Carmont (near Stonehaven) derailment - 12 August 2020

[LOL The Irony]

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

So in a roundabout way, Network Rail will pay a grand total of £0.00? Excuse my ignorance but couldn't the judge (well sheriff in this case) instead order that they spend the same amount of money towards ensuring the chances of another accident like this happening again are as close to 0 as physically possible?

Either way, crazy.

 

[Falcon1200]

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.

That is a valid point; The question does have to be asked, I think, of who was best placed to assess the situation in the area, someone in an office 150 miles away or those on site who had experienced the extreme weather directly? Which is not an attempt to shift blame, because IMHO none of the staff directly involved at the time can be held responsible for the awful outcome.

 

[chuff chuff]

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."

As I said earlier you have to have trust in the system.

 

[BrianW]

It seems to me the main issues now are:
- generous treatment of the bereaved families- emotional and financial- hopefully there will be 'death in service benefits' for the employees?
- lessons learned, and shown by actions
- drainage design, construction, inspection, monitoring and maintenance- investment and procedures
Three years have passed ...

 

[The Puddock]

Excuse my ignorance but couldn't the judge (well sheriff in this case)

You were right the first time. The case took place in the High Court so was not heard by a mere Sheriff but by The Right Honourable Lord Matthews who is a Senator of the College of Justice, or, in lay terms, a judge of the Supreme Courts.

 

[cf111]

So in a roundabout way, Network Rail will pay a grand total of £0.00? Excuse my ignorance but couldn't the judge (well sheriff in this case) instead order that they spend the same amount of money towards ensuring the chances of another accident like this happening again are as close to 0 as physically possible?

Either way, crazy.

No I do not think that would be a competent order for the court to make. I do absolutely understand your point though.

 

[Surreytraveller]

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.

Its not the TOC's responsibility to decide on the running of trains based on the infrastructure. Would ScotRail have the same information as NWR? How would they contact the driver?

 

[43096]

How would they contact the driver?

Control could call them up on the GSM-R radio.

 

[najaB]

Would ScotRail have the same information as NWR?

I thought that, in Scotland at least, they operate as if they were one and the same organisation (the ScotRail alliance)?

 

[LAX54]

Control could call them up on the GSM-R radio.

It would be the Signaller contatacting the Driver, not Control.

 

[Class 170101]

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.

Surely the fine shouldn't come out of maintenance, projects, rernewals etc but by a reduction in the size of the bonus (or peformance) pot that is inevitably distributed to senior mangers and (mainly) directors?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your view, each tragic railway accident has progressively made the railway a safer place for its passengers and staff. Here NR was at fault and it was absolutely right they accepted liability if they hadn't they would have exposed staff to the risk of court appearances. Having seen from a distance the impact the Hatfield corporate manslaughter court case (which was dropped in the end) had on people and the organisations it would have achieved nothing.

The wider issue that needs more focus and possibly enforcement by ORR is NR being held to account for complying with RAIB recommendations from investigations. RAIB had this to say about Carmont in this years annual report

We have now received the initial responses to the recommendations from the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) which explain what actions the industry has or is taking, and the ORR status assigned to each recommendation. These responses are tabulated on pages 33 and 34. I am pleased to see that a lot of effort is
being put into addressing the recommendations by the railway industry and associated bodies, and there is no doubt that considerable progress has
been made. However, as all but two recommendations remain open, there is still some way to go

 

[Dr Hoo]

Surely the fine shouldn't come out of maintenance, projects, rernewals etc but by a reduction in the size of the bonus (or peformance) pot that is inevitably distributed to senior mangers and (mainly) directors?

Genuine question: Does nationalised Network Rail still have a >£6.7 million directors’ bonus pot?

 

[najaB]

Surely the fine shouldn't come out of maintenance, projects, rernewals etc but by a reduction in the size of the bonus (or peformance) pot that is inevitably distributed to senior mangers and (mainly) directors?

Obviously, I don't have access to NR's books but in most companies, while the big headline bonus amounts to directors/c-suite executives catch people's attention, the total bonus accruing to mid-level/rank and file employees (where eligible) forms the majority of the bonus pot.

 

[infobleep]

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.

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.

Will any of the money go to the families who lost love ones? I do accept they would prefer to have their loved ones.

 

[najaB]

Will any of the money go to the families who lost love ones? I do accept they would prefer to have their loved ones.

I think that would require them to bring a civil suit, this £6.7M is a fine rather than damages.

 

[swt_passenger]

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

Same with fines levied on any government funded organisation, it’s going to happen irrespective of the political party that happens to be in charge at the time.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Control could call them up on the GSM-R radio.

I don't believe TOC control are safety critical, they don't get involved with passing safety critical messages to drivers (obviously this would also cause Signallers, who are in charge of the running of trains on bits of railway they are signalling, to be out of the loop with what's going on), and TOC controllers aren't going to be trained on the rules regarding speed restrictions etc.
Not all TOC controls have access to GSM-R either, as its primarily a means of communication between Signallers and drivers. And what happens if a driver doesn't respond to a call from a TOC control?

I thought that, in Scotland at least, they operate as if they were one and the same organisation (the ScotRail alliance)?

Network Rail are primarily concerned with the running of the railway. TOC control will primarily be concerned with the running of the train service. TOC control would be rearranging crews, stock and timetables etc, Network Rail control would be regulation, safety and that side of things. Although people think of 'control' as dealing with everything, there are controllers in different roles with different responsibilities and different competencies.
You cannot expect a controller trying to rearrange a train service to also be radioing up drivers to tell them to proceed at caution etc

 

[najaB]

You cannot expect a controller trying to rearrange a train service to also be radioing up drivers to tell them to proceed at caution etc

I understand that. My question was more about the lack of walls between TOC and NR control which exist south of the border.

 

[Lucan]

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.

This is the elephant in the room. I have driven trains, and on a morning of weather chaos and reports of landslips (the cause of the train being held up so long in the first place), I would have been pretty cautious driving though a cutting, no matter what a distant controller had said. Having been held up for hours, taking a few more minutes getting into Aberdeen would not have made much difference and the timetable had already gone to the pictures that day anyway.

 

[Surreytraveller]

This is the elephant in the room. I have driven trains, and on a morning of weather chaos and reports of landslips (the cause of the train being held up so long in the first place), I would have been pretty cautious driving though a cutting, no matter what a distant controller had said. Having been held up for hours, taking a few more minutes getting into Aberdeen would not have made much difference and the timetable had already gone to the pictures that day anyway.

A driver may or may not be aware of the bigger picture. They are reliant on what they are told by a Signaller. A driver may only be aware of the one landslide preventing them from proceeding forward from where they are, not all the others in the area.
Its a difficult one to call. A driver can say to a Signaller they think it may be unsafe and are only willing to proceed at caution, but have they the information at hand to make that call?

 

[Taunton]

Back early in this thread I questioned the railway's responsibility in this, and was shot down by the "All Carillion's fault and responsibility" rebutters. Now it seems the Court have come towards my original view.

So a few more questions.

- Why did the driver go so fast? The train was going back to discharge its (few) passengers. It must have accelerated at full whack to get to 75mph by the landslip, and equally would be just about to brake.

- All this when the train had already been through these extreme adverse conditions, when the driver, although not formally cautioned, was aware of other line obstructions and trains stranded by them up and down the line. It was the first train through for some time. All these other trains stuck were following a previous train that got through OK, the conditions in such weather change between trains. How did nobody think "we'll probably get yet another one".

- The train was stuck at Carmont for so long waiting for the MOM to drive down from Aberdeen through the storm conditions. Doubtless, by the time taken, they drove with considerable caution. Did the MOM drive back to Aberdeen equally cautiously?

- Why is there so much emphasis on the points clipping, on a crossover which is perfectly acceptable to do unclipped for ECS or freight, just not with passengers, for a train shunting at just 5mph, but then no concern over running at full blast through the storm aftermath.

- What did the TOC driving policy have to say about being the first train through after extreme weather, regardless of what the signalman might say.

- If it had been the more normal 2/3 car dmu involved, was any effort made to calculate how that might have ended up, with possibly the whole train down in the river. Wasn't it a Good Thing that there was an effective locomotive on the front?

 

[najaB]

Why did the driver go so fast?

Because there was no rule or restriction saying not to.

Why is there so much emphasis on the points clipping, on a crossover which is perfectly acceptable to do unclipped for ECS or freight, just not with passengers, for a train shunting at just 5mph, but then no concern over running at full blast through the storm aftermath.

Because that's what the rules say. Rules which are written in blood.

What did the TOC driving policy have to say about being the first train through after extreme weather, regardless of what the signalman might say.

Obviously it didn't have an requirement to drive at caution, or the driver would have done so.

If it had been the more normal 2/3 car dmu involved, was any effort made to calculate how that might have ended up, with possibly the whole train down in the river. Wasn't it a Good Thing that there was an effective locomotive on the front?

I saw discussion saying that it was somewhat swings and roundabouts - yes, it's more likely that the whole train would have ended up down the bank, but it's also more likely that had it been a more modern DMU design, the carriages would have remained more intact.

 

[Taunton]

Because there was no rule or restriction saying not to.

Well there was no rule or restriction telling the MOM not to drive at the 70mph limit down the A90 either. But I bet they didn't.

 

[92002]

I understand that. My question was more about the lack of walls between TOC and NR control which exist south of the border.

There are no walls in Scotland. It is an integrated control, with track owners train operators and engineering staff who all work in the one team and are based in the signalling centre. They may have different paymasters but they all work for the one integrated team. That means Network Rail cannot blame ScotRail or the operators can't pass blame to the engineers.

Totally different to what happens in other areas of the country.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Well there was no rule or restriction telling the MOM not to drive at the 70mph limit down the A90 either. But I bet they didn't.

Road vehicles drive on line of sight. Trains don't

There are no walls in Scotland. It is an integrated control, with track owners train operators and engineering staff who all work in the one team and are based in the signalling centre. They may have different paymasters but they all work for the one integrated team. That means Network Rail cannot blame ScotRail or the operators can't pass blame to the engineers.

Totally different to what happens in other areas of the country.

Might be an integrated control, but those staff within it have different roles, responsibilities, training and competencies

 

[kkong]

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."

The RAIB report states (paragraph 255) that the driver told the Carmont signaller that he would be "in no rush" to get back to Aberdeen after being informed the line was clear.

Tragically, he was actually driving just below line speed when the collision became inevitable.

 

[43096]

Because there was no rule or restriction saying not to.

Because that's what the rules say. Rules which are written in blood.

Obviously it didn't have an requirement to drive at caution, or the driver would have done so.

Are drivers not capable of independent thought and assessing risk?

The RAIB report states (paragraph 255) that the driver told the Carmont signaller that he would be "in no rush" to get back to Aberdeen after being informed the line was clear.

Tragically, he was actually driving just below line speed when the collision became inevitable.

Given that the train was almost up to line speed, there must have been some serious acceleration to get to that speed, which rather suggests he wasn't "in no rush".

 

[PG]

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


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

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

I'm hoping Lord Matthews added the caveat in the event of a guilty verdict being returned!

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.

Same with fines levied on any government funded organisation, it’s going to happen irrespective of the political party that happens to be in charge at the time.

So presumably, if they were minded to do so, the government could instruct the treasury to pass on that sum of money to organisations (including NR?) working to improve railway safety, instead of the money being added to the general pot?

 

[The Puddock]

- The train was stuck at Carmont for so long waiting for the MOM to drive down from Aberdeen through the storm conditions. Doubtless, by the time taken, they drove with considerable caution. Did the MOM drive back to Aberdeen equally cautiously?

The MOM went directly from the signalbox to the site as soon as the accident became known about, being one of the first people on scene (arriving before any of the emergency services). They then rather heroically entered the wrecked and unstable coaches to search for anyone trapped, helped give first aid and comfort to the injured passengers and ended up having to be treated by paramedics for smoke inhalation.

Please don’t forget that this wasn’t just an abstract event when you’re dissecting it online - real people were deeply affected by the accident.