Carmont (near Stonehaven) derailment - 12 August 2020

[Morayshire]

£6.7 million fine according to BBC just now. Link to follow...


BBC Article

Network Rail has been fined £6.7m after admitting a series of failings which led to the deaths of three people in a train crash near Stonehaven.

 

[35B]

I guess there's a legal view as infrastructure owner and operator, NR are liable for the failure of that infrastructure, regardless of how it came to pass.

Possibly, but the conviction (and plea) appears to be based on what instruction given to the driver.

 

[cf111]

Which is why it seems that NR have both changed the rules on blanket restrictions and taken it on the chin that, as an organisation, they ought already to have done so at Carmont.

Regardless of my views on blanket restrictions or who owns what decisions, I'm personally a little uncomfortable at the implication of accepting criminal liability for this when established practice did not require it at the time. That feels like a pandora's box being opened. IANAL and, especially, not aware of how Scottish law may differ, however.

It may be that the advice given by counsel prior to the guilty pleas, is that while Network Rail's employees were following an established process and that blame cannot be apportioned to them as individuals as a result of that, the process itself was defective and Network Rail as an organisation should have remedied that.

 

[MadCommuter]

Where does the money from the fine go? Although this delivers some form of justice, it's presumably a merry go round of public money?

 

[williamn]

The fine seems entirely pointless - surely it just means Network Rail have less to invest.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Where does the money from the fine go? Although this delivers some form of justice, it's presumably a merry go round of public money?

The fine goes to the Treasury. Coincidentally all railway revenue also does at the moment.
NR will have to find the money from its budget (ie take money from elsewhere).
The fine is insignificant compared to wider NR costs, not to mention the cost to them of the incident itself.
Apparently the fine would have been £10 million if they had not pleaded guilty, plus the trauma of the trial itself on everybody concerned.

 

[cf111]

Where does the money from the fine go? Although this delivers some form of justice, it's presumably a merry go round of public money?

Firstly to the Sheriff Clerk at Aberdeen, then the money will be disbursed to HM Paymaster General and then into treasury funds.

 

[infobleep]

The fine seems entirely pointless - surely it just means Network Rail have less to invest.

They saved £3.3 million by pleading Guilty as the fine would have been £10m.

Lord Matthews added that the rail operator would have been fined £10m if the case had gone to trial.

BBC News - Stonehaven crash: Network Rail fined £6.7m over fatal derailment

Stonehaven crash: Network Rail fined £6.7m over fatal derailment

Three people died and six were hurt after a train hit a landslide south of Stonehaven in 2020.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[takno]

Possibly, but the conviction (and plea) appears to be based on what instruction given to the driver.

I don't particularly believe that the prosecution was justified, the specific failing they chose seems both silly and lazy compared to addressing the infrastructure, and it definitely doesn't strike me as in the public interest. However, the consequences of the criminal plea by the company aren't particularly severe, and there aren't any particular implications to pleading guilty beyond the 5.7m fine, which is likely to be significantly lower than the costs of defending it.

 

[35B]

I don't particularly believe that the prosecution was justified, the specific failing they chose seems both silly and lazy compared to addressing the infrastructure, and it definitely doesn't strike me as in the public interest. However, the consequences of the criminal plea by the company aren't particularly severe, and there aren't any particular implications to pleading guilty beyond the 5.7m fine, which is likely to be significantly lower than the costs of defending it.

I sense two consequences. The first is the precedent being set that those policies were illegal. The second is the whole issue of no punishment without law, where I'd be surprised to find anyone who reasonably considered that NR owed this level of duty of care back in 2020 let alone to a criminal standard.

 

[geoffk]

The fine seems entirely pointless - surely it just means Network Rail have less to invest.

I was going to ask - if Network Rail, or any other public body, is fined, who actually pays? Is it the taxpayer in the end? Is it added on to the NR debt or does it come from money earmarked for investment? All these options are unsatisfactory. The alternative would be to fine individual directors, but then who would want the job?

 

[greyman42]

No but maybe the unprecedented amount of rain that morning and all the other landslips that occurred maybe should have given them an inkling?

What other landslips were there?

 

[156421]

Where does the money from the fine go? Although this delivers some form of justice, it's presumably a merry go round of public money?

Same happens when Sellafailed gets fined every so often for their various acts of negligence

 

[68000]

The implication given is that NR knew there was an obstruction but sent the train at linespeed anyway. This is plainly not true but does not stop commentators in the media reporting NR pled guilty to not warning the driver of an obstruction ahead.

 

[35B]

What other landslips were there?

The RAIB report refers to other incidents, from memory including flooding and landslips, between Stonehaven and Dundee that morning. That's before the mess that the storms had caused in the rest of Scotland that morning.

I'm uneasy about the law on this one, but find the underlying question about the policy of assuming line clear unless it's evidenced to be blocked a reasonable one (though with no easy answers).

 

[EC54]

What other landslips were there?

? The one that stopped the train involved from getting to its original destination in the first place.

 

[Wynd]

Its difficult to see other outcomes, given the fact that this was a fatal incident.

I dont think it sets a precedent going forwards, on the contrary, I think the outcome here is in line with other cases. If people die, someone is ultimately accountable, and accountability often translates to liability.

Alex Hynes statement is worth noting.

Speaking for Network Rail, Alex Hynes, managing director of Scotland’s Railway, said: “The Carmont derailment and the tragic loss of Christopher Stuchbury, Donald Dinnie and Brett McCullough was a terrible day for their families, everyone involved, and for the railway network.

“It is clear that our infrastructure was at fault for the accident, so it is right that Network Rail pleaded guilty.

“To the families of those who lost their lives, we would say again how deeply sorry we are that this tragedy was able to happen. And to those survivors who were injured, we are very sorry for the pain and distress caused.


“Since the accident, we have been working hard to make our railway safer and to learn the lessons of Carmont.

“We are absolutely committed to delivering on the recommendations made by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch in its report into the accident.

“We are also determined to build upon the significant changes that we have made since the accident, which have helped us to manage the risk of severe weather to the network.

“The events of August 12, 2020 and loss of three lives will be etched on the industry’s mind forever, and make us determined to keep improving the safety of our network every day.

Network Rail derailment fine ‘not justice in truest sense’, says union

Aslef said it is the people within organisations that ‘need to be held accountable’.

www.bracknellnews.co.uk

Whilst we are on this, its worth taking a step back and thinking how you would feel about any alternative outcome, where there was no fine, or no admission of liability, or criminal fault.

Few, if any one of us, would price a relative in monetary terms, but imagine how you would feel if you had lost a family member, and there was no admission of guilt, and no fine.

From that perspective, I find it nearly impossible to see another outcome.

No, this outcome does not seek to replace any of the families loss, but im trying to drive a compassioate angle here.

 

[35B]

Its difficult to see other outcomes, given the fact that this was a fatal incident.

I dont think it sets a precedent going forwards, on the contrary, I think the outcome here is in line with other cases. If people die, someone is ultimately accountable, and accountability often translates to liability.

Alex Hynes statement is worth noting.

Speaking for Network Rail, Alex Hynes, managing director of Scotland’s Railway, said: “The Carmont derailment and the tragic loss of Christopher Stuchbury, Donald Dinnie and Brett McCullough was a terrible day for their families, everyone involved, and for the railway network.

“It is clear that our infrastructure was at fault for the accident, so it is right that Network Rail pleaded guilty.

“To the families of those who lost their lives, we would say again how deeply sorry we are that this tragedy was able to happen. And to those survivors who were injured, we are very sorry for the pain and distress caused.


“Since the accident, we have been working hard to make our railway safer and to learn the lessons of Carmont.

“We are absolutely committed to delivering on the recommendations made by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch in its report into the accident.

“We are also determined to build upon the significant changes that we have made since the accident, which have helped us to manage the risk of severe weather to the network.

“The events of August 12, 2020 and loss of three lives will be etched on the industry’s mind forever, and make us determined to keep improving the safety of our network every day.

Network Rail derailment fine ‘not justice in truest sense’, says union

Aslef said it is the people within organisations that ‘need to be held accountable’.

www.bracknellnews.co.uk

Whilst we are on this, its worth taking a step back and thinking how you would feel about any alternative outcome, where there was no fine, or no admission of liability, or criminal fault.

Few, if any one of us, would price a relative in monetary terms, but imagine how you would feel if you had lost a family member, and there was no admission of guilt, and no fine.

From that perspective, I find it nearly impossible to see another outcome.

No, this outcome does not seek to replace any of the families loss, but im trying to drive a compassioate angle here.

Understood, though I suggest reading "Secret Barrister" on the subject of what the purpose of the criminal justice system is. Where the charges related to the infrastructure, I've no problem with what's happened; it's the aspect to do with instructing/permitting the train to proceed at line speed that I'm uneasy about.

Alex Hynes' statement is consistent with that - the infrastructure was at fault.

 

[misterredmist]

Where does the money from the fine go? Although this delivers some form of justice, it's presumably a merry go round of public money?

that was my first thought

 

[najaB]

Where the charges related to the infrastructure, I've no problem with what's happened; it's the aspect to do with instructing/permitting the train to proceed at line speed that I'm uneasy about.

To my mind it follows on from the infrastructure issues. The deaths weren't caused by the infrastructure failure. The landslip occurred anything up to an hour before the accident.

The deaths occurred because the train ran into the debris at linespeed, because NR didn't have (a) adequate monitoring to prove the line clear*; or (b) a policy of assuming the line to be at risk of blockage during a severe weather event if not proven to be clear. Either of which would have prevented the accident.

*I'm not saying that such a system should have been in place (or even exists).

 

[Falcon1200]

The deaths weren't caused by the infrastructure failure.

???? The deaths would not have occurred if the infrastructure had not failed! The tragic outcome was a result of the landslip happening and then being struck by a train at line speed, with other factors such as the presence of a bridge parapet, combining to dreadful effect.

 

[68000]

To my mind it follows on from the infrastructure issues. The deaths weren't caused by the infrastructure failure. The landslip occurred anything up to an hour before the accident.

The deaths occurred because the train ran into the debris at linespeed, because NR didn't have (a) adequate monitoring to prove the line clear*; or (b) a policy of assuming the line to be at risk of blockage during a severe weather event if not proven to be clear. Either of which would have prevented the accident.

*I'm not saying that such a system should have been in place (or even exists).

The deaths were a direct result of the infrastructure failing to handle the weather conditions at the time. It transpires that the infrastructure would not have failed if the drainage works were installed as per the agreed design

 

[jfowkes]

Are ScotRail also culpable here? They had all the information that NR did about weather and landslips. They could (I presume) also have warned the driver about the possibility of landslides and/or told them to run at reduced speed.

 

[Napier]

that was my first thought

.Gov feeding .Gov on the Tory money go round!!

 

[dk1]

The fine seems entirely pointless - surely it just means Network Rail have less to invest.

Totally agree but I suppose they have to be seen to do something. This sort of money grabs media attention even though in railway terms it really isn’t that much.

 

[najaB]

The deaths were a direct result of the infrastructure failing to handle the weather conditions at the time.

The point I was making is that NR are admitting that they missed an opportunity to mitigate the impact of the infrastructure failure.

As an analogy, let's assume that someone died in a fire caused by a faulty electrical appliance, in a commercial building that also had neither a fire alarm, nor an emergency exit.

Would you say that the deaths were solely due to the faulty appliance, or were they also due to the building owner's failure to take adequate precautions against what could be argued was a predictable risk?

 

[SussexMan]

The deaths were a direct result of the infrastructure failing to handle the weather conditions at the time. It transpires that the infrastructure would not have failed if the drainage works were installed as per the agreed design

But that isn't the conclusion of the RAIB report.

Identification of the immediate cause: Train 1T08 derailed because it struck washout debris. Para 72, page 67

The failure of the infrastructure was a causal factor. Paras 88 - 90, Pages 71 & 72

 

[3141]

Are ScotRail also culpable here? They had all the information that NR did about weather and landslips. They could (I presume) also have warned the driver about the possibility of landslides and/or told them to run at reduced speed.

I have often wondered whether the driver himself might have thought about travelling at less than line speed, in spite of having been told that he could do so. Obviously, he behaved completely legitimately in view of the advice he received in response to his enquiry. But what if he had said to himself: "How can they be sure that that line I came down earlier is still clear? I think I had better drive cautiously so as to be able to stop if there is an obstruction."

It seems to me that everyone on that day behaved in a way that seemed reasonable at the time, but as things turned out someone should have thought "Hang on, there's been some awful weather, we've got some blockages, we'd better put in a restriction for that train going back to Aberdeen."

A rather more important point is the work done ten years earlier not having been completed according to the specification and not having been checked. That's where NR was definitely at fault.

There's an item on the BBC News website asking whether NR has got off lightly. Some relatives of those killed think that way. They obviously don't appreciate that as NR is a public company it's our money that pays the fine, and if NR had been fined a larger amount that would simply mean a larger hole in its budget for maintenance etc.

 

[Horizon22]

Its difficult to see other outcomes, given the fact that this was a fatal incident.

I dont think it sets a precedent going forwards, on the contrary, I think the outcome here is in line with other cases. If people die, someone is ultimately accountable, and accountability often translates to liability.

Alex Hynes statement is worth noting.

Speaking for Network Rail, Alex Hynes, managing director of Scotland’s Railway, said: “The Carmont derailment and the tragic loss of Christopher Stuchbury, Donald Dinnie and Brett McCullough was a terrible day for their families, everyone involved, and for the railway network.

“It is clear that our infrastructure was at fault for the accident, so it is right that Network Rail pleaded guilty.

“To the families of those who lost their lives, we would say again how deeply sorry we are that this tragedy was able to happen. And to those survivors who were injured, we are very sorry for the pain and distress caused.


“Since the accident, we have been working hard to make our railway safer and to learn the lessons of Carmont.

“We are absolutely committed to delivering on the recommendations made by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch in its report into the accident.

“We are also determined to build upon the significant changes that we have made since the accident, which have helped us to manage the risk of severe weather to the network.

“The events of August 12, 2020 and loss of three lives will be etched on the industry’s mind forever, and make us determined to keep improving the safety of our network every day.

Network Rail derailment fine ‘not justice in truest sense’, says union

Aslef said it is the people within organisations that ‘need to be held accountable’.

www.bracknellnews.co.uk

Whilst we are on this, its worth taking a step back and thinking how you would feel about any alternative outcome, where there was no fine, or no admission of liability, or criminal fault.

Few, if any one of us, would price a relative in monetary terms, but imagine how you would feel if you had lost a family member, and there was no admission of guilt, and no fine.

From that perspective, I find it nearly impossible to see another outcome.

No, this outcome does not seek to replace any of the families loss, but im trying to drive a compassioate angle here.

The infrastructure is at fault yes, and the drainage was not at spec. This is ultimately what Hynes’ statement is about as well as improved live weather monitoring teams, something NR has already put into action across all routes.

However the commentary around blanket speed restrictions is rather unfair and retrospective on what was at the time, agreed and normal procedure and not against any law. It has been since changed which is probably for the best for increased certainty for safety should a train suddenly need to perform an emergency stop.

The point I was making is that NR are admitting that they missed an opportunity to mitigate the impact of the infrastructure failure.

As an analogy, let's assume that someone died in a fire caused by a faulty electrical appliance, in a commercial building that also had neither a fire alarm, nor an emergency exit.

Would you say that the deaths were solely due to the faulty appliance, or were they also due to the building owner's failure to take adequate precautions against what could be argued was a predictable risk?

Not a great analogy because the fire alarm and emergency exit would have been legal failings whilst a blanket speed restriction was not.

Best practice possibly - and certainly is now, but unfortunately many safety recommendations and laws only come after tragic incidents.

Fining NR with regards to the failing of the drainage is correct (although you can argue about the worthiness of a public company being fined).

Are ScotRail also culpable here? They had all the information that NR did about weather and landslips. They could (I presume) also have warned the driver about the possibility of landslides and/or told them to run at reduced speed.

I think NR and Scotrail are in an alliance - or certainly were at the time - and anyway as the infrastructure owner NR would be the ones to implement speed restrictions with Scotrail then through the relevant and correct channels ensuring that staff were briefed and aware.

 

[najaB]

Not a great analogy because the fire alarm and emergency exit would have been legal failings whilst a blanket speed restriction was not.

I wasn't speaking from a strictly legal perspective. Make it a non-commercial premises where fire alarms and emergency exits aren't a legal requirement then.