Scotrail class 170 derailment - Stonehaven

[PHILIPE]

Who says the driver failed a drugs test other than a newspaper ? Believe it if you like.

 

[Carlisle]

Please pardon my possible ignorance here, but reading between the lines of what the RAIB have written, could this put the cause down to the operation of the signal box (i.e. signal set back to danger and points moved under the train whilst the train was still traversing the points)?

Id doubt their reputation would allow them to simply ignore such a cause were it deemed likely

 

[Crossover]

Id doubt their reputation would allow them to simply ignore such a cause were it deemed likely

So the following are ruled out (taken from the report):

• the condition of the train itself
• the way it was being driven
• the condition of the track and signalling infrastructure

It also notes that the signalling is of a type that doesn't lock the points when the move takes place (as it is a shunt move)

I am unsure what else remains other than the points moved under the train. Bearing in mind the RAIB don't apportion blame, could it be that there is no learning point as it is a known risk of such a crossover type (i.e. only for shunt moves)

 

[InOban]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/trans...d-drugs-test-resigns-before-hearing-1-4836320

The driver resigned the day before his hearing.

 

[DuncanS]

I'm not sure what good it does in naming the individual concerned.

"no criminality" hidden away at the bottom, some nice clickbait there - this does feel like Network Rail and Scotrail looking for an easy scapegoat to hide structural failings.

 

[Highlandspring]

"no criminality" hidden away at the bottom, some nice clickbait there - this does feel like Network Rail and Scotrail looking for an easy scapegoat to hide structural failings.

The actions of the driver have nothing to do with Network rail.

 

[dtaylor84]

The actions of the driver have nothing to do with Network rail.

Which makes him a great scapegoat for NR!

 

[Highlandspring]

What are you talking about? I’m not aware that NR has made any public statement whatsoever about either the cause of the derailment or actions of the driver. The people quoted in the linked Scotsman article are the Tory transport spokesperson and the head of ASLEF in Scotland. Can you point me to where Network Rail have “scapegoated” anyone?

 

[dtaylor84]

What are you talking about? I’m not aware that NR has made any public statement whatsoever about either the cause of the derailment or actions of the driver. The people quoted in the linked Scotsman article are the Tory transport spokesperson and the head of ASLEF in Scotland. Can you point me to where Network Rail have “scapegoated” anyone?

I wasn't intending to imply they had. I was just pointing out that the fact "The actions of the driver have nothing to do with Network rail." would make the driver more useful, not less, as a scapegoat for Network Rail, if indeed the cause was actually down to their procedures (or training in those procedures).

 

[Dieseldriver]

You do realise the Driver isn't employed by Network Rail? It has been stated numerous times that his actions regarding the actual derailment were not in question, it appears that the derailment was an infrastructure fault and the way the unit was being driven at the time had absolutely no bearing on that.
However, in the aftermath the Driver involved was medscreened (as is entirely normal and appropriate in these circumstances) which he then failed.
Network Rail is not using the Driver as a scapegoat, in fact, the whole Driver issue has absolutely nothing to do with them.

 

[daikilo]

... it appears that the derailment was an infrastructure fault ...

Who says it was a fault, RAIB do not.

 

[dtaylor84]

You do realise the Driver isn't employed by Network Rail?

That's the point...

 

[Surreytraveller]

That's the point...

No one is blaming the driver for this incident. The fact the driver was on drugs is a separate issue.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Who says it was a fault, RAIB do not.

OK then, infrastructure failing. Basically if the train wasn't at fault then the infrastructure was.

 

[Surreytraveller]

OK then, infrastructure failing. Basically if the train wasn't at fault then the infrastructure was.

The infrastructure worked as intended. Perhaps it could be said it is a design fault? The fact the points aren't interlocked with the signalling is why the move the train was making cannot be done in passenger service. The rules allow for it.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Are you lot obsessed with pedantry or what? If the infrastructure 'working as intended' results in a train (proceeding normally) being derailed then that is an infrastructure fault/failing.

 

[DuncanS]

The actions of the driver have nothing to do with Network rail.

Which totally misses the point I actually made.

The driver is clearly being scapegoated here to gloss over other issues, that some people would rather nitpick about who employs him clearly highlights how well this smear campaign has worked.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Which totally misses the point I actually made.

The driver is clearly being scapegoated here to gloss over other issues, that some people would rather nitpick about who employs him clearly highlights how well this smear campaign has worked.

Really? The driver was caught out being under the influence of drugs when on duty. And moreover, has a history in that regard. Regardless of what was the cause of the derailment, the action that appears to have been taken is right and proper. The fact that it has been made public is hardly a surprise and I would suggest that, once the fact came out that he had tested positive, it is in the public interest to know that he will no longer be responsible for looking after the safety of thousands of passengers on a daily basis.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Really? The driver was caught out being under the influence of drugs when on duty. And moreover, has a history in that regard. Regardless of what was the cause of the derailment, the action that appears to have been taken is right and proper. The fact that it has been made public is hardly a surprise and I would suggest that, once the fact came out that he had tested positive, it is in the public interest to know that he will no longer be responsible for looking after the safety of thousands of passengers on a daily basis.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Sirius]

I don't think the individual who started on the point claims the driver isn't worthy of publicity in his own right for his own issues.

However, many will now chalk this derailment up as dealt with and skimming newspaper headlines assume that the driver was to blame for the incident.

It's not actually clear from posts here either.

Am I correct in thinking following:

the driver operated the train according to specification, under direction of a signal to do so
the train did not malfunction
the signaller gave a correct signal to the train - it was safe to move to the following signal
the infrastructure 'worked according to specification'

and the train derailed?

All of that can't possibly hold true.

 

[Southsider]

I don't think the individual who started on the point claims the driver isn't worthy of publicity in his own right for his own issues.

However, many will now chalk this derailment up as dealt with and skimming newspaper headlines assume that the driver was to blame for the incident.

It's not actually clear from posts here either.

Am I correct in thinking following:

the driver operated the train according to specification, under direction of a signal to do so
the train did not malfunction
the signaller gave a correct signal to the train - it was safe to move to the following signal
the infrastructure 'worked according to specification'

and the train derailed?

All of that can't possibly hold true.

Yes it can, the specification may be flawed - back to the possibility of a design issue as mentioned earlier. All speculation of course.

 

[Sirius]

Okay, if the infrastructure was designed in a way that due to unforeseen circumstances derails a train within it's operational specification then surely that's a flaw?

99% of the public who aren't interested in railways will chalk this up to the driver on the basis of the headlines.

 

[Tomnick]

The infrastructure worked as intended. Perhaps it could be said it is a design fault? The fact the points aren't interlocked with the signalling is why the move the train was making cannot be done in passenger service. The rules allow for it.

Who said that the points aren’t interlocked with the signalling?

 

[Sunset route]

Who said that the points aren’t interlocked with the signalling?

But is the signalling interlocked with any tracks circuits? When I think back to my early (BR) days of working a lever frame, I nearly come a cropper when replacing the levers and nearly beating the move, from that day onwards I never touched the levers until the move was complete and gave a verbal ear bashing to any learner that held on to any leaver trying to chase the move. I’m not saying this is what happened but what nearly happened to me.

 

[daikilo]

Okay, if the infrastructure was designed in a way that due to unforeseen circumstances derails a train within it's operational specification then surely that's a flaw?

99% of the public who aren't interested in railways will chalk this up to the driver on the basis of the headlines.

The circumstances were very much foreseen which is why those points can only be used for empty shunt moves, and why the RAIB believes there are no learning points in this incident.

As for the driver, the RAIB clearly states that the way the train was being driven did not contribute to the incident.

 

[edwin_m]

Am I correct in thinking following:

the driver operated the train according to specification, under direction of a signal to do so
the train did not malfunction
the signaller gave a correct signal to the train - it was safe to move to the following signal
the infrastructure 'worked according to specification'

and the train derailed?

All of that can't possibly hold true.

One explanation is that the signal could have been replaced to danger and the points restored to normal before the last wheel passed over them. This wouldn't be possible in a modern installation because the points would be locked by occupation of a track circuit across them, but there are probably many older mechancial boxes that don't have this protection particularly for non-passenger shunting moves.

 

[Tomnick]

But is the signalling interlocked with any tracks circuits?

I'd be surprised if it was! I was just replying to the suggestion that the move was barred to passenger trains in normal operation because there wasn't any interlocking at all between the points and signals. The lack of a facing point lock is, of course, a greater barrier!

At one box that I worked, it was (and still is) possible to put the home signal back in front of a passenger train travelling at 90mph and immediately unlock the facing points leading through the 15mph turnout into the goods line. There was no approach locking, and once the FPL had been withdrawn, you could do what you wanted with the points whether the track circuit was occupied or not! The principle of keeping hands off levers is sound. Either way, it's certainly a plausible explanation here...

 

[Sunset route]

I'd be surprised if it was! I was just replying to the suggestion that the move was barred to passenger trains in normal operation because there wasn't any interlocking at all between the points and signals. The lack of a facing point lock is, of course, a greater barrier!

At one box that I worked, it was (and still is) possible to put the home signal back in front of a passenger train travelling at 90mph and immediately unlock the facing points leading through the 15mph turnout into the goods line. There was no approach locking, and once the FPL had been withdrawn, you could do what you wanted with the points whether the track circuit was occupied or not! The principle of keeping hands off levers is sound. Either way, it's certainly a plausible explanation here...

.

This was my thinking as well, by the way that RAIB wrote their bulletin/response to the incident from their initial investigations.