments on a Canadian derailment of chemical cars.

Mississauga derailment