• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Incident on The Smiler 02/06/2015

Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
I am confused as to why some people feel there would have been less damage if the railing wasn't there - surely if it wasn't there to absorb some of the impact the injuries would have been worse?

Regarding re-naming - I think certainly after a couple of years some of the general public will forget that it is the ride that crashed - they will know that one of them crashed but not which one. It would partly depend on how much the new name was publicised in the media (linked with the old name).
 
The railing is necessary for H&S but it also played a huge part in these serious injuries - this is what crushed people's legs. I don't know a great deal about physics but I don't think the railing would have absorbed that much of the impact, but I also ask the question, if it wasn't there would we have seen severe internal injuries?
 
If the rail wasn't there then the passengers' legs would have gone straight into the back of the car in front. I don't think the result would have been much different. The railing itself only crushed peoples legs because it was in between the two masses colliding. It's the two heavy objects that caused the injuries, the railing just happens to be in between.

I don't think any part of the vehicle's design with regards to causing injury is relevant really. The point is, vehicles should not come into contact. Ever. Any alterations should be with regards to how that happened, not how the cars handled in that situation.
 
Alexsutton said:
If the rail wasn't there then the passengers' legs would have gone straight into the back of the car in front. I don't think the result would have been much different. The railing itself only crushed peoples legs because it was in between the two masses colliding. It's the two heavy objects that caused the injuries, the railing just happens to be in between.
Click to expand...

Ah... yes... of course, I didn't quite clearly think about that one! :flushed:

And I agree, debating the vehicle's design seems futile. I guess, until we receive any new information at least, we're going to keep going around in circles speculating on what AT/Merlin will do and when it will reopen.
 
The only things we can say for certain is that changes will be made to the ride, primarily to prevent this incident happening again and to prevent a vehicle from ever stalling in that same spot again. Anything else is just speculation. Another stalled vehicle would completely destroy any attempted re-launch.
 
There's clearly a problem with the car getting around the track in certain conditions.

I have to say, it concerns me. I can't see how they're going to put this right. It must be finely balanced between weather/weight/track profile to a degree that within normal tolerances it's capable of valleying.

I still don't understand why or how this happened (haven't trawled the thread for answers), but however it did, it's still a big concern.

Towers for me, are exemplary normally in guest safety etc, accidents of this nature ARE very, very rare - to have it happen in our own "backyard" possibly one of the worst modern safety failures in modern coaster history, within normal operation, I just can't see how they're going to put this right without seriously hampering the rides ability to operate at anything near capacity.

As for the theme, it's not about whether you retheme or not - it's about what the theme is.

Because it was so sinister, and about taking control of your body and mind etc, it can't stay - it just can't.

This is a real shame all round, it's an incredible coaster (if not quite right), a brilliant theme (if never fully realised), but this was no ordinary incident.

It's sad for the victims of it, the creativity behind it, and the ride itself - as well as an industry we all love.

But this one was just too serious, big changes will be needed IMO.

:(
 
Pepper_Plant said:
You said the stalls have been less frequent - was that because of changes they made to the ride?
Click to expand...
I can't say for sure because honestly I'm not certain of any changes made! I think some work was done to the car wheels in 2013, and some parts of the track were sanded down/smoothed in 2013 (probably a better technical term for that ). Plus the factor of the trains naturally wearing into the track over time has probably helped with stalled trains becoming a rare or non-occurrence until now.
 
The railing isn't strong enough to reduce the force of impact with the other train to mitigate injury. However, if the railing was impacted below its very top, then it would have been forced onto the knees of the riders when the impact from the train itself would not have protruded that far onto their bodies.

The issue with the railing is either or both of:
  • The railing is either too tall or has insufficient clearance from the rider's knees in the event of an impact.
  • The train design is flawed in that it is incapable of withstanding impact with another train on that angle of track curvature.
While I do think thy'll still be looking at it, ultimately the root cause is not the train design, it remains the lack of control over relase of a train when the track ahead isn't clear.
 
Tom said:
The issue with the railing is either or both of:
  • The railing is either too tall or has insufficient clearance from the rider's knees in the event of an impact.
  • The train design is flawed in that it is incapable of withstanding impact with another train on that angle of track curvature.
While I do think thy'll still be looking at it, ultimately the root cause is not the train design, it remains the lack of control over relase of a train when the track ahead isn't clear.
Click to expand...

As you say the train design is not the cause of what happened. I highly doubt either of those two points about the railing were given much, if any, consideration during the design of the trains.

:)
 
The railing doesn't need to be there. If it were not there, I would think these people would still have their legs. If anything, the front of the ride cars should have buffers fitted like on Nemesis and the front strengthened should the unthinkable happen in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom
As mentioned previously, the railing is necessary to prevent passengers falling forwards off the vehicle during load/unload.

In terms of a crash, that front railing is lightweight and relatively flimsy and will have been pushed out the way by the heavy rear of the front vehicle. If the back of the vehicle was shaped in such a way that it would not have contacted the riders' knees, then the railing would not have contacted their knees either.
 
GaryH said:
The railing doesn't need to be there. If it were not there, I would think these people would still have their legs. If anything, the front of the ride cars should have buffers fitted like on Nemesis and the front strengthened should the unthinkable happen in the future.
Click to expand...
It does have buffers, they are just designed for light impact, like when coming into the station or being taken of the track. I also don't think it should strengthened. I think it should be weakened. If it was to bend around their legs, they would probably only be broken.

Just thinking, you know how Leah had her left leg and Vicky had her right leg amputated. Could this possibly be because of the smiler logo in the centre of the bar. I know it was the bar itself that was the problem in this case, but could this have caused more pressure and stoped the bar being able to break.
 
It was either because of the centre section of the trains being the most stable so they take most of the impact, but I have also thought about the smiler logo possibly having some effect too.
 
If the trains were a big problem, I don't think Saw would still be running with the same type of trains. I doubt they will change the design of the trains. The focus will be on the control system.
 
Alexsutton said:
As mentioned previously, the railing is necessary to prevent passengers falling forwards off the vehicle during load/unload.

In terms of a crash, that front railing is lightweight and relatively flimsy and will have been pushed out the way by the heavy rear of the front vehicle. If the back of the vehicle was shaped in such a way that it would not have contacted the riders' knees, then the railing would not have contacted their knees either.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the railing effectively prevents people from falling onto the track, although I don't doubt that was the flawed intention of it.

Your second point is incorrect, however. If the railing were impacted towards its centre of bottom, then it may have directly caused the limb injuries by being forced into the limbs of the riders. If it weren't there, then the impact of the train alone is unlikely to have caused the injuries. This can be determined because, as you state, it is relatively flimsy in terms of its mechanical strength and is incapable of mitigating the impact of the collision - but evidently capable of causing great harm.

Rob said:
As you say the train design is not the cause of what happened. I highly doubt either of those two points about the railing were given much, if any, consideration during the design of the trains.

:)
Click to expand...

Ultimately no, however it is still a significant layer of protection that is not unreasonable for the designers to consider.

Rides are constructed with various layers of protection to try and reduce risk of incident as much as possible. For example, over-shoulder restraints and 1.4m height restrictions are not necessary to ensure safety, but they do reduce the risk of a whole manner of incidents in their own right.
 
Last edited:
It really is confusing me why so many pages of this thread have been about train design. Yes, the bar at the front was the thing directly responsible for causing the injuries of those on the first row, that's not up for debate really. Thinking objectively, why should they need to change the train design at all? The design was not, in any way, the cause or the crash. As far as I am concerned the issues at hand are why the batwing can have a train stall on it (perhaps a lowering of the knot would help, only re-profiling the trim exits) and why the manned train was allowed to crest the lift. End of story. I could watch every argue about how the material of the harnesses allow for more photons to slow down the train blah blah blah, but it's all frankly futile. The trains are designed like they are for a reason, which unlike cars are not designed to ever crash, ever.

TL;DR
The trains really are not in the slightest the issue.
Only way to remove the 'problem' bar is to go lapbar, go figure that one.
 
As much as I've always said a lap restraint would be better on The Smiler (which I still maintain, but that's for another topic), in this crash situation it would probably have chopped the riders in half when the floor of the cars buckled. :/
 
Discussion should be about what was reasonably practicable to do. It's a significant talking point because it was incredibly easy to think about possible impact and not have such a stupid railing design on the front of the trains.
 
But then what would be on the front? A metal grill to slice people? Futile I tell ya!!
 
Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
Top