Carmont inquiry to start in January

[Morayshire]

Update on FAI Progress on BBC today

Stonehaven derailment probe 'large and complex'

A fatal accident inquiry (FAI) into the Stonehaven train derailment in which three men died will be "large and complex" and could last about two months, a hearing has been told.

The Aberdeen to Glasgow train derailed at Carmont in Aberdeenshire after hitting a landslide following heavy rain in 2020.

Driver Brett McCullough, 45, conductor Donald Dinnie, 58, and passenger Christopher Stuchbury, 62, died and Network Rail was fined £6.7m in 2023 after admitting a series of failings which led to the deaths.

A further preliminary hearing will be held later this year before a start date for the FAI can be set.

Sheriff Lesley Johnston, having her first involvement in the process, told the remote hearing she wanted to express her "sincere condolences" to all those affected.

Alex Prentice KC, for the Crown, said the forthcoming inquiry would be "very large and complex".

He said it was difficult to gauge its duration but it was thought it would be about eight to nine weeks.

Mr Prentice said a hybrid model might be best, with some remote evidence and some in person.

Sheriff Johnston said the preliminary hearing would continue on 23 June.

During a court case in 2023, Network Rail pleaded guilty to a number of maintenance and inspection failures before the crash.

It also admitted failing to warn the driver that part of the track was unsafe, or tell him to reduce his speed.

At the High Court in Aberdeen, the judge, Lord Matthews, said no penalty could compensate for the loss suffered by the families of those who died and the people injured.

Law firm Digby Brown later said that a total of nearly £1m in civil actions against Network Rail had been settled.

The train hit a landslide near Stonehaven after heavy rain in an area where a drainage system had been incorrectly installed.

The 06:38 service to Glasgow had been unable to complete its journey due to the conditions and was returning to Aberdeen when the accident happened.

A recording of the driver showed he queried with a signaller if any reduced speed was needed to return north. He was told everything was fine for normal speed.

The train struck debris from a landslide on the track, derailed and collided with a bridge parapet.

 

[Morayshire]

BBC has another update on FAI progress - looking like Jan 2026 before the FAI starts with another preliminary hearing on the 24th September 2025

Inquiry into fatal train derailment in Stonehaven set for next year - Jan 2026

An inquiry into a train derailment which killed three men in the north east of Scotland is to be held next year.

The Aberdeen to Glasgow train came off the rails at Carmont, in Aberdeenshire, on 12 August 2020 after it hit a landslide following heavy rain.

Driver Brett McCullough, 45, conductor Donald Dinnie, 58, and passenger Christopher Stuchbury, 62, died in the crash. Network Rail was later fined £6.7m after admitting a series of failings which led to the deaths.

A fatal accident inquiry (FAI) preliminary hearing heard a start date in late January was being reserved. It could last about a month.

Alex Prentice KC, for the Crown, told a remote hearing at Aberdeen Sheriff Court on Thursday morning that "good progress" had been made between the parties involved in the inquiry to agree evidence in advance.

Mr Prentice said he was now confident that the FAI would not go beyond four weeks in duration.

Sheriff Lesley Johnston noted the previous estimate of about eight weeks had been further reduced.

She expressed gratitude that discussions had halved the potential timescale.

The sheriff said dates for the inquiry would be reserved, starting the week of 26 January.

This would run through to 13 February, followed by further dates on 23-27 February.

Work will continue on a location for the inquiry, which the sheriff said was likely to be a mix of in-person and remote.

A further preliminary hearing has been set for 24 September.

On the fifth anniversary of the tragedy earlier this month, the RMT union warned "urgent action" was still needed to improve rail safety after the derailment.

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) annual report for 2024, published earlier this year, revealed eight of its 20 safety recommendations remained "open", external.

These included control room capability and drainage design.

Network Rail said "meaningful progress" had been made.

 

[thealexweb]

“…These included control room capability…”

Finally some focus on this. All the previous focus on somewhat poor drainage so far and almost no one talking about why the HST was travelling at line speed in an area where they knew landslides were occurring.

 

[YorkshireBear]

“…These included control room capability…”

Finally some focus on this. All the previous focus on somewhat poor drainage so far and almost no one talking about why the HST was travelling at line speed in an area where they knew landslides were occurring.

Definitely not finally. This was quickly picked up in the aftermath and improvements made. Might appear no one was talking about it, but in the relevant bits of the industry they definitely were!

 

[Taunton]

Definitely not finally. This was quickly picked up in the aftermath and improvements made. Might appear no one was talking about it, but in the relevant bits of the industry they definitely were!

I don't know, when I made exactly this point on here after the accident I got pilloried by others for even daring to question the manner in which the train was being driven in the conditions.

 

[43066]

I don't know, when I made exactly this point on here after the accident I got pilloried by others for even daring to question the manner in which the train was being driven in the conditions.

The train was being driven correctly - it may be that network rail control should have imposed a blanket speed restriction and didn’t, given the conditions, but that’s a different matter.

 

[Falcon1200]

The train was being driven correctly - it may be that network rail control should have imposed a blanket speed restriction and didn’t, given the conditions, but that’s a different matter.

I have been reluctant to comment, given the likely response such as that received by @Taunton, so all I will say is that the RAIB report highlights the intense pressure that Control was under on that dreadful day.

 

[43066]

I have been reluctant to comment, given the likely response such as that received by @Taunton, so all I will say is that the RAIB report highlights the intense pressure that Control was under on that dreadful day.

Absolutely - not necessarily the fault of the individuals concerned, any more than it was the driver’s fault, but failings at a system wide level may well need to be addressed.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't know, when I made exactly this point on here after the accident I got pilloried by others for even daring to question the manner in which the train was being driven in the conditions.

And you will be pilloried again as the RAIB clearly said in their report there is no suggestion that the did anything other than drive the train professionally and to standard:

247 It is normal practice on the national rail system to operate trains at the maximum permitted speed where this is practical, safe and in accordance with train operators’ professional driving policies. There are some exceptions, such as systems used by some train operators to allow trains to be driven in a way that reduces fuel consumption while still achieving timetable requirements.

248 The railway is an environment in which compliance with rules and procedures is expected as a fundamental part of ensuring safety. Although drivers and signallers are required to take appropriate action if aware of an infrastructure problem, the rules and procedures are based on an underpinning assumption that the infrastructure manager will give appropriate notice if trains cannot be safely operated at the maximum permitted speeds

255 ... During this conversation, the driver queried whether there was any speed restriction to Stonehaven; the signaller replied that the line was fine between Carmont and Stonehaven, and that the driver could proceed at normal speed. In response the driver said that he would be in no rush to get there.

257 ScotRail has reviewed the OTDR data for the journey of 1T08 approaching the derailment site, and confirmed that it would be ‘more than happy to pass a driver as competent based on the driving style’, and that there were ‘no instructions or even any issues known to the driver that would have made them drive any different than how they did that day’.

There could be questions about whether or not the longstanding industry procedure that treating infrastructure as safe unless positively identified as not being safe is sensible in an area of extreme weather. But on the day the driver was driving that train appropriately, following the appropriate rules and procedures and having been told by the signaller that the line was fine. As for "the conditions" the driver was driving in sunshine with scattered clouds in a blue sky.

 

[Lockwood]

Can't both statements be correct?

The driver was driving to policy, to the conditions he could see, and within the instructions given to him

And

The instructions given to him were not appropriate, given hindsight


Therefore, had he been told "it might look ok where you are, but there's been a lot of issues, so come back at 30mph", he would still be driving to policy, to the conditions he could see, and within the instructions given to him.

 

[godfreycomplex]

Can't both statements be correct?

The driver was driving to policy, to the conditions he could see, and within the instructions given to him

And

The instructions given to him were not appropriate, given hindsight


Therefore, had he been told "it might look ok where you are, but there's been a lot of issues, so come back at 30mph", he would still be driving to policy, to the conditions he could see, and within the instructions given to him.

Exactly

I don’t think any criticism was implied at the unfortunate driver (or indeed anyone else actually working during that tragedy), but more around solving the systemic issues that meant that control couldn’t instruct the signaller to instruct the driver to proceed at a slower speed.

 

[Straus]

Do control ever place speed restrictions on without external request? I don't think it's something I've seen, but I've not seen everything.

The only instances I'm aware of is where there is an automated process in place (e.g. weather tools, alarms)

 

[Taunton]

And you will be pilloried again as the RAIB clearly said in their report there is no suggestion that the did anything other than drive the train professionally and to standard:

That seems a bit contradictory, for you are saying I will be pilloried for making exactly the same points where @YorkshireBear above said:

This was quickly picked up in the aftermath and improvements made. Might appear no one was talking about it, but in the relevant bits of the industry they definitely were!

 

[43066]

That seems a bit contradictory, for you are saying I will be pilloried for making exactly the same points where @YorkshireBear above said:

There weren’t questions over how the train was being driven, though.

 

[YorkshireBear]

That seems a bit contradictory, for you are saying I will be pilloried for making exactly the same points where @YorkshireBear above said:

I was pointing out to actions in control not how the train was driven. Why the train was driven at linespeed in an area they knew were landslides, I assumed your they was control.

 

[Morayshire]

Further update on the progress of the Fatal Accident Inquiry

Train derailment inquiry may now last under two weeks

Ken Banks
North east Scotland reporter

The inquiry into a train derailment which killed three men in the north east of Scotland could now last under a fortnight, a hearing has been told.
The Aberdeen to Glasgow train came off the rails at Carmont, in Aberdeenshire, on 12 August 2020 after it hit a landslide following heavy rain.
Driver Brett McCullough, 45, conductor Donald Dinnie, 58, and passenger Christopher Stuchbury, 62, died in the crash.
Network Rail was later fined £6.7m after admitting a series of failings which led to the deaths.
Aberdeen Sheriff Court heard the evidence in next year's Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) could be completed in under two weeks, which is shorter than previous estimates.

The FAI was previously set down to start in January.

At the beginning of the year, a hearing was told the inquiry could last about 12 weeks.

In April, that estimate was reduced to about eight to nine weeks.

But in August the Crown said it might not go beyond four weeks in duration.

Court dates were reserved from 26 January through to 13 February, followed by further dates on 23-27 February.

On Monday, Alex Prentice KC, for the Crown, said it was now likely the evidence would be completed within two weeks.

He said this followed extensive talks and a narrowing of issues.

Sheriff Lesley Johnston said "good progress" was being made.

She said a venue for the FAI itself had still to be confirmed, but that it was hoped that could be done soon.

A further preliminary hearing will be held on 22 December.

On the fifth anniversary of the tragedy earlier this year, the RMT union warned "urgent action" was still needed to improve rail safety.

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) annual report for 2024, published earlier this year, revealed eight of its 20 safety recommendations remained "open", external.

These included control room capability and drainage design.

Network Rail said "meaningful progress" had been made.

What caused the Stonehaven derailment?

The train hit a landslide near Stonehaven after heavy rain in an area where a drainage system had been incorrectly installed.

The 06:38 service to Glasgow had been unable to complete its journey due to the conditions and was returning to Aberdeen when the accident happened.

A recording of the driver showed he queried with a signaller if any reduced speed was needed to return north.

He was told everything was fine for normal speed.

The train struck debris from a landslide on the track, derailed, and collided with a bridge parapet.

During a court case in 2023, Network Rail admitted a number of maintenance and inspection failures before the crash.

It also admitted failing to warn the driver that part of the track was unsafe, or tell him to reduce his speed.

At the High Court in Aberdeen, Lord Matthews said no penalty could compensate for the loss suffered by the families of those who died and the people injured.

Law firm Digby Brown later said that a total of nearly £1m in civil actions against Network Rail had been settled.

 

[Morayshire]

It would appear that there was a court hearing at Aberdeen Sheriff Court yesterday regarding this fatal accident inquiry

Report is from the P&J website

Stonehaven rail crash: Questions over missed extreme weather meeting resurface during court hearing

Rail workers felt a previous investigation report from 2022 cleared them of making errors - only for the issue to come up now again three years later.

Could rail staff have prevented the Stonehaven rail tragedy by holding a key meeting in the hours before the crash?

That was the topic discussed during a court hearing this morning ahead of a major investigation next year into the deaths of three people.

Two investigations have already concluded into the August 2020 crash, which took the lives of train driver Brett McCullough, 45, conductor Donald Dinnie, 58, and passenger Christopher Stuchbury, 62.

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) carried out one of those – and considered whether Network Rail staff should have called a meeting before the collision, about forecast thunderstorms.

Will new inquiry respect existing findings on weather response?​

After a team of experts spent months studying evidence, RAIB concluded that, even if Network Rail had convened an Emergency Weather Action Teams (EWAT) meeting, it would likely not have prevented the crash.

However, at a court hearing held remotely at Aberdeen Sheriff Court earlier today, one lawyer expressed concern that a new Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) is seeking to question that finding.

The FAI will seek to learn lessons from the crash in a bid to minimise the potential of a repeat in future. It does not seek to apportion blame.

The Crown Office will be leading the FAI in 2026, with more than a dozen parties involved in what is a particularly complex process.

At today’s hearing, Andrew Webster KC, who is representing RAIB, expressed concern that the Crown could be seeking to revisit the EWAT issue in a way that questions the RAIB’s findings.

While the considerations of survivors and victims’ loved ones are the priority of investigators, lawyers are also mindful of the impact next year’s FAI could have on rail officials.

Rail staff fear blame game returning three years on​

Those officials felt RAIB’s 2022 report cleared them of making errors by not calling an EWAT – only for the issue to come up again now, three years later.

During today’s hearing, Mr Webster cited that one purpose of the FAI will be to examine EWATs, and the Crown considers the FAI may benefit from hearing further evidence in relation to this.

Mr Webster added: “That is somewhat pejorative. It assumes that, had an EWAT meeting been convened, there might have been a different result [on the day of the crash].

“That puts squarely in focus the concern I have as to whether or not parties truly do accept the full terms of the RAIB report.

“And, if not, what do they not accept? And what evidence are they proposing has not been considered by RAIB that justifies RAIB’s conclusion?

Lawyer’s concern on timelines

“I’m concerned that, here we are, a month or so out from [the start of the FAI] – and there is still a lack of clarity on this point.”

Mr Webster suggested that, if the Crown or others question RAIB’s findings, RAIB should be given an opportunity to respond.

He added: “If parties agree that [an EWAT would have had no practical effect] – that may take away a lot of the problem.

“But at the moment, that’s not there – and that’s where my concern lies.”

‘We won’t just simply accept previous probes’​

Sheriff Lesley Johnston, who will conduct the FAI, responded to Mr Webster at today’s hearing: “I obviously have the evidence of RAIB and the conclusions of its report.

“The court doesn’t simply just accept the conclusions of the RAIB – it is an inquiry in which all the relevant issues require to be considered.

“It may simply be that there can be further agreement, but I would have thought we need to hear more evidence on this particular point.

“It sounds as if there needs to be further discussion.

“I’m sure everyone will go away and consider the points you’ve raised.”

Concern about freeing up witnesses​

Several lawyers also spoke today about how many witnesses will be required to speak in person at the FAI, rather than submitting written statements.

They are concerned that, because the FAI will last weeks, witnesses – particularly frontline rail and emergency-service workers – might have to be on standby.

However, the court agreed that a detailed witness list would be drawn up in due course, to avoid this.

More than 20 people attended this morning’s virtual hearing, including Diane Stuchbury, the widow of Mr Stuchbury.

The court will hold a further preliminary FAI hearing in mid-January.

Lawyers will meet before then in an attempt to clear up any outstanding issues.

 

[TUC]

Online is not In Public.

Surely it is public for a much wider audience?

 

[marks87]

It would appear that there was a court hearing at Aberdeen Sheriff Court yesterday regarding this fatal accident inquiry

Report is from the P&J website

Stonehaven rail crash: Questions over missed extreme weather meeting resurface during court hearing

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it’s almost as if the RAIB are trying to argue “we investigated and came to conclusions, so there’s no need for anyone else to do it”.

Which is a ridiculous argument. An FAI is required by law because two of the deceased were killed while at work. And that’s before you consider public interest (another grounds for holding an FAI, albeit by determination rather than statute).

 

[Snow1964]

An FAI is required by law because two of the deceased were killed while at work. And that’s before you consider public interest (another grounds for holding an FAI, albeit by determination rather than statute).

I expect those that set the law for a fatal accident enquiry, were expecting to prevent a reoccurrence and lead to changes if required. Not wait until 5.5 years later, wait years after it had all been looked at then reopen and distress the families involved again.

 

[RGM654]

I note:

"The FAI will seek to learn lessons from the crash in a bid to minimise the potential of a repeat in future. It does not seek to apportion blame."

That does seem precisely the same as purpose of the RAIB investigation.

It seems strange that the law requires the inquiry when another body has already done exactly the same job.

Given that the law does so require, one would hope that the inquiry would come to exactly the same conclusions, but there is an obvious possibility that a different set of individuals, some years later, will come to different conclusions, and that would be problematic not only for the staff who might have held the EWAT but also for RAIB itself.

 

[Morayshire]

Public Inquiry scheduled to commence at 11am today according to the BBC

Inquiry into fatal Stonehaven train derailment to begin

A fatal accident inquiry into a train derailment which killed three men in the north east of Scotland is due to begin.

The Aberdeen to Glasgow train came off the rails at Carmont in Aberdeenshire on 12 August 2020 after it hit a landslide following heavy rain.

Driver Brett McCullough, 45, conductor Donald Dinnie, 58, and passenger Christopher Stuchbury, 62, died in the crash. Network Rail was later fined £6.7m in court for a series of failings.

The inquiry in Aberdeen - which is expected to last between three and four weeks - is due to get under way from 11:00.

During the court case in 2023, Network Rail admitted a number of maintenance and inspection failures before the crash.
It also admitted failing to warn the driver that part of the track was unsafe, or tell him to reduce his speed.
At the High Court in Aberdeen, Lord Matthews said no penalty could compensate for the loss suffered by the families of those who died and the people injured.
Law firm Digby Brown later said that a total of nearly £1m in civil actions against Network Rail had been settled.

Why did the train derail?​

The train hit a landslide near Stonehaven after heavy rain in an area where a drainage system had been incorrectly installed.
The 06:38 service to Glasgow had been unable to complete its journey due to the conditions.
It was returning to Aberdeen when the accident happened.
A recording of the driver showed he queried with a signaller if any reduced speed was needed to return north.

He was told everything was fine for normal speed, so he continued to accelerate the train towards 75mph - the maximum permitted speed at the accident site.

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.

Data from the on-train data recorder (OTDR) showed it was travelling at about 73mph as it approached the washout debris at Carmont.

The train struck debris from a landslide on the track, derailed, and collided with a bridge parapet.

On the fifth anniversary of the tragedy, the RMT union warned "urgent action" was still needed to improve rail safety.

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) annual report for 2024 revealed eight of its 20 safety recommendations remained "open", external.

These included control room capability and drainage design.

Network Rail said "meaningful progress" had been made.

The FAI itself will be held in the civil annexe of Aberdeen Sheriff Court, before Sheriff Lesley Johnston.

Several rooms will be used to accommodate a large number of legal representatives, as well as relatives of those involved, the media, and members of the public.

Initial court time has been set aside for the next three weeks.

There will also be later closing submissions, which will be done remotely.

Aslef, the train drivers union, welcomed the start of the FAI.

Scottish organiser Kevin Lindsay said: "We hope and expect that this FAI establishes all the facts and helps ensure that no family goes through the pain endured by those closest to Christopher, Donald and Brett."

 

[Dan G]

Interesting how the FAI is a complete re-run of the RAIB inquiry, including access to the same evidence (including, presumably, witness statements and interviews). Not a comment, just an observation.

IIRC evidence given to air crash investigations can't be used in criminal prosecutions, certainly in England and I believe that's a worldwide principle under ICAO. I wonder if the same applies to RAIB investigations.

ISTR that the police can carry out criminal investigations at the same time as accident investigators work, but trials never start until final investigation reports are published.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2026 ==

I see that in this case the RAIB report was published in 2022, Network Rail pleaded guilty to health and safety law breaches in the Scottish High Court in 2023, and now we have the FAI.

 

[Indigo Soup]

So far as I can tell, every fatal rail accident in the UK since the formation of the RAIB has seen both an inquest or FAI, as appropriate, and an RAIB investigation. The key difference seems to be that in Scotland, the fatal accident inquiry comes after the prosecution, rather than before it.

IIRC evidence given to air crash investigations can't be used in criminal prosecutions, certainly in England and I believe that's a worldwide principle under ICAO. I wonder if the same applies to RAIB investigations.

Literally on Page 3 of an RAIB report: The purpose of a Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) investigation is to improve railway safety by preventing future railway accidents or by mitigating their consequences. It is not the purpose of such an investigation to establish blame or liability. Accordingly, it is inappropriate that RAIB reports should be used to assign fault or blame, or determine liability, since neither the investigation nor the reporting process has been undertaken for that purpose.

Page 1 is the cover, Page 2 is the copyright statement. AAIB and MAIB reports have equivalent statements. It's a key principle in safety management that those giving evidence to an investigation can do so without fear that it will be used against them.

Interestingly enough, there's a similar provision for the determination in fatal accident inquiries. One of the only ways that a mandatory FAI (which this is) can be dispensed with is if a previous criminal prosecution has addressed the relevant issues - which, clearly, the court did not believe it had done.

That is, of course, not possible if (as in Englandandwales) the inquest precedes criminal prosecution.

 

[GordonT]

IIRC evidence given to air crash investigations can't be used in criminal prosecutions, certainly in England and I believe that's a worldwide principle under ICAO.

I think it would be unlikely in Scotland for air accident investigation evidence to be used in criminal prosecutions unless there were exceptional circumstances which led to a Court of Session order on the basis that inclusion of certain specific details was in the greater public interest than the protection of the information.

 

[RiverDon]

I don't know specifically in this incident because I wasn't involved, but from experience in my previous job, witnesses will be interviewed and provide statements to RAIB/AAIB/MAIB/HSE separately and independently from any interview or statement given to the Police that will be led in evidence by the Procurator Fiscal.

So for a serious incident like this that ends up with a FAI being held, the witnesses will have given a separate Police statement and that's how the independence of the investigation is maintained.

Effectively there will be two parallel investigations - there are memorandums of understanding between Police Scotland, the PF and the various investigating bodies that set out exactly what is acceptable and what isn't.

 

[Dan G]

Page 1 is the cover, Page 2 is the copyright statement. AAIB and MAIB reports have equivalent statements. It's a key principle in safety management that those giving evidence to an investigation can do so without fear that it will be used against them.

Exactly. I brushed up; the case of the AAIB it's a long standing principle from the Chicago Convention enacted through retained EU law and domestic regulation. For RAIB, it's only domestic regulation.

Effectively there will be two parallel investigations - there are memorandums of understanding between PolScot, the PF and the various investigating bodies that set out exactly what is acceptable and what isn't.

Yeah, in my case I was interviewed (as a witness) twice, once by the police and once for the AAIB. The police statement went to inquest that wasn't held until after the AAIB reported.

It's pretty arduous for the families of the victims.

 

[cats_five]

Exactly. I brushed up; the case of the AAIB it's a long standing principle from the Chicago Convention enacted through retained EU law and domestic regulation. For RAIB, it's only domestic regulation.


Yeah, in my case I was interviewed (as a witness) twice, once by the police and once for the AAIB. The police statement went to inquest that wasn't held until after the AAIB reported.

It's pretty arduous for the families of the victims.

The AAIB take a long time over their reports, and a lot of care. Sadly I have lost several friends & acquaintances in GA accidents, and when the final report has appeared I have always been impressed with how deeply they have delved even when the cause appears obvious.

 

[mpthomson]

I note:

That does seem precisely the same as purpose of the RAIB investigation.

It seems strange that the law requires the inquiry when another body has already done exactly the same job.

Given that the law does so require, one would hope that the inquiry would come to exactly the same conclusions, but there is an obvious possibility that a different set of individuals, some years later, will come to different conclusions, and that would be problematic not only for the staff who might have held the EWAT but also for RAIB itself.

Inquests in the rest of the UK are the same. If it’s something that’s been investigated by another body eg NHS/ other healthcare body HSE then that investigation will contain recommendations (some legally binding) that will have action plans sat against them. These form part of the inquest process. Coroners (and PFs) are able to formally direct further improvements if they don’t think that enough has been done to reduce the likelihood of a repetition.