Mmmm, but there's a difference between a head on collision with an object that will be defected and deformed to some extent, and an object that will absorb very little energy through deformation and is rather less moveable.
maybe so, but Polmont and Southall involved mk3 coaches and both also had a loco continuing to push from the rear
indeed part of Pan Am 103 showing the explosive damage to the forward fuselage is still here and is used for training AAIB investigators
That's entirely compatible with the collision energy being lower in this case, and illustrates how the collision energy probably has less influence on the outcome than sequence of events between the initiation and everything coming to rest does. Greyrigg for example was a greater collision energy but a less severe outcome than Carmont, which may have had as much to do with the fact no solid object was struck as with the supposed greater structural strength of Pendolinos over Mk3s.
That was the point I was raising - I suspect that this accident resulted in the cab detaching because there was a large torque applied to it, unlike a lot of other accidents which involved more head-on collisions.
The rest of it is in a scrapyard in Lincolnshire. The owners son was stung by a newspaper flogging bits of it - eg cockpit instruments - a few years ago. Apparently it has to remain in storage as "evidence" due to ongoing civil legal cases in the States. No idea who foots the bill for that.
In my own thinking, I suspect in the final analysis there’s also been a particularly susceptible section of “French drain” that was tending more towards the vertical, and with hindsight a poor design decision.
It was a piped system not a watercourse so unlikely to have been picked up.
One questions this approach. They had two landslips and two floodings nearby, with three trains pulled up in the nearby vicinity. All these events had by definition blocked the line since the previous train passed. Is it really appropriate for "railway rules" to allow another train, in the middle of all this, to be accelerated to maximum linespeed?
Clip and scotch is a very longstanding rule, but in the "old school" the signaller would have been allowed to apply the clamps themselves.
They still are, if they have been shown how.
And I assume have some sort of recorded competence. But it seems remiss that a signaller at an isolated box with a trailing crossover but no FPL isn't able or allowed to do so.
It could be as simple as not having working clamps available.
Given that drivers who work in RETB areas are deemed competent in clamping and scotching I find it very odd that signallers aren't. It's a few hours course and doesn't require refreshers.
Signalmen used to be able to do everything once upon a time, nip out kick wire runs, clip up points, nowadays it is rare for this to happen, back in the day, a Signalman could be asked to work any non block post level crossing, or be a piltoman for SLW, work AHB's / CCTV's all gone, done by MOM's and Contractors these days.
The DVT was demolished at Great Heck, but 66521 wasn't cut on site, it was moved to Doncaster Works, then Leeds Midland Road and stripped for spares, before eventual disposal at Booth's in 2006.
If that was the reason then it's even more concerning that a set weren't available in the signal box.
I've no idea if there was or was not. I was just pointing out that it wasn't necessarily an "new railway" thing about competencies and who can do what and rather could be something as simple as they couldn't find them.
That looks to be one of the areas under further consideration.
Floods can wash away the ballast and formation, making it unsafe for trains to proceed, and the damage may not be visible if the track is underwater. They are also inseparable from landslips, in that if there's a flood on the track there could well be excess water nearby bringing earth and stones down onto the track.
Indeed I remember many years ago travelling on XC HST to Bristol through torrential rain and flooding (would have been that year around the millennium that there was widespread flooding). We stopped at several points before proceeding at walking pace through sections that were flooded above rail level.
That's already taken care of by the rules - normal line speed doesn't apply if the rails aren't visible.
Yes indeed, but I was thinking of the situation when a train at line speed encounters a flood that nobody knows about. That's probably nearly as dangerous as encountering a landslide nobody knows about, although potential flood locations are easier to predict.
It just seems to me that if there is such a crossover, the signallers should be trained to apply/remove the necessary equipment, which should be available in the box - especially somewhere like Carmont where even in normal weather it would take some time for assistance to arrive.
Even when there have already been four weather-caused line blockages and three trains stranded in the immediate vicinity?
