Carmont (near Stonehaven) derailment - 12 August 2020

[XAM2175]

Likewise in terms of crashworthiness, there can’t really be too much criticism of the vestibule (where the conductor was unfortunately located) disintegrating, when on a modern train this would have been designed as a crumple zone. Note how the cab and lead vestibule all but disappeared on the Salisbury 159. Previous accident reports have identified that Mk3 vestibules act as de-facto crumple zones.

A modern train, however, would be fitted with anti-climbers and stronger collision posts, and thus would have resisted a greater level of kinetic energy before the vestibule was significantly compromised. The report draws this conclusion directly.

I don't consider the comparison to the performance of Class 159 vehicles to be significant considering that they were also designed and constructed before even the 1994 crash-worthiness standards took effect.

And of course on a modern walk-through train there would be little to stop people being being ejected to their deaths through the vehicle ends.

A modern train, however, is less likely to separate in a derailment, and especially so if fitted with semi-permanent intermediate couplers.

It’s perhaps rather remiss that the industry has been busy replacing EMUs it didn’t need to replace, whilst allowing some rather older traction to continue past its sell-by date.

Yes, the industry being hell-bent on totally eliminating your precious 365s is entirely to blame for Transport Scotland deciding to use HSTs. If only more sensible minds had prevailed

 

[LOL The Irony]

That's a considerable misrepresentation. At Southall, as the HST progressively struck the stone train at a combined closing speed of near 100mph, each wagon as pushed over progressively presented the next one more and more head on. Look at your picture. The drivers' windscreen is not even broken.

And if you want to comment on Ladbroke Grove as well and the HST driver's cab being "severely compromised", maybe we can carry on to the, new and modern at the time, front car of the colliding Class 165, which was completely shredded for its whole length down to the underframe. In such an incident, I think "severely compromised" would be pretty good.

I do feel that, for Carmont, issues in the report about the train have given Network Rail a "Get Out Of Jail" card, to (once again, unfortunately) stick it as much as possible on the train operator. For their own complete failings. There, that's been said. But it needed saying.

This is a horribly insane take.

Let me put it to you like this. If you gave an F1 driver the chance to drive 5 laps around Silverstone James Hunt's championship winning McLaren M23 or the Haas VF-20, they're picking the M23. Now give them the choice of stoving into the armco at 100mph and they're hopping into that Haas.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Again RAIB highlight that recommendations from previous incidents/accidents have yet to be full implemented by owners. Its about time ORR stepped upto the mark here and took more robust enforcement action although they also seem incapable of proving effective assurance of NRs activities either.

 

[O L Leigh]

As regards HST crashworthiness. I’m in two minds over this. The circumstances of the derailment were such that this was always going to result in a bad outcome. Had it been a more recent train I’m not convinced the driver would have fared any better, simply because of the decelerations involved and the fact that he would have been thrown around the cab at considerable force.

Likewise in terms of crashworthiness, there can’t really be too much criticism of the vestibule (where the conductor was unfortunately located) disintegrating, when on a modern train this would have been designed as a crumple zone. Note how the cab and lead vestibule all but disappeared on the Salisbury 159. Previous accident reports have identified that Mk3 vestibules act as de-facto crumple zones. And of course on a modern walk-through train there would be little to stop people being being ejected to their deaths through the vehicle ends.

So from a personal perspective I will quite happily travel on Mk3s without a second thought - indeed the chances of an accident happening is minimal, and HSTs have carried millions of people safely in their 40+ years.

My own feeling with regard to both of these points is to agree with the RAIB's own hypothesis that a more modern train would have performed better. The comparison that they make is with the Grayrigg derailment which, as we all know, involved a Pendolino. Now I accept, as do the RAIB, that the two incidents were not identical and that no-one can say definitively what would or wouldn't have happened, but it does seem to me to be a reasonable parallel.

For the driver, the observation has already been made that the forces exerted in the collision would have exceeded those set as the design specification for more modern stock. While it would not necessarily have saved the driver's life, it would certainly have given him a better chance than was the case with a detachable GRP cab. The driver of the Pendolino was certainly thrown around his cab with considerable force and suffered serious injuries as a result, but survived.

As for the passengers; well I'm afraid that I can't join in with the chorus singing the praises of the Mk3 coach. No doubt it is a reasonably strong design and certainly better than what went before, but I cannot say that it performed as well as the Pendolino coaches. The Grayrigg derailment happened at 95mph and several vehicles struck electrification masts before coming to rest in various positions, some at the foot of an embankment, and yet the majority of bogies were retained and there was little intrusion into the passenger survival space. I'm no expert, but just by comparing the photos in the two accident reports I cannot help but be struck by the differences between them.

Now I'm not one of those people frothing at the mouth calling for the immediate withdrawal of the HST and certainly wouldn't refuse to get on one, but I do think that perhaps we've reached a tipping point and should perhaps be moving away from using them. Mostly I agree with comments about the lack of attention given to the fleet, especially in the light of the recommendations of accident reports going back more than 20 years, and have said much the same earlier. I do see this as an industry failing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Now I'm not one of those people frothing at the mouth calling for the immediate withdrawal of the HST and certainly wouldn't refuse to get on one, but I do think that perhaps we've reached a tipping point and should perhaps be moving away from using them. Mostly I agree with comments about the lack of attention given to the fleet, especially in the light of the recommendations of accident reports going back more than 20 years, and have said much the same earlier. I do see this as an industry failing.

Agreed here. No panic withdrawals, but certainly time to plan the electrification programme and how bi-modes may aid it, and get an order in for either 80x or Stadlers to replace them.

 

[edwin_m]

My own feeling with regard to both of these points is to agree with the RAIB's own hypothesis that a more modern train would have performed better. The comparison that they make is with the Grayrigg derailment which, as we all know, involved a Pendolino. Now I accept, as do the RAIB, that the two incidents were not identical and that no-one can say definitively what would or wouldn't have happened, but it does seem to me to be a reasonable parallel.

For the driver, the observation has already been made that the forces exerted in the collision would have exceeded those set as the design specification for more modern stock. While it would not necessarily have saved the driver's life, it would certainly have given him a better chance than was the case with a detachable GRP cab. The driver of the Pendolino was certainly thrown around his cab with considerable force and suffered serious injuries as a result, but survived.

As for the passengers; well I'm afraid that I can't join in with the chorus singing the praises of the Mk3 coach. No doubt it is a reasonably strong design and certainly better than what went before, but I cannot say that it performed as well as the Pendolino coaches. The Grayrigg derailment happened at 95mph and several vehicles struck electrification masts before coming to rest in various positions, some at the foot of an embankment, and yet the majority of bogies were retained and there was little intrusion into the passenger survival space. I'm no expert, but just by comparing the photos in the two accident reports I cannot help but be struck by the differences between them.

Now I'm not one of those people frothing at the mouth calling for the immediate withdrawal of the HST and certainly wouldn't refuse to get on one, but I do think that perhaps we've reached a tipping point and should perhaps be moving away from using them. Mostly I agree with comments about the lack of attention given to the fleet, especially in the light of the recommendations of accident reports going back more than 20 years, and have said much the same earlier. I do see this as an industry failing.

The big difference is that at Grayrigg the train didn't hit a solid object, it came to rest less abruptly by ploughing across a field. The report into that accident specifically says that the crumple zones built into the Pendolino played no part in the accident sequence, and it was not a type of accident they were designed to deal with. There has been no accident in the UK where a train built to the more recent structural crashworthiness standards has suffered the sort of impact where the those measures would have made any difference to the outcome.

I don't think Grayrigg tells us anything useful in this context.

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't think Grayrigg tells us anything useful in this context.

I disagree. I think it is indicative of the relative performance of derailed vehicles. Some of the Pendolino vehicles struck OLE masts as well as jack-knifing and rolling over, all after derailing at a higher speed, and yet suffered less deformation than the Mk3s.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Agreed here. No panic withdrawals, but certainly time to plan the electrification programme and how bi-modes may aid it, and get an order in for either 80x or Stadlers to replace them.

Is it a panic withdrawal or just upholding standards?

They were on the way out when Scotrail and other operators decided to resurrect them to save money, rather than paying out for new stock. This was clearly a bad decision that shouldn't have been allowed to happen - as well as being a 50+ year old design the newly refurbished trains are also heavily corroded to the point that safety may have been compromised. I'd understand allowing existing trains with defects to be withdrawn as they're replaced but these trains were introduced in lieu of new stock and have a decade or more of life left.

Protecting operators from the consequences of their own choices shouldn't come at the cost of safety.

 

[yorkie]

Protecting operators from the consequences of their own choices shouldn't come at the cost of safety.

HSTs are not unsafe; by your flawed logic all cars should be withdrawn from the roads.

 

[O L Leigh]

Is it a panic withdrawal or just upholding standards?

They were on the way out when Scotrail and other operators decided to resurrect them to save money, rather than paying out for new stock. This was clearly a bad decision that shouldn't have been allowed to happen - as well as being a 50+ year old design the newly refurbished trains are also heavily corroded to the point that safety may have been compromised. I'd understand allowing existing trains with defects to be withdrawn as they're replaced but these trains were introduced in lieu of new stock and have a decade or more of life left.

Protecting operators from the consequences of their own choices shouldn't come at the cost of safety.

This touches on the problem of not having a properly joined up rolling stock procurement programme.

HSTs are not unsafe; by your flawed logic all cars should be withdrawn from the roads.

That’s a non-sequitur.

 

[yorkie]

That’s a non-sequitur.

I disagree. It's based on a false premise and an extreme case of double-standards.

The fault here is with the drainage system and the processes associated with that.

 

[O L Leigh]

I disagree. It's based on a false premise and an extreme case of double-standards.

No. You’ve based your assertion about the safety of the train around the assumption that it is never involved in any incidents.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==

The fault here is with the drainage system and the processes associated with that.

No doubt. But what happened after the train left the track was down to the characteristics of the rolling stock and how that affects it’s crashworthiness.

 

[yorkie]

No. You’ve based your assertion about the safety of the train around the assumption that it is never involved in any incidents.

That's not the case, no.

If you believe that every train in service should be able to withstand what happened in this case or face withdrawal, you'd be withdrawing a lot of trains.

 

[O L Leigh]

That's not the case, no.

If you believe that every train in service should be able to withstand what happened in this case or face withdrawal, you'd be withdrawing a lot of trains.

Quote me.

 

[Killingworth]

The big difference is that at Grayrigg the train didn't hit a solid object, it came to rest less abruptly by ploughing across a field. The report into that accident specifically says that the crumple zones built into the Pendolino played no part in the accident sequence, and it was not a type of accident they were designed to deal with. There has been no accident in the UK where a train built to the more recent structural crashworthiness standards has suffered the sort of impact where the those measures would have made any difference to the outcome.

I don't think Grayrigg tells us anything useful in this context.

Grayrigg does make a useful comparison, if only to illustrate that no two accidents are exactly the same.

Different speed, different type of train, different loading, up hill not down, different gradient profile of embankment, hit masts, different type obstruction caused derailment, longer train, and finally at Grayrigg the train was on a gentle curve to the left. At Carmont it derailed at the worst point, just approaching a high bridge and a steep wooded embankment descending on a tighter curve to the right. For Grayrigg see; https://assets.publishing.service.g...915d4c0d000199/R202008_081023_Grayrigg_v5.pdf

Comparisons between the two are interesting, but both were typical accidents. A fairly easily identified direct cause, followed by a sequence of secondary issues that might have reduced or increased the damage and casualty rate.

 

[yorkie]

Grayrigg does make a useful comparison, if only to illustrate that no two accidents are exactly the same.

Different speed, different type of train, different loading, up hill not down, different gradient profile of embankment, hit masts, different type obstruction caused derailment, longer train, and finally at Grayrigg the train was on a gentle curve to the left. At Carmont it derailed at the worst point, just approaching a high bridge and a steep wooded embankment descending on a tighter curve to the right. For Grayrigg see; https://assets.publishing.service.g...915d4c0d000199/R202008_081023_Grayrigg_v5.pdf

Comparisons between the two are interesting, but both were typical accidents. A fairly easily identified direct cause, followed by a sequence of secondary issues that might have reduced or increased the damage and casualty rate.

Indeed; those who try to make direct comparisons in order to discredit the safety of HSTs are either being disingenuous or too simplistic in their thinking. It's an invalid comparison.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==

Quote me.

If you don't believe that, then great.

 

[O L Leigh]

Indeed; those who try to make direct comparisons in order to discredit the safety of HSTs are either being disingenuous or too simplistic in their thinking. It's an invalid comparison.

No doubt the RAIB will be delighted with your assessment.

For these reasons, RAIB considers it more likely than not that the outcome would have been better if the train had been compliant with modern crashworthiness standards. Although any such comparison is necessarily subjective, a comparison with the derailment at Grayrigg in February 2007 provides some evidence to support this. The nine-car Pendolino train that derailed at Grayrigg (RAIB report 20/2008), which was designed to modern crashworthiness standards, was carrying 109 people and travelling at a speed of 95 mph (153 km/h). The ratio of kinetic energy to train weight involved in that derailment was around 1.7 times that at Carmont, and it occurred close to a steep embankment which also adversely affected the train’s post-derailment behaviour, causing some limited jack-knifing and vehicle separation. One passenger was fatally injured, 30 people (including the train driver and one other crew member) received serious injuries and 58 passengers received minor injuries. (Para 535; Page 199)

 

[yorkie]

No doubt the RAIB will be delighted with your assessment.

I don't think they are entirely correct in everything they say, but even if their comparison was correct, it wouldn't mean that HSTs should be deemed in any way unsafe or that they should be withdrawn.

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't think they are entirely correct in everything they say

Is that just an opinion or are you basing the statement on some greater knowledge?

but even if their comparison was correct, it wouldn't mean that HSTs should be deemed in any way unsafe or that they should be withdrawn.

Ah, so now we get to it. It's a binary thing whereby anything that might draw a criticism is seen as inherently threatening, so it must be rubbished before it has a chance to destroy that which we hold most dear.

The RAIB haven't said that the HST is "unsafe" or that "they should be withdrawn", and neither have I. What they have said is that it is their professional opinion that a more modern train would likely have performed better, and that is what I've been trying to get across in this discussion. In other words, a more modern train would have been safer which, for the avoidance of doubt, is not the same thing as saying that the older train is "unsafe".

You're just overreacting and need to calm down. It's OK to acknowledge that the age of the HST design and it's continued use will mean that it works less well than newer designs in certain areas, and that the longer they stick around in service the more stark these comparisons are likely to become. No matter how fond we are of them we're going to have to start facing up to the fact that they are becoming anachronistic and look towards the future and what might be done to replace them.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The fault here is with the drainage system and the processes associated with that.

I believe that it is a multi-faceted issue and pinning the blame on one singular point is wrong. Carillion not building the draining channel correctly and then Network Rail not maintaining it, caused the channel to be washed out, becoming a landslip that blocked the tracks. The Class 43, having a weak point in the lifegaurds, led to a more serious derailment than newer stock would've suffered. The Class 43 then hit and eventually overrode the bridge, falling off of the bridge and exposing the weak point in the cab design. There was then the combined issue of not meeting modern crash worthiness standards and corrosion weakening the bodyshells, which caused the vehicles to become uncoupled from, and smash into each other and cause damage which probably wouldn't have been so severe had structural elements not been corroded.

There are also other factors, such as the speed not being reduced by control and the lack of guard rails for the bridge.

I don't think they are entirely correct in everything they say, but even if their comparison was correct, it wouldn't mean that HSTs should be deemed in any way unsafe or that they should be withdrawn.

Well they certainly are no longer up to scratch in frontal collisions. That being said, we do still have Modernisation era locomotives still in service, which arguably would perform worse than a 43. However, considering the youngest Class 43 will be turning 40 this year, I think it might be time to start letting them have a dignified retirement, regardless of any outcomes this investigation came to. Corrosion may also play a factor in this.

On the point of older locos still in service, ROG have ordered a fleet of (actual) tri-mode locomotives and GBRf are ordering a fleet of bi-mode locomotives.

At the end of the day though, I think that we should always strive to make trains safer, even if that means removing some of our beloved stock.

 

[TheEdge]

While people are mentioning how there is no way modern stock would have come apart with their permanent couplings a FLIRT ran into a lorry in Estonia today.

No doubt a much lower energy collision without the tumbling down an embankment and it still separated.


Would modern stock have performed better? There is no absolute way of saying short of throwing a 755, 800, 700, 380 and 331 through an identical incident.

 

[O L Leigh]

While people are mentioning how there is no way modern stock would have come apart with their permanent couplings a FLIRT ran into a lorry in Estonia today.

I haven't seen any mention of such a claim, but then I've not read every word on the entire thread. It would be rather a stupid thing to claim given that every structure will have a breaking point. There will always come a point when it's better for the coupler to shear than for the vehicles to stay wed to each other, otherwise something else will end up breaking instead.

I think the claim was that better couplers together with anti-climbers between the coaches would have helped with the behaviour of the vehicles once they'd come off the tracks. They would have helped keep the train in line and reduced the risks of overriding whereas the Alliance couplers on HST vehicles can become decoupled more easily.

Would modern stock have performed better? There is no absolute way of saying short of throwing a 755, 800, 700, 380 and 331 through an identical incident.

Well that Estonian FLIRT has stood up to the test quite well. I don't see any deformation on any of the vehicles.

If newer stock didn't perform better than older stock you'd have to worry a bit about the design and construction of them. I would imagine that virtual simulations are run and that data from real accidents are fed back into newer designs, and the design specifications are improved over time.

In terms of this specific derailment it is the RAIB's opinion that a newer train would have performed better. Absolute assurances are not possible to give, but that does not undermine the principle.

 

[John Bishop]

If ASLEF stick to their guns, then I can see a forced withdrawal of the HST fleet by next year. Their concern (rightly IMO) is the cab safety or lack of it and the safety of their members. They could legitimately get their Drivers to refuse to work them after the deadline set.

It’s either withdrawal or a redesign and improved cab safety which I can’t see happening.

 

[12C]

If ASLEF stick to their guns, then I can see a forced withdrawal of the HST fleet by next year. Their concern (rightly IMO) is the cab safety or lack of it and the safety of their members. They could legitimately get their Drivers to refuse to work them after the deadline set.

It’s either withdrawal or a redesign and improved cab safety which I can’t see happening.

On that principle surely they would have to also have to force withdrawal of all 1980s built second generation multiple units, which would never meet today’s crashworthiness standards either, and I would imagine would put the driver at more risk than in a HST in the event of a collision.

I remember the accident at Ais Gill involving two 156s in the 1990s, the cabs were a complete mess and sadly the guard in the rear cab of the derailed unit was killed on impact.

 

[edwin_m]

I disagree. I think it is indicative of the relative performance of derailed vehicles. Some of the Pendolino vehicles struck OLE masts as well as jack-knifing and rolling over, all after derailing at a higher speed, and yet suffered less deformation than the Mk3s.

Striking an OLE mast is very different to striking a solid stone parapet. The rate of energy dissipation gets much higher, so the maximum forces are also much more, though experience for a shorter time.

I don't disagree that a more modern train would have been more survivable, but I do disagree that Grayrigg provides evidence of this.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

HSTs are not unsafe; by your flawed logic all cars should be withdrawn from the roads.

What do you mean by "unsafe"? That's a very subjective term.

I suggest that because:

• They're a 50+ year old design.
• They're obsolete and not compliant with the latest safety standards.
  • They're not compliant with collision safety standards introduced in 1994, 28 years ago.
• Most vehicles are now 40+ years old - some of the oldest in the network.
• These vehicles are currently scheduled to remain in service for another 10 years.
• The report stated that corrosion likely reduced their integrity in the crash. Potentially costing someone his life.
• A newer train would have withstood the crash significantly better, and would potentially have led to less loss of life.

HSTs withdrawn from other operators should not have been allowed to be introduced in lieu of new stock by Scotrail and given a second life.

HSTs compromise safety not because they're actively unsafe but because they're obsolete and outdated stock that rather than being withdrawn has been pressed back into service to save money.

 

[John Bishop]

On that principle surely they would have to also have to force withdrawal of all 1980s built second generation multiple units, which would never meet today’s crashworthiness standards either, and I would imagine would put the driver at more risk than in a HST in the event of a collision.

I remember the accident at Ais Gill involving two 156s in the 1990s, the cabs were a complete mess and sadly the guard in the rear cab of the derailed unit was killed on impact.

No, it’s specific to the HST. The fact that the cab is only secured by 4 bolts seems to be the issue here, something which has been raised previously.

 

[GC class B1]

I think this has been mentioned earlier, but in terms of risk per passenger mile, I believe travelling by HST is much safer than travelling by car. If removal of older rolling stock means less trains then the overall risk to the public will increase With forced increase in car use. As with anything in life the level of acceptable risk is a mater of taking a balanced judgment.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I think this has been mentioned earlier, but in terms of risk per passenger mile, I believe travelling by HST is much safer than travelling by car. If removal of older rolling stock means less trains then the overall risk to the public will increase With forced increase in car use. As with anything in life the level of acceptable risk is a mater of taking a balanced judgment.

In terms of risk per passenger mile, hauling around wooden framed coaches from the 20s would be safer than by car because collisions are so rare. But if there were to be a crash everyone would be killed.

That's bad logic.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The image of coach D is horrific. How anyone survived in there I don't know. Won't put me off though.

The fire in coach D was caused by the batteries and likely as a result of electrical problems caused by the damage to the train. As the fire started some time after the accident occurred it is likely there wouldn’t have been anyone still inside the carriage once the fire started taking hold in the saloon or may have been dealt with much sooner. still, as you say the scene is no less devastating and there would have been some significant injuries in this carriage. it was by virtue of the lack of passengers as a result of the covid pandemic that there weren’t more injuries or deaths.