Aviemore incident 29/9/23

[Killingworth]

I estimate around 10-12mph.

Nearer 2.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Nearer 2.

The first reply was correct the driver reported hitting the stock at around 10mph.

 

[43096]

The first reply was correct the driver reported hitting the stock at around 10mph.

OTMR should give the true figure…

 

[notverydeep]

From the video it is possible to determine that the loco passed the sign post next to the camera man in about 7 seconds. Wikipedia gives the loco's length as 21.34 metres. This gives a speed of around 7 mph passing the photographer. The speed doesn't seem to change much prior to the collision. Earlier in the chain I noted that I witnessed a similar incident at Bristol Temple Meads in the 1980s, but there the train struck by the approaching locomotive was moved 10 metres or so by the impact, however I do not know whether this was due to higher impact speed / energy or the brakes of the train that was hit being less able to prevent movement. Despite that, there was no apparent damage and the drivers involved seemed happy to carry on as if nothing remarkable had occurred!

I also arrived at Manchester Victoria just after a similar incident where 47428 had just ran around its train having arrived from Blackpool. Unfortunately it stopped roughly in the middle of the first compartment of the mark 1 coach at that end of the train, so I am guessing it was going a bit more than 7 mph (being driven from the trailing end and I assume a Form 1 was issued). 47428 would be withdrawn some months later (link to picture here)...

 

[TPO]

I wasn’t aware that HRA guidance such as this was mandatory for their members, I understood it to be simply ‘best practice’ that their member organisations may incorporate into their own procedures?

Correct, HRA guidance not mandatory. HRA is a trade body and membership is not mandatory, and indeed the ORR "endorsement" could be argued to be rather inappropriate as they don't endorse stuff produced by any other railway trade body.

Shared mainline guidance has a clear practicality where multiple users share the same infrastructure. But with a myriad of different private railways which don't even have the same gauge..... much less useful or relevant.

TPO

 

[paul1609]

Correct, HRA guidance not mandatory. HRA is a trade body and membership is not mandatory, and indeed the ORR "endorsement" could be argued to be rather inappropriate as they don't endorse stuff produced by any other railway trade body.

Shared mainline guidance has a clear practicality where multiple users share the same infrastructure. But with a myriad of different private railways which don't even have the same gauge..... much less useful or relevant.

TPO

Don't the ORR regulate the RSSB for the mainline and therefore endorse it's output?

 

[TPO]

Don't the ORR regulate the RSSB for the mainline and therefore endorse it's output?

No. RSSB is an independent incorporated body whose Directors are drawn from Members, it is NOT a Railway Undertaking.

All holders of mainline Safety Certificates (the "Railway Group") should be RSSB Members as is Network Rail, and each Railway Undertaking who is an RSSB member should in their SMS show how they comply with RSSB produced Railway Group Standards (RGS), although there's few of those now, mostly they have been transitioned to "advisory" Rail Industry Standards (RIS documents) for any topic that could be considered a "single Dutyholder Responsibility ". That said, the RIS documents are also effectively mandatory via the SMS of the Railway Undertaking..... and in practice, these days Network Rail will make compliance to the RIS's a condition of getting a track access contract, because having some common safety/engineering practices is a good thing amongst those many organisations sharing the same Railway infrastructure.

The RSSB has a Board, some full time technical staff and operates via a range of Groups which (amongst other things) produce guidance or act as the oversight Committee for a particular Standard. Group members are staff from the train operators which are members of RSSB, e.g. key engineering staff from each RU attend the relevant engineering groups, similarly for Ops and Safety. Although ORR inspectors are invited to attend key groups, their status is "observers" and they will often voluntarily withdraw if a sensitive issue needs frank discussion between member representatives. Sign off for documents is through the RSSB system, there is no ORR "endorsement" as such, albeit if an Inspector attending a drafting group as an observer made a point they would be listened to. (I believe RGS go through another stage as they are the post Brexit replacement for Nationat Notified Technical Rules, but that only a tiny amount of the RSSB output, does NOT include the Rulebook which contrary to popular opinion is NOT a RGS).

The issue of RSSB not being a railway dutyholder has been an issue with some RAIB recommendations about wagons; RSSB can advise and provide good practice but the legal duty of compliance is on the individual Railway Undertakings that comprise the membership. It's quite a complex and sophisticated set up, the role of RSSB has evolved over the years since privatisation as the railway safety legislation in GB and from the EU changed and developed.

The need for RSSB is fundamentally because a bunch of operators share one set of Railway infrastructure. Non mainline Railways such as stand alone metros and Tubelines have their own in house coordination so don't need RSSB (although they can opt to join RSSB to get access to research results and suchlike which could be useful learning for them too).

Thing is the railway safety legislation is goal-setting in structure, so the responsibility is on the Dutyholders to decide how to discharge the requirements. RSSB provides a forum where those who share infrastructure can ensure they are compatible and have shared practice across interfaces between each other.

From a pure principles perspective, the "endorsement" of the advice of a trade body (HRA) by ORR is somewhat anomalous, usually the regulatory authorities only endorse their own guidance, or in exceptional circumstances, that of a proper international or professional body such as ISO or the IET.

TPO

 

[ainsworth74]

The RAIB are investigating this incident and have confirmed the broad scope of their report:

At around 18:05 hrs on 29 September 2023, the steam locomotive ‘Flying Scotsman’ collided with a set of stationary passenger coaches at Aviemore station. The collision occurred at approximately 7 mph (11 km/h). The part of Aviemore station where the collision happened is operated by the Strathspey Railway, which is a heritage railway.

The collision resulted in injuries being caused to a number of passengers and staff, with one passenger and one member of staff being taken to hospital. No rail vehicles derailed as a result of the accident, although some damage was caused to the vehicles involved.

Our investigation will seek to identify the sequence of events leading up to the accident. It will also consider:

• the actions of those involved and anything that may have influenced them
• the management of the railway staff involved in the accident, including their training and competence
• the method of operation in use when the collision occurred and the policies and procedures in place for managing such operations
• the extent and type of any injuries and damage caused, and how they occurred
• any underlying management factors.

Our investigation is independent of any investigation by the railway industry or by the industry’s regulator, the Office of Rail and Road.

We will publish our findings, including any recommendations to improve safety, at the conclusion of our investigation. This report will be available on our website.

Collision at Aviemore station

Investigation into a collision at Aviemore station on the Strathspey Railway, Highland, 29 September 2023.

www.gov.uk

 

[John Bishop]

The RAIB are investigating this incident and have confirmed the broad scope of their report:

Collision at Aviemore station

Investigation into a collision at Aviemore station on the Strathspey Railway, Highland, 29 September 2023.

www.gov.uk

This is going to be an interesting read. Word on the street is that it was Strathspey railway staff at the controls of the FS at the time of the collision.

The stock from the Royal Scotsman has only just gone south from Aviemore 2 days ago. Multiple cancellations of RS tours since the incident. There’s going to be some big sums of money involved in lost revenue.

 

[trebor79]

This is going to be an interesting read. Word on the street is that it was Strathspey railway staff at the controls of the FS at the time of the collision.

Was that not supposed to be the case then?
Wouldn't be the first time heritage railway staff have had an unofficial go on a celebrity locomotive. I do know of a Deltic (that was actually only on static display) being taken for a clandestine drive one evening back in the 1990s. Fortunately that passed without incident, other than other staff half-heartedly denouncing the chap (I suspect they were actually rathe jealous he hadn't invited them along for the ride! )

 

[jamieP]

Was that not supposed to be the case then?
Wouldn't be the first time heritage railway staff have had an unofficial go on a celebrity locomotive. I do know of a Deltic (that was actually only on static display) being taken for a clandestine drive one evening back in the 1990s. Fortunately that passed without incident, other than other staff half-heartedly denouncing the chap (I suspect they were actually rathe jealous he hadn't invited them along for the ride! )

I doubt it would be unofficial. It is standard at most heritage railways for the locos to be crewed by the railway drivers/ fireman with someone from the loco acting as owners rep.

 

[12LDA28C]

Was that not supposed to be the case then?
Wouldn't be the first time heritage railway staff have had an unofficial go on a celebrity locomotive. I do know of a Deltic (that was actually only on static display) being taken for a clandestine drive one evening back in the 1990s. Fortunately that passed without incident, other than other staff half-heartedly denouncing the chap (I suspect they were actually rathe jealous he hadn't invited them along for the ride! )

How do you know it was unofficial? How do you know that the normal way of working is not for Strathspey staff to operate the train on SR infrastructure and mainline drivers potentially not even signing the route?

 

[trebor79]

How do you know it was unofficial? How do you know that the normal way of working is not for Strathspey staff to operate the train on SR infrastructure and mainline drivers potentially not even signing the route?

I don't, but this wording:
This is going to be an interesting read. Word on the street is that it was Strathspey railway staff at the controls of the FS at the time of the collision.
made me think that perhaps Strathspey railway staff weren't meant to be at the controls.

 

[12LDA28C]

I don't, but this wording:
This is going to be an interesting read. Word on the street is that it was Strathspey railway staff at the controls of the FS at the time of the collision.
made me think that perhaps Strathspey railway staff weren't meant to be at the controls.

Or that someone who isn't aware of the method of working in place has jumped to conclusions...

 

[PG]

The stock from the Royal Scotsman has only just gone south from Aviemore 2 days ago. Multiple cancellations of RS tours since the incident. There’s going to be some big sums of money involved in lost revenue.

I guess the insurers will be discussing liability amongst themselves and in the event of a stalemate members of the legal profession will be only too happy to offer their services

 

[43096]

Nearer 2.

RAIB say approx 7mph. Flying Scotsman should have OTMR fitted, so presumably taken from a download of the data.

 

[notverydeep]

RAIB say approx 7mph. Flying Scotsman should have OTMR fitted, so presumably taken from a download of the data.

I was quite impressed to spot on simply by timing the loco on the video (post #214 above)!

 

[43096]

I was quite impressed to spot on simply by timing the loco on the video (post #214 above)!

Yes - good effort, to be fair!

 

[ComUtoR]

RAIB say approx 7mph. Flying Scotsman should have OTMR fitted, so presumably taken from a download of the data.

How would the OTMR record the collision ? Does it have a crash detector ? Would they look the GPS location and train speed at the collision point ?

 

[hexagon789]

How would the OTMR record the collision ? Does it have a crash detector ? Would they look the GPS location and train speed at the collision point ?

I imagine they'd notice the recorded speed almost instantly drop from 7 to 0mph.

 

[43096]

How would the OTMR record the collision ? Does it have a crash detector ? Would they look the GPS location and train speed at the collision point ?

How do you think they can tell...?

Hint: they would see an instant deceleration at the point of impact. It would also be very obvious from the time stamp on the data recording and the time of the incident.

 

[12LDA28C]

How would the OTMR record the collision ? Does it have a crash detector ? Would they look the GPS location and train speed at the collision point ?

I don't believe trains have crash detectors. OTMR records data such as speed, power, brake, AWS/TPWS indications/applications and suchlike.

I imagine they'd notice the recorded speed almost instantly drop from 7 to 0mph.

Indeed, and possibly a last second brake application, if one were made.

 

[ComUtoR]

Would the OTDR evidence be included in the final report ? I don't remember ever seeing one in a RAIB report (that I can recall) ; although I'm sure they have.

What type of OTDR does the Scotsman have ?

Cheers in advance.

 

[Sheridan]

Would the OTDR evidence be included in the final report ? I don't remember ever seeing one in a RAIB report (that I can recall) ; although I'm sure they have.

What type of OTDR does the Scotsman have ?

Cheers in advance.

Can’t answer the second one but in the recent Loversall Carr incident (https://assets.publishing.service.g...5d/R082023_230803_Loversall_Carr_Junction.pdf) various bits of evidence were taken from the OTDR, such as the time the driver entered their details, their failure to carry out a running brake test, and the time taken to cancel AWS warnings.

 

[ComUtoR]

Can’t answer the second one but in the recent Loversall Carr incident (https://assets.publishing.service.g...5d/R082023_230803_Loversall_Carr_Junction.pdf) various bits of evidence were taken from the OTDR, such as the time the driver entered their details, their failure to carry out a running brake test, and the time taken to cancel AWS warnings.

Many thanks for the link. For further clarity, I was looking more for the pretty pictures of the OTDR signals etc. I've seen many OTDR's in my time but they aren't something normally public facing or included in reports. Just often referred to.

Thanks again.

How do you think they can tell...?

I don't know, hence asking. I've never seen an OTDR download of a crash before. It wouldn't take much of an effort to find one but with knowledgable people here; I thought I'd ask.

 

[1Q18]

RAIB say approx 7mph. Flying Scotsman should have OTMR fitted, so presumably taken from a download of the data.

This assuming that the OTMR was operational. IIRC in the RAIB report of 34067 'Tangmere' failing near Winchfield a few years back the OTMR was found to be non-operational so they didn't have any relevant data to download.

 

[66C]

There's a shot of Flying Scotsman and it's footplate crew on Dulnain bridge at the head of steel and the crew standing in front of the loco shortly before it's return to Aviemore on that fateful day on the Strathspey Railway unofficial Facebook site.