Incident on The Smiler 02/06/2015

[Tarquin]

It's impossible for 2 trains to be in the same block in normal operation. But rides often have to run on manual after a brake down.

I would imagine the safety protocols added to Spinball are more to do with restarting a stopped ride, rather than running the ride in normal operation.

I don't quite understand the point you're making. Firstly, we don't know what caused the crash - it's all speculation at this stage. Secondly, whether it was in manual or normal operation, it was still possible for it to happen when we all thought it was impossible.

And my point about Spinball remains, even we don't know what they've actually changed. There's no obvious sign that we are safer now on Spinball than before the Smiler crashed except Alton Towers' word.

 

[Dave]

I don't quite understand the point you're making. Firstly, we don't know what caused the crash - it's all speculation at this stage. Secondly, whether it was in manual or normal operation, it was still possible for it to happen when we all thought it was impossible.

And my point about Spinball remains, even we don't know what they've actually changed. There's no obvious sign that we are safer now on Spinball than before the Smiler crashed except Alton Towers' word.

My point was technically it is possible to overrule the block system when a ride is run on manual.

It is therefore a reasonable "speculation" that any changes to operations are "likely" based on the procedures followed when they have to use manual mode, which is predominantly after a brake down caused by a block fault.

 

[Tarquin]

My point was technically it is possible to overrule the block system when a ride is run on manual.

It is therefore a reasonable "speculation" that any changes to operations are "likely" based on the procedures followed when they have to use manual mode, which is predominantly after a brake down caused by a block fault.

But as we all know, ride breakdowns (and subsequently manual over-ride) are a routine part of any ride's operation. If, as I assume you're implying, the crash was therefore due to human error, I'm sure you'll agree that there's no way to completely remove the risk of human error occurring again. Which is why you would then take other steps to minimise the risk should such an event occur again.

But I almost feel that whether it was the computer system failing in normal operation or human error in manual, it is actually irrelevant. The fact is that it happened due to what Merlin describes as a 'unique set of circumstances' and there's no guarantee that another 'unique set of circumstances' couldn't occur again.

 

[Rob]

It's lucky then that Alton Towers and Gerstlauer have a lot of time to test and account for those other factors. I disagree that it would affect train flexibility however as it could easily be added on in the form of another flexible row connected in the same way that the current rows of seats are - just with no seats on.

But I think it goes further than that. We all thought - myself included - that it was impossible for two trains to be on the same section of track at the same time. I believe it would be actually be negligent of Merlin to not prepare for the same event occurring again. Whether it was human error, system malfunction or a unique set of circumstances doesn't matter, it was possible for it to happen on the Smiler and there's no way to be certain that another unique set of circumstances leading to the same event won't happen again.

I have to disagree. The design of the trains are not the main reason for the terrible injuries suffered by those on the front row. I am sure there would have been serious injuries regardless of train design, and other designs could well have led to even worse injuries.

Coaster trains are not designed to have crumple zones or cope well in high speed impacts for one main reason - these impacts (generally) do not and should not happen. All of Towers' focus should be put in to ensuring the ride's systems and procedures are improved and totally safe to prevent this from ever happening again.

There is a varying chance of all coasters around the world stalling one way or another, even though some are far more likely to than others. That therefore means that there is a very very very small chance of all multi-train coasters being involved in a similar incident if the ride was to malfunction, human error was to occur or for some other reason. Does this mean that all coaster trains around the world should be modified and designed to cope well with these extremely rare and in 99.9% of cases never to happen events? I personally do not think so.

What would happen if a B&M invert stalled and a train full of guests crashed into it? I wouldn't like to know but I don't think it would be pleasent.

The only realistic change I see happening to The Smiler's trains is a slight modification of the buffers on them. Of course there are only there for very low speed bumps but they could be extended slightly and have some sort of suspension system incorporated. I'm no engineer though so I do not know how effective something like this would be.

 

[Tarquin]

I have to disagree. The design of the trains are not the main reason for the terrible injuries suffered by those on the front row. I am sure there would have been serious injuries regardless of train design, and other designs could well have led to even worse injuries.

Coaster trains are not designed to have crumple zones or cope well in high speed impacts for one main reason - these impacts (generally) do not and should not happen. All of Towers' focus should be put in to ensuring the ride's systems and procedures are improved and totally safe to prevent this from ever happening again.

There is a varying chance of all coasters around the world stalling one way or another, even though some are far more likely to than others. That therefore means that there is a very very very small chance of all multi-train coasters being involved in a similar incident if the ride was to malfunction, human error was to occur or for some other reason. Does this mean that all coaster trains around the world should be modified and designed to cope well with these extremely rare and in 99.9% of cases never to happen events? I personally do not think so.

What would happen if a B&M invert stalled and a train full of guests crashed into it? I wouldn't like to know but I don't think it would be pleasent.

The only realistic change I see happening to The Smiler's trains is a slight modification of the buffers on them. Of course there are only there for very low speed bumps but they could be extended slightly and have some sort of suspension system incorporated. I'm no engineer though so I do not know how effective something like this would be.

I never said the train design was the main reason for the injuries suffered by those on the front row. But once the ride had got to the point of the crash being inevitable, the train had pretty much nothing to prevent serious damage to those on board. By saying 'other designs could well have led to even worse injuries', you're almost implying that Gerstlauer (if asked) wouldn't be able to find a design that could prevent severe crush injuries in the event of a crash. I find that utterly ludicrous. If the car industry is able to do so in far more unpredictable circumstances, I have no reason to believe that the rollercoaster industry couldn't take on some of the lessons learnt elsewhere.

And I'm also not saying that Alton Towers shouldn't improve the Smiler's ride systems and procedures but it doesn't mean they aren't able to improve other safety aspects of the ride at the same time. I'd say that focusing solely on the ride systems/procedures at the detriment to other aspects (such as train design) could be foolish and dangerous.

And why shouldn't multi-car coasters be designed to be able to crash as safely as possible worldwide? We already have lots of features on rollercoasters that are there in the very very very small chance of something going wrong. When was the last time you relied on the seat belt to be held in the restraint on Nemesis for example?

 

[Rob]

I never said the train design was the main reason for the injuries suffered by those on the front row. But once the ride had got to the point of the crash being inevitable, the train had pretty much nothing to prevent serious damage to those on board. By saying 'other designs could well have led to even worse injuries', you're almost implying that Gerstlauer (if asked) wouldn't be able to find a design that could prevent severe crush injuries in the event of a crash. I find that utterly ludicrous. If the car industry is able to do so in far more unpredictable circumstances, I have no reason to believe that the rollercoaster industry couldn't take on some of the lessons learnt elsewhere.

And I'm also not saying that Alton Towers shouldn't improve the Smiler's ride systems and procedures but it doesn't mean they aren't able to improve other safety aspects of the ride at the same time. I'd say that focusing solely on the ride systems/procedures at the detriment to other aspects (such as train design) could be foolish and dangerous.

And why shouldn't multi-car coasters be designed to be able to crash as safely as possible worldwide? We already have lots of features on rollercoasters that are there in the very very very small chance of something going wrong. When was the last time you relied on the seat belt to be held in the restraint on Nemesis for example?

Comparing coaster trains to the car industry is equally ludicrous. Car crashes happen around the world multiple times on a daily basis. Rollercoaster crashes do not.

I just do not think the train design should or will be the focus of improvements on The Smiler. A train was sent over lift 1 when it should not have been. This is what the investigation will be looking at. This is what went very badly wrong.

Of course everything can always be made safer. It doesn't mean however that it is always practical to do so. I would much rather Towers look at procedures and the ride system (additional sensors, cameras etc) to ensure a train does not end up in the same block again rather than design a 'crash proof' train that would likely still result in there being injuries in the result of a crash.

Oh and I do believe that the seatbelts on B&M coasters are not primarily there for if the restraint fails. Others on here know more about that though I think.

 

[Alexsutton]

If you start designing coaster vehicles with the aim to make them crash-proof you're going to have a lot of work, and weight, to deal with. Every restraint will have to be redesigned to reduce the impact, currently every restraint I can think of other than a seat belt is completely rigid and would cause harm in a crash situation. Vehicles would need a much more solid and heavy chassis with crumple zones in the front and the rear meaning a great deal of work to fit retroactively to existing rides.

Ignoring all of that, it would spoil the fun. Ask yourself why floorless coasters even exist? Because they're fun, you're exposed in your seating position, you feel unprotected and that's exactly the point. If you start designing coaster cars that can safely crash then you've lost some of the experience why we're all here on this forum in the first place. All the work needs to be done to ensure that this cannot happen again, otherwise where to the 'safety features' stop?

 

[Rob]

At the end of the day rollercoasters are categorically safe. Yes tragic events such as this can happen but the same can be said for almost anything in life. You cannot protect for everything that may happen.

 

[Tarquin]

Comparing coaster trains to the car industry is equally ludicrous. Car crashes happen around the world multiple times on a daily basis. Rollercoaster crashes do not.

I just do not think the train design should or will be the focus of improvements on The Smiler. A train was sent over lift 1 when it should not have been. This is what the investigation will be looking at. This is what went very badly wrong.

Of course everything can always be made safer. It doesn't mean however that it is always practical to do so. I would much rather Towers look at procedures and the ride system (additional sensors, cameras etc) to ensure a train does not end up in the same block again rather than design a 'crash proof' train that would likely still result in there being injuries in the result of a crash.

Oh and I do believe that the seatbelts on B&M coasters are not primarily there for if the restraint fails. Others on here know more about that though I think.

I wasn't comparing the rollercoaster industry to the car industry in terms of number of crashes. I was pointing out that if they're able to make cars withstand crashes from several directions to limit injuries, then Gerstlauer should be able to make a train that can withstand crashes from only two. I personally feel that if they can build multi-inverting rollercoasters with vertical lift-hills, launches and beyond vertical drops, then they should be able to achieve this with suitable research and development.

Again, I'm not saying that the ride system shouldn't be improved but to have such a blinkered view with regards to improving safety is potentially a reckless thing to do. I'm not saying that it would have prevented the crash from happening - of course it wouldn't - but potentially it could have saved two people having leg amputations. I think it's something that the industry should consider because it reflects terribly on not just Alton Towers or Gerstlauer but the industry as a whole.

People keep pointing out that other rides such as Hydro kept operating after a major incident like this. But Hydro only stayed open after having OTSRs added (with seat belts I might add)! And that was despite the fact that the HSE investigation found that the cause of her falling out was that the lap bar wasn't checked - not that the restraints were inadequate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7790137.stm). The same goes for the death that occurred on the New Texas Giant - the lap bar wasn't checked adequately by staff yet the trains were later altered to improve safety regardless (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-giant-builder-blames-six-flags-death-n46666). Both of these incidents showed that the park looked at the ride procedures as well as altering the physical aspects of the trains. Who's to say that couldn't happen here?

If you start designing coaster vehicles with the aim to make them crash-proof you're going to have a lot of work, and weight, to deal with. Every restraint will have to be redesigned to reduce the impact, currently every restraint I can think of other than a seat belt is completely rigid and would cause harm in a crash situation. Vehicles would need a much more solid and heavy chassis with crumple zones in the front and the rear meaning a great deal of work to fit retroactively to existing rides.

Ignoring all of that, it would spoil the fun. Ask yourself why floorless coasters even exist? Because they're fun, you're exposed in your seating position, you feel unprotected and that's exactly the point. If you start designing coaster cars that can safely crash then you've lost some of the experience why we're all here on this forum in the first place. All the work needs to be done to ensure that this cannot happen again, otherwise where to the 'safety features' stop?

I know that preventing all kinds of injuries (such as whiplash) would be impossible. I'm referring to injuries such as those sustained on the Smiler where actually the restraints weren't really involved - it was the stationary train and the front bar on the moving train that caused the injuries where the passengers kneecaps were smashed and their lower legs were crushed. Don't get wrong - I love theme parks and rollercoasters like anyone else here. But I disagree that the majority of riders go on thinking that they might actually crash and that's where the excitement comes from. We know that these incidents are very rare but still enjoy the thrill of the speed, tight turns, G-forces etc without the fear of crashing. I know that's certainly the case for myself anyway.

At the end of the day rollercoasters are categorically safe. Yes tragic events such as this can happen but the same can be said for almost anything in life. You cannot protect for everything that may happen

I agree that they're categorically safe but they've only achieved that level of safety through continual improvement and learning from previous mistakes - whether that's better restraints, safer trains or improved ride systems. And I can't deny that you can't protect for everything that may happen. Previously other posters have pointed out that it's safer to ride a rollercoaster than to drive your car or go on a plane flight. Problem is, people view these other activities as being routine parts of life with 30 million drivers in the UK and 228 million passengers moving through UK airports in 2013. Alton Towers has a few million visitors each year perhaps? It's just not as important to the general public so if you were going to effectively 'cut down' on your risk, you would stop unnecessary activities like trips to theme parks rather than stopping other things. That's why I feel it's so important to limit the risk involved and make sure the public is aware that the risk is reduced as much as possible.

 

[Alexsutton]

I know that preventing all kinds of injuries (such as whiplash) would be impossible. I'm referring to injuries such as those sustained on the Smiler where actually the restraints weren't really involved - it was the stationary train and the front bar on the moving train that caused the injuries where the passengers kneecaps were smashed and their lower legs were crushed. Don't get wrong - I love theme parks and rollercoasters like anyone else here. But I disagree that the majority of riders go on thinking that they might actually crash and that's where the excitement comes from. We know that these incidents are very rare but still enjoy the thrill of the speed, tight turns, G-forces etc without the fear of crashing. I know that's certainly the case for myself anyway.

I don't think anyone goes on rides genuinely thinking they will crash, but their purpose is to get your adrenaline going, I'm trying to find the right phrase but one thing they aren't supposed to feel is absolutely safe and secure. Lots of enthusiasts wanted The Smiler to have lapbars rather that OTSRs. You could have a long discussion about exactly why this was wanted but all the reasons will come down to it being more fun for the riders. Nobody will say that it's because modern lapbars are in any way less safe than OTSRs.

 

[Tarquin]

I don't think anyone goes on rides genuinely thinking they will crash, but their purpose is to get your adrenaline going, I'm trying to find the right phrase but one thing they aren't supposed to feel is absolutely safe and secure. Lots of enthusiasts wanted The Smiler to have lapbars rather that OTSRs. You could have a long discussion about exactly why this was wanted but all the reasons will come down to it being more fun for the riders. Nobody will say that it's because modern lapbars are in any way less safe than OTSRs.

There is a huge difference between not feeling safe and secure and actually not being safe and secure though. I'm not denying the risk is minimal but this crash has highlighted that if it were to happen again, the trains are in no way prepared for the event.

 

[Rob]

There is a huge difference between not feeling safe and secure and actually not being safe and secure though. I'm not denying the risk is minimal but this crash has highlighted that if it were to happen again, the trains are in no way prepared for the event.

And niether are planes for when they crash. But people still fly and the public are not demanding planes that bounce and absorb a massive crash impact.

Totally different I know but the point stands.

 

[Tarquin]

And niether are planes for when they crash. But people still fly and the public are not demanding planes that bounce and absorb a massive crash impact.

Totally different I know but the point stands.

In an attempt to avoid a double post yet to still tackle the point you made about being unable to reduce risks in all aspects of life, I edited my post before last. As I said there, people view taking a plane journey as a part of normal life and (based on sheer numbers which I posted above), which is not how going to a theme park is viewed. I won't retype it all so as to not annoy anyone with the same ramblings from myself again!

Continuing the plane analogy though - the aviation industry has constantly learnt from previous incidents. Fine, they can't 'bounce' quite yet but plane design is constantly evolving and improving. It would be a missed opportunity I feel not to take as many lessons from this event as possible - in all aspects of ride design and management.

 

[PeteB]

Surely the logical answer to the problem of what happened is that whenever a train stalls, the ride must be shut down and evacuated before anybody fiddles with 'manual overrides' etc.

Whether the train on the lift hill was released by human error or not it should have been evacuated.

 

[Tarquin]

Surely the logical answer to the problem of what happened is that whenever a train stalls, the ride must be shut down and evacuated before anybody fiddles with 'manual overrides' etc.

Whether the train on the lift hill was released by human error or not it should have been evacuated.

You're absolutely right but at this point we don't even know if the ride operator/engineer even realised that a train had stalled.

 

[Rob]

Surely the logical answer to the problem of what happened is that whenever a train stalls, the ride must be shut down and evacuated before anybody fiddles with 'manual overrides' etc.

Whether the train on the lift hill was released by human error or not it should have been evacuated.

I agree completely, and I would imagine that would be standard procedure already. Which makes me think that any staff members who were present in the op-cabin at the time were not aware of the stall.

 

[Dave]

But as we all know, ride breakdowns (and subsequently manual over-ride) are a routine part of any ride's operation. If, as I assume you're implying, the crash was therefore due to human error, I'm sure you'll agree that there's no way to completely remove the risk of human error occurring again. Which is why you would then take other steps to minimise the risk should such an event occur again.

But I almost feel that whether it was the computer system failing in normal operation or human error in manual, it is actually irrelevant. The fact is that it happened due to what Merlin describes as a 'unique set of circumstances' and there's no guarantee that another 'unique set of circumstances' couldn't occur again.

Indeed there is never a guarantee that another accident can't happen again, no system is 100% safe. The accident likely though highlighted something they see as being fixable with new systems in place.

Plus they have to be seen to be doing something even if it's effect is negligible.

 

[Alexsutton]

There was a theory that the procedure was to reverse the train down the lift to make for an easier evac on level track at ground level, a situation specific to The Smiler as I can't think of any other ride that can be reversed back down the lift.

 

[Rick]

You're absolutely right but at this point we don't even know if the ride operator/engineer even realised that a train had stalled.

Which is the root cause of the issue.

 

[Tarquin]

Which is the root cause of the issue.

Gerstlauer obviously wouldn't design a rollercoaster where you were unable to tell if it had stalled. So something must have happened that was completely unexpected and that they had not foreseen if (and that's a big if) the stall wasn't detected. Therefore, there could be a similar set of unforeseen circumstances (not necessarily the exact same circumstances mind), that would result in another crash. I don't see the harm in preparing for such a possibility with physical measures at the front and back of each car.