Carmont (near Stonehaven) derailment - 12 August 2020

[Ken H]

Really sad news. I am not railway, but it must be an awful time for all rail staff.

I remember comments after past accidents involving Mk3 coaches and how they are so strong, allowing many to survive what looks like a complete wreck. They certainly were streets ahead of Mk 1 for strength.
I hope their strength helped people to survive this time.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm inclined to use @WelshBluebird's two words now...that's horrific...

Indeed. At this point we can only hope that that vehicle was unoccupied, which with a reported 11 people on board (besides the driver who obviously was at the front) is at least a possibility.

 

[backontrack]

Really sad news. I am not railway, but it must be an awful time for all rail staff.

I remember comments after past accidents involving Mk3 coaches and how they are so strong, allowing many to survive what looks like a complete wreck. They certainly were streets ahead of Mk 1 for strength.
I hope their strength helped people to survive this time.

This will probably be used in the future in coach stock vs multiple unit crashability comparisons, like Grayrigg was. Not the nicest thing to think about if I'm honest.

Indeed. At this point we can only hope that that vehicle was unoccupied, which with a reported 11 people on board (besides the driver who obviously was at the front) is at least a possibility.

It's very easy to imagine scenarios (of course it's all covid-conditional) where that train was much busier. Let's hope that that coach was empty, though of course we don't know what its position was in the rake.

 

[yorkie]

I don't think there is any point doing any such comparisons, at least not at this stage.

 

[Speed43125]

Can anyone provide details about the recent history of the power cars and Mk3 coaches in set HA22? When did they transfer to Scotrail, what were their previous history, etc.

HA22 - 40622/42007/42145/42564 (originally HA12) - Delivered 08/04/20 following PRM mods, tanks, doors etc at Wabtec
As discussed hauled by 43030 and 43140. All former GWR stock.

 

[Rob_76]

Top of the 3 o'clock news and Sky News just repeated that there were 6 passengers and 6 staff on board.
Clearly they've not been keeping up with developments.

 

[TRAX]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehaven_derailment?wprov=sfti1

The 06:43 ScotRail service from Aberdeen to Glasgow Queen Street (running as 1T08), travelling southbound along the former Aberdeen Railway line, had turned back north after encountering a landslip. It has crossed over to the correct 'down' line.[4] Near the site of the former Carmont railway station, just outside Stonehaven, the train encountered another fresh landslip and derailed, going down the embankment, and subsequently catching fire. The train, an HST, comprised four coaches sandwiched by two power cars.[5] All but the rear power car derailed.[5] The train was carrying six crew and six passengers.[6]

This is ridiculous. We’re still all speculating at the moment and there is already a enthusiast-worded article full of it presented as fact on Wikipedia.

Thoughts are with everyone involved.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Stonehaven derailment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is ridiculous. We’re still all speculating at the moment and there is already a enthusiast-worded article full of it presented as fact on Wikipedia.

Thoughts are with everyone involved.

Theres also a lot of despicable comments being posted on Social Media. As well as someone on Instagram making an offensive meme about it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think there is any point doing any such comparisons, at least not at this stage.

Agreed. There may well be lessons to be learned from this incident in terms of how the vehicles behaved, but at this point the focus will rightly be rescue and recovery.

 

[backontrack]

I don't think there is any point doing any such comparisons, at least not at this stage.

Agreed, neither do I. They'll be made though at some point in time though by someone or other, which isn't nice to think about.

Agreed. There may well be lessons to be learned from this incident in terms of how the vehicles behaved, but at this point the focus will rightly be rescue and recovery.

Absolutely. This is an ongoing incident.

 

[Murph]

How come coastguard vehicles are being used?

This is speculation, but it's probably the Stonehaven Coastguard Rescue Team (likely with some of Stonehaven RNLI). Many selfless heroic volunteers in those groups. Maritime tradition and culture dictates that they will have immediately offered any assistance they can provide, and they are experts in cliff and water rescue.

 

[Journeyman]

Stonehaven derailment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is ridiculous. We’re still all speculating at the moment and there is already a enthusiast-worded article full of it presented as fact on Wikipedia.

Thoughts are with everyone involved.

Yeah, it's far too soon to be writing that up. I suspect it's going to lead to some really unhelpful speculation.

TV news coverage isn't really providing much of a picture right now, but it looks seriously grim. A dark day for all of us in the industry.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Disclaimer: NO IMAGES ARE TAKEN BY ME
An image of the mangled mess of mk3 coaches.. happy to take this one down if needed.
View attachment 82137
Image taken by xy5z89, Twitter link: https://twitter.com/xy5z89/status/1293513735684984833?s=21

A few more images showing the detail of the incident and 43030. These images are not taken by me.

View attachment 82135


I think it’s save to say 43140 is gone..
View attachment 82139
Image taken by JamesHesp, Twitter link: https://twitter.com/JamesHesp/status/1293516406311526401?s=20

Is that the front bulkhead or the rear bulkhead that can be seen on the right? I think it's the front judging by the position of the bulkhead door. The cab is gone.

 

[DimTim]

Yep - and a portaloo by the entrance.

Could this be the site of a work area commandeered by the Emergency Services. Unlikely to be able to get a rolling road installed there very quickly? Also, check out the photo on this thread elsewhere of the derailed power car - in the background of that is a small digger - now that hasn't appeared today. There's work going on in that area - not necessarily rail-related - it could be timber.

If you enlarge the top photo of 3 in post #103 on page 4, that shows a part of a coach hanging down into a stream/river. There's plenty of detail in those photos if you look closely.

Looking at the vents at cantrail level is the photo of the power car from the front. I.e. cab ripped off?

 

[najaB]

There's work going on in that area - not necessarily rail-related - it could be timber.

I don't know if it's the same area, but they are doing flood control work in the Stonehaven area at the moment.

 

[backontrack]

I don't know if it's the same area, but they are doing flood control work in the Stonehaven area at the moment.

It would've been all hands on deck already today. The flooding in and around Stonehaven is pretty severe - I think it's possible that trains would have stopped running at some point during the day, had this not happened.

 

[E100]

Stonehaven derailment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is ridiculous. We’re still all speculating at the moment and there is already a enthusiast-worded article full of it presented as fact on Wikipedia.

Thoughts are with everyone involved.

Thankfully wikipedia has provided the following at the top "This article is about a current disaster where information can change quickly or be unreliable. The latest page updates may not reflect the most up-to-date information."

Still - not exactly useful right now.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Looking at the vents at cantrail level is the photo of the power car from the front. I.e. cab ripped off?

I believe so, the internal door offset to the left of the cab

 

[TRAX]

Thankfully wikipedia has provided the following at the top "This article is about a current disaster where information can change quickly or be unreliable. The latest page updates may not reflect the most up-to-date information."

Still - not exactly useful right now.

Unfortunately not on the mobile website and app...

 

[Speed43125]

Stonehaven derailment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is ridiculous. We’re still all speculating at the moment and there is already a enthusiast-worded article full of it presented as fact on Wikipedia.

Thoughts are with everyone involved.

If you have specific issues with a wiki page, I would encourage you to try bringing them up on the 'talk' page. I agree the mentioning of specific deaths etc is rather premature, but it is arguable the information is the best there is at this early stage, and that is reflected in the banners at the top of the page.

 

[Swanny200]

Is that the front bulkhead or the rear bulkhead that can be seen on the right? I think it's the front judging by the position of the bulkhead door. The cab is gone.

Zooming in, you would be right, Engine vent is above the flames in the left of picture which unless I'm mistaken is at the rear of the power car.

 

[bramling]

I don't think there is any point doing any such comparisons, at least not at this stage.

Agreed. Every accident scenario is different. The modern theory is very much that energy has to dissipate somehow, and if vehicles come up against a situation where they have no escape route (as happened with one of the vehicles at Southall) then major structural damage is tragically inevitable.

 

[A Challenge]

Unfortunately not on the mobile website and app...

Much as I don't think it is Wikipedia's place to be reporting on current affairs (and they don't say they are trying to do so), they do place the warning at the top of the mobile view, along with warning against use of unsourced predictions.

 

[yorkie]

If anyone has any issue with the Wikipedia article, I concur with others that the best thing to do is use the appropriate procedures put in place by Wikipedia, which is to use the 'Talk' feature on there.

The question over whether or not Wikipedia should allow articles on ongoing incidents is something that could be debated here, but it's a much wider issue, so I'd suggest creating a new thread in General Discussion if anyone wishes to debate that further.

 

[MikeWM]

Hard to sink in - such an awful tragedy. My thoughts and solidarity go to everyone affected.

 

[Swanny200]

It was good to see an Aerial video and photography company that were working in the area at the time offered their assets to Network Rail including control of those assets free of charge to help, would NR have their own (I am assuming drones) and would they help in this sort of instance?

 

[najaB]

...would NR have their own (I am assuming drones)...

Yes, NR have their own drones. I believe they also have (access to?) a helicopter as well.

Edit: Yes, they do:

• https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...-operations/helicopter-and-imaging-equipment/
• https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/G-NTWK

 

[Ergomy]

It was good to see an Aerial video and photography company that were working in the area at the time offered their assets to Network Rail including control of those assets free of charge to help, would NR have their own (I am assuming drones) and would they help in this sort of instance?

NR do have drones but it depends if they have people in the area trained up on it. There was a small push for people to train but not sure if they would've before COVID kicked in.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes, NR have their own drones. I believe they also have (access to?) a helicopter as well.

Yes, NR has an in-house helicopter with (I recall) capability for aerial imagery.

 

[Ken H]

I don't think there is any point doing any such comparisons, at least not at this stage.

If that is directed at me, then i am sorry. I was just trying to find something positive to say about this.