Carmont (near Stonehaven) derailment - 12 August 2020

[bramling]

Funny you should say that, as I work on trains but don't sign any routes, I've often wondered whether in a situation like this and I was the only member of staff not incapacitated, would the signaller know what I was on about if I used What Three Words

Doubt it TBH. The information the railway would want to know would be the miles and chains, though unless one happened to come across a milepost this would be quite hard to give, especially for a layman. In this case the number for the adjacent underbridge would have been the best way for the railway to pinpoint the precise location, control staff would be able to deduce the location from that.

Emergency services will take an OS reference, for which mobile phone apps are available nowadays. That would probably be the most expedient way of reporting it for a layman. It would certainly be more precise than “I’m on a train between Stonehaven and Montrose“, which doesn’t narrow it down enough to be helpful.

 

[Intermodal]

If you were calling from an SPT they'd ask you for the signal number which is on a plate on the signal, and I guess about how long you'd walked.

The signaller would already know what signal you are calling from - that's the advantage of using an SPT.

 

[Robertj21a]

I think it is likely that a member of the public would walk to the nearest signal in sight to find an SPT. Signal CM7, on the up line, would have only been a few hundred yards from the accident site. In the down direction signal SV19 would have been more than a mile away.

Why would an ordinary member of the public walk to a signal ?

Surely, as mentioned previously, an ordinary member of the public would look for a road, farm etc ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Emergency services will take an OS reference

You say that, but the one time I have called 999 (for an ambulance) the only thing they wanted was a postcode, which is a bit difficult if you're on a canal in a rural area. We got it in the end by giving the name of the nearby pub then telling them which way to walk on the towpath. I offered a grid reference but they said it was no use to them.

 

[matchmaker]

No, there's not one at every signal. Given the geography, I'm sure there would have been one at CM7.

Would a distant signal like CM7 have a SPT?

Why would anyone need to come out and secure the points at Carmont? They are in the control area of the adjacent Carmont signalbox, which is staffed 24 hours a day. Surely they are part of the Carmont interlocking and worked from the box, and even if they aren't, wouldn't the signaller be available to secure them?

I suspect the trailing points 11A and 11B would need clipped before a passenger train was moved over them.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think we've probably explored the likely actions of a member of the public in such a situation sufficiently now for this thread. If anyone wishes to continue to speculate about what a member of the public may or may not do please do so on a new thread.

 

[LAX54]

i.e: with no mobile signal I would assume no communication with the signaller, even with the train being overdue as a signaller you would think that maybe they were going slow just in case there were other obstructions, or had stopped and you would hear from them when they get to a signal phone. There would be a stop put on other trains in the area especially after the Network Rail video saying that trains were cancelled between Aberdeen and Dundee most trains that were already on that route would have been terminated at their next station I would assume.

If the line was blocked where the HST turned round, then yes there would have been a block on traffic put on, as there would be no point trying to get through, 'Three words' is used on the Railway. Mobiles are switched off when on duty, but there is nothing a Signaller can do, until someone tells him what has happened, the last thing you want to do is scramble the teams only to find you have suggested the wrong location

 

[Denco3]

You say that, but the one time I have called 999 (for an ambulance) the only thing they wanted was a postcode, which is a bit difficult if you're on a canal in a rural area. We got it in the end by giving the name of the nearby pub then telling them which way to walk on the towpath. I offered a grid reference but they said it was no use to them.

Most smartphones now use AML which uses the phones location services to accurately pinpoint the location to the emergency services.

There still remains the question about whether the area was covered by phone signal and crew/passengers had operational phones, but in usual circumstances the location of the crash should have had adequate signal to make a call.

 

[Sleepy]

There are at least two mobile sites that should have sufficiently covered the area of the accident. However there were some power cuts that morning, and for a period of time sites were offline. I'm not sure when power was restored.

No doubt this will be an item in the RAIB report, if it was a factor in anyway

If power cuts in the area affected mobile masts would this also affect GSMR equipment and/or Carmont box ability to attempt to contact the train if this stock is fitted to receive PA calls from a signaller ?

 

[Jordan Adam]

Most smartphones now use AML which uses the phones location services to accurately pinpoint the location.

There still remains the question about whether the area was covered by phone signal and crew/passengers had operational phones, but in usual circumstances the location of the crash should have had adequate signal to make a call.

If power cuts in the area affected mobile masts would this also affect GSMR equipment and/or Carmont box ability to attempt to contact the train if this stock is fitted to receive PA calls from a signaller ?

If it was a member of public who raised the alarm then it was likely someone who lives nearby, there is a number of houses close to the site. However as already mentioned phone signal is very poor, from my own experience there is practically no signal at all once you go west of the A90 south of Stonehaven. So the person would've had to use a landline or some other means.

 

[LowLevel]

If power cuts in the area affected mobile masts would this also affect GSMR equipment and/or Carmont box ability to attempt to contact the train if this stock is fitted to receive PA calls from a signaller ?

The GSMR equipment in the front powercar is extremely likely to have been destroyed anyway, the kit in the rear one might have been affected but in any case wouldn't have been active without being manually switched on and only DOO-P trains are generally set up to allow the signaller to make PA announcements. The train was totally divided anyway so there would have been no comms between the vehicle with the GSMR kit and the rest of the train anyway.

 

[Sleepy]

That was Tom Burridge, the BBC's Transport Correspondent. His background is a news and foreign correspondent, but you would expect that he would be more on top of his brief than he was last night.

I have to say this was embarrassingly bad reporting by the BBC on the 10pm bulletin - even if it was on Sky News I would have been disappointed by it. They had all day to check & correct facts.

 

[FGW_DID]

If it was a member of public who raised the alarm then it was likely someone who lives nearby, there is a number of houses close to the site. However as already mentioned phone signal is very poor, from my own experience there is practically no signal at all once you go west of the A90 south of Stonehaven. So the person would've had to use a landline or some other means.

it was a MoP who raised the initial alarm via Police Scotland.

 

[GB]

Why would anyone need to come out and secure the points at Carmont? They are in the control area of the adjacent Carmont signalbox, which is staffed 24 hours a day. Surely they are part of the Carmont interlocking and worked from the box, and even if they aren't, wouldn't the signaller be available to secure them?

they maybe controlled from the box at Carmont, doesn’t mean they don’t need securing for in service passenger trains and doesn’t mean the signaller has the necessary competence to clip them himself.

 

[Swanny200]

The GSMR equipment in the front powercar is extremely likely to have been destroyed anyway, the kit in the rear one might have been affected but in any case wouldn't have been active without being manually switched on and only DOO-P trains are generally set up to allow the signaller to make PA announcements. The train was totally divided anyway so there would have been no comms between the vehicle with the GSMR kit and the rest of the train anyway.

Even if there was a safety device fitted like a transponder should data between the two powercars get severed in an emergency, the phone signal is so poor in that area and the power cut issue, it probably would not have been picked up anyway, I don't think there is any other way of communicating in that area other than landline but even with a power cut, certain land line systems would be down too.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

I got caught in the floods in Gloucestershire/South Wales in July 2007, and the time taken at Gloucester to try to sort matters in the best way possible was lengthy, and based upon that experience I'm not surprised about the length of time between the train leaving Stonehaven early in the morning heading for Glasgow and people becoming aware of this terrible accident, my guess being that there wouldn't be a significant delay between it happening and Police Scotland and/or others becoming aware of it.

However, what does surprise me is the amount of destruction - I think that's the best way I can describe it.

I was conscious of the fact that the trains I travelled on back in 2007 as I tried to make my way round the floods were being driven with caution; nothing was at line speed, and it seemed as if drivers were using line of sight - I got the impression that, rather like driving a car, they were driving so that they could stop in time if some sort of obstruction came into view, to slow to walking pace if water levels between tracks approached top of rail level, etc. I don't know if this was just a common sense approach, or if it is a requirement of the Rule Book, but it certainly seemed a sensible way forward.

I've seen somewhere that the horrific scenes we've observed are about 1km from Carmont, and the train would have crossed over from up to down lines there at a maximum of 15mph; I appreciate that a 2+4 HST set has a good power to weight ratio and is quick of the mark, but even if it was accelerating up to line speed (75mph?) surely, the train wouldn't have been going very fast by the point of the accident, would it? And, as the preceding train along the route (2B13), had been delayed by 9 minutes between Carmont and Stonehaven, presumably because of weather conditions, would the driver have been made aware of this as a matter of course by train controls or others in authority?

What is the correct course of action in a situation such as this? Was I just lucky in that the trains I was on back in 2007 were driven cautiously, or would the train crew of 1T08 have been made aware, as a matter of course, to expect problems between Carmont and Stonehaven, and to act accordingly?

Obviously, something catastrophic happened to cause what we've seen, and we can only be thankful that the train was so lightly loaded and give thanks for the miracle that (if the figure of 12 being on board is accurate) some people got out unscathed

 

[Ianno87]

I've seen somewhere that the horrific scenes we've observed are about 1km from Carmont, and the train would have crossed over from up to down lines there at a maximum of 15mph; I appreciate that a 2+4 HST set has a good power to weight ratio and is quick of the mark, but even if it was accelerating up to line speed (75mph?) surely, the train wouldn't have been going very fast by the point of the accident, would it? A

My experience of a GWR 2+4 "Castle" HST (only between Penzance and St. Erth, admittedly) is some very sprightly low-end acceleration akin to a high-performance DMU, especially on a lightly loaded train. Plus any effect of gradient on the relevant section.

 

[QueensCurve]

One of the things mentioned after the Ufton accident was that First had removed the central partitions during refurbishment.

There was speculation that this had made GW Mk3s more likely to fold in half during a accident. They were made of metal and welded in as part of the body for a reason.

The Ufton Nervet Report contains (Section 7) a good description of the crashworthyness of the Mk3s.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the theory posted somewhere upthread of the front power car derailing and hitting the end of the bridge parapet makes a lot of sense. In that case it would stop very suddenly and the whole train would have had to go somewhere to dissipate its energy, explaining how parts of it went sideways and some coaches probably went up into the air before landing on the one that was crushed. This is a very different outcome from an accident such as Grayrigg, where there was no solid obstruction to stop the train, so it was brought to a stop relatively slowly by running over the ground.

 

[doningtonphil]

Am i right in thinking the HST set was following the 158 north to Stonehaven? Would it have had to wait for the 158 to clear the section before it could move? Once allowed to move the assumption could be that there was no discernible obstruction (would the 158 have reported it to the signaller if there were?) so the HST could have proceeded 'safe in the knowledge' that the line was clear. Therefore, it is possible that whatever caused the derailment was not something the driver could have seen from a distance and therefore not braked or even cut power?

I think many people are astounded by the catastrophic resting places of the vehicles with the train being imagined as travelling at not a very high speed. My question is, assuming the driver took no action, at what point would the trailing powercar stop taking power? I imagine as soon as the trailers disconnected that eh brakes would apply, but what would cut the power to the trailling powercar?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

As the incident seems to have happened along a section of line with a raised embankment leading to the bridge parapet, might the embankment have failed / slipped just enough to cause the derailment (due to the weight of the train passing over it) because of water ingress / saturation, and not readily observable.

 

[najaB]

Am i right in thinking the HST set was following the 158 north to Stonehaven? Would it have had to wait for the 158 to clear the section before it could move?

Following - as in it was the second train to travel north towards Stonehaven, yes - but there could have been anything up to two and half hours between them.

My question is, assuming the driver took no action, at what point would the trailing powercar stop taking power? I imagine as soon as the trailers disconnected that eh brakes would apply, but what would cut the power to the trailling powercar?

As soon as the control signal was lost then the motor would go to idle. But a HST power car weighs upwards of 70t so has a *lot* of momentum even if it's not under power.

 

[Mat17]

Am i right in thinking the HST set was following the 158 north to Stonehaven? Would it have had to wait for the 158 to clear the section before it could move? Once allowed to move the assumption could be that there was no discernible obstruction (would the 158 have reported it to the signaller if there were?) so the HST could have proceeded 'safe in the knowledge' that the line was clear.

I'm trying to make sense of where the 158 was in this. I don't know this line, so please forgive any confusion on my part.

I understand the HST was initially stopped by a landslide before it was routed back to Stonehaven. Had the 158 come from this direction initially? Where did the 158's journey start?

 

[Chrisgr31]

I was conscious of the fact that the trains I travelled on back in 2007 as I tried to make my way round the floods were being driven with caution; nothing was at line speed, and it seemed as if drivers were using line of sight - I got the impression that, rather like driving a car, they were driving so that they could stop in time if some sort of obstruction came into view, to slow to walking pace if water levels between tracks approached top of rail level, etc. I don't know if this was just a common sense approach, or if it is a requirement of the Rule Book, but it certainly seemed a sensible way forward.

Not a railway person but I would imagine the driver would have been wanting to make progress back to Stonehaven as a service to his passengers. He had already traversed the route a while before safely, albeit in the other direction, and therefore would have presumed it was safe, especially if the weather had improved by then.

I therefore would not be surprised if he was accelerating back up to line speed and whatever speed the rule book said he could do in the circumstances.

 

[43066]

What is the correct course of action in a situation such as this? Was I just lucky in that the trains I was on back in 2007 were driven cautiously, or would the train crew of 1T08 have been made aware, as a matter of course, to expect problems between Carmont and Stonehaven, and to act accordingly?

If there was standing water on the railhead you would expect to be cautioned and would then drive to line of sight. If you’re on clear signals, absent a specific reason not to, you generally drive at line speed.

 

[najaB]

I'm trying to make sense of where the 158 was in this. I don't know this line, so please forgive any confusion on my part.

I understand the HST was initially stopped by a landslide before it was routed back to Stonehaven. Had the 158 come from this direction initially? Where did the 158's journey start?

It was traveling north from Montrose to Aberdeen. They would have encountered the flooding south of Carmont, seen that the up line had debris on it, and reported such to the signaller.

 

[ainsworth74]

The President Dutch Railways has tweeted the following:

Vandaag de vlag halfstok vanwege het tragische treinongeluk in Schotland waarbij 3 doden zijn gevallen, waaronder collega’s #Scotrail #abellio #NS_online

(Today the flag is half mast because of the tragic train accident in Scotland in which 3 people died, including colleagues #Scotrail#abellio#NS_online)

https://twitter.com/rogervanboxtel/status/1293843377092427776

Looks like there was a press statement at some point yesterday as well:

NS offers its condolences to victims and relatives of the train accident in Scotland

NS would like to express its condolences to the victims and relatives of the tragic train accident in Scotland that took place this morning. Roger van Boxtel, president of the Dutch Railways: “We see terrible images of the train accident that took place at Stonehaven. At the moment, much is still unclear about the circumstances. My thoughts go out to the victims and their loved ones. On behalf of all NS employees, I would like to express my condolences to the travelers involved and colleagues in Scotland. ”

Three victims, including the train driver, are to be regretted in the accident, the Scottish authorities say. The train service on the route between Aberdeen and Edinburgh is provided by Abellio ScotRail, a subsidiary of NS.

Abellio ScotRail is working closely with the authorities to determine the cause of the accident. Also Scottish railway colleagues are getting all the support they need in these difficult circumstances.

(translation via Google)

NS betuigt medeleven aan slachtoffers en nabestaanden treinongeval Schotland

NS betuigt haar medeleven aan de slachtoffers en nabestaanden van het tragische treinongeval in Schotland dat vanochtend plaatsvond. Roger van Boxtel, president-directeur van NS: “We zien verschrikkelijke beelden van het treinongeval dat bij Stonehaven plaatsvond. Op dit moment is nog veel...

nieuws.ns.nl

 

[Mat17]

It was traveling north from Montrose to Aberdeen. They would have encountered the flooding south of Carmont, seen that the up line had debris on it, and reported such to the signaller.

That would make sense, I was wondering if it had passed the initial obstruction that had stopped the HST.

 

[Swanny200]

So we know that the Driver and Guard have passed, regarding the situation that they were under, they would have been getting ready to detrain at Stonehaven, the guard would not have been checking tickets etc... what would they be doing in that situation, would they have just been communicating to the 6 or so passengers the situation or would he have been employed by the driver to act as a second set of eyes in the cab with a worsening situation of potential landslips, or would that not be allowed under any circumstances?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Where was the footage of the partially flooded / debris-covered section of double-track (released yesterday by Network Rail?) taken, and when?