chuff chuff
Member
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 465
Were there not also sub contractors working nearby who also headed up to the crash site?
Yes, from Story Rail who were working on scour protection project for the bridge. They arrived around the same time and started first aid as well as trying to put out the fire.Were there not also sub contractors working nearby who also headed up to the crash site?
It’s heartbreaking to see this but it’s also a bit odd. To reach 73mph from the cross over or section signal, including a running brake test, isn’t hanging about. Even in a HST.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.
The Highway Code states, or at least implies, to drive to the conditions.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.
Which, in the context of that morning, may well have been nigh on perfect at the time the train left the signalbox.The Highway Code states, or at least implies, to drive to the conditions.
Exactly the point which many on this thread seem to be missing.Which, in the context of that morning, may well have been nigh on perfect at the time the train left the signalbox.
And, evidently, the conclusion of his risk assessment was that there was no reason to run at reduced speed. I'm quite sure that he wanted to go home to his family that day and would have driven at a reduced speed if he was in any doubt about the line being clear.Are drivers not capable of independent thought and assessing risk?
Are drivers not capable of independent thought and assessing risk?
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".
‘Serious acceleration’? You open the power handle and when the train reaches linespeed, you ease off. This isn’t a boy racer in a modified Saxo racing through the gears.Are drivers not capable of independent thought and assessing risk?
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".
I agree totally with the sentiment of Dieseldriver and others. To suggest that the driver was in anyway negligent is at least tasteless and poorly judged. The man's friends and family are entitled to remember him fondly and blameless.Exactly the point which many on this thread seem to be missing.
The default for any Train Driver is to proceed at linespeed, in the vast majority of circumstances, that will render you unable to stop your train before reaching an obstruction, it is completely unlike car driving and to even think of comparing the two shows a complete lack of understanding.
Upon commencing that final journey, the Driver had no reason to proceed at other than linespeed, the weather conditions had greatly improved, that section of line had been ‘proved’ by his southbound journey and a subsequent northbound journey prior to his return over it. The nature of the obstruction was completely unexpected and had occurred due to other issues. To drive a train at linespeed you have to at some point have an element of trust in the signalling, rolling stock and infrastructure.
It’s worth noting that this was a tragic event that claimed three lives (including the man that was at the controls) and greatly affected many others. It has been subject to a thorough investigation that has proved that the Driver was completely blameless, just remember that he has a grieving family and network of people, he deserves dignity and this ill informed whataboutery is at best, tasteless.
And, evidently, the conclusion of his risk assessment was that there was no reason to run at reduced speed. I'm quite sure that he wanted to go home to his family that day and would have driven at a reduced speed if he was in any doubt about the line being clear.
Are drivers not capable of independent thought and assessing risk?
I refer you to my post #1,527.
It’s worth noting that this was a tragic event that claimed three lives (including the man that was at the controls) and greatly affected many others. It has been subject to a thorough investigation that has proved that the Driver was completely blameless, just remember that he has a grieving family and network of people, he deserves dignity and this ill informed whataboutery is at best, tasteless.
I agree totally with the sentiment of Dieseldriver and others. To suggest that the driver was in anyway negligent is at least tasteless and poorly judged. The man's friends and family are entitled to remember him fondly and blameless.
It really saddens me that even in death the driver is subject to armchair experts passing comment.
I'm not 100% if we're in agreement or not, but for the avoidance of doubt I had no intention to suggest that he drove any faster than he believed it safe to do so.I refer you to my post #1,527.
As uninformed as those comments might be, surely it is better to let people be corrected than for them to continue on with their mistaken beliefs?Unfortunately this thread alarmingly has taken a turn for the worse and should be closed to many highly ignorant people who have no idea about how the railway works and functions everyday making brainless stupid comments.
100% agreed. The idea that a driver can predict landslides is frankly ridiculous and bordering on insanity.Here here.
Sadly, we'll never know what went through the driver's head and why he felt confident to drive at line speed.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.
Line speed is what drivers are supposed to drive at. The driver was doing slightly under.
It really saddens me that even in death the driver is subject to armchair experts passing comment.
Just to add, I also am quite taken aback at the arrogance of people on this thread seeking to draw conclusions and/or make recommendations that an expert investigation and report did not find/make.
As uninformed as those comments might be, surely it is better to let people be corrected than for them to continue on with their mistaken beliefs?
Utter nonsense he asked the question he needed to know and drove the train exactly the same as any other driver would have done that day and as an ex driver trains are stopped for various obstructions on the line at times, however the fact that he had previously passed this same area on the way down and also other trains had passed the area on the way up and gave no notice that there was any further problems. If all drivers took it upon themselves to drive at reduced speed because of a previous blockage on the line at an entirely different location then trains would hardly move on a daily basis.For those who've missed it
Sadly, we'll never know what went through the driver's head and why he felt confident to drive at line speed.
I think that's a slightly mawkish position. The whole thing is a complex event with multiple interacting causes, and in such circumstances the actions of the driver will be an important part of any discussion whether they died or not. The driver was a complete person with 50 years of life, and his memory of people who knew him won't be dominated by this incident, and hopefully wouldn't be negatively impacted by any discussion in a forum they are likely not reading. In any case the discussion largely seems to have revolved around people patiently explaining the practicalities of being a train driver, and how the driver's actions were both correct, and likely the same as most other drivers.It feels quite disrespectful to the driver (and others) who died that people are picking over his actions here.
Sadly, we'll never know what went through the driver's head and why he felt confident to drive at line speed.
247 It is normal practice on the national rail system to operate trains at the maximum permitted speed where this is practical, safe and in accordance with train operators’ professional driving policies. There are some exceptions, such as
systems used by some train operators to allow trains to be driven in a way that reduces fuel consumption while still achieving timetable requirements.
248 The railway is an environment in which compliance with rules and procedures is expected as a fundamental part of ensuring safety. Although drivers and signallers are required to take appropriate action if aware of an infrastructure problem, the rules and procedures are based on an underpinning assumption that the infrastructure manager will give appropriate notice if trains cannot be safely operated at the maximum permitted speeds
255 ... During this conversation, the driver queried whether there was any speed restriction to Stonehaven; the signaller replied that the line was fine between Carmont and Stonehaven, and that the driver could proceed at normal speed. In response the driver said that he would be in no rush to get there.
257 ScotRail has reviewed the OTDR data for the journey of 1T08 approaching the derailment site, and confirmed that it would be ‘more than happy to pass a driver as competent based on the driving style’, and that there were ‘no instructions or even any issues known to the driver that would have made them drive any different than how they did that day’.