Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-derailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead
> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>

https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21

In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>_share_article-masthead
>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>
>https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21

That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>_share_article-masthead
>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>
>>https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>
>That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
>photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
>think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).

Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and
the first bogie entered that section.

In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>_share_article-masthead
>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>
>>>https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>
>>That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
>>photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
>>think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>
>Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>entered that section.

Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
the waterflow?
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:51:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>_share_article-masthead
>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>
>>>>https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>
>>>That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
>>>photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
>>>think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>
>>Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>entered that section.
>
>Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>the waterflow?

The embankment collapsed from one side, so the track may have slewed in that direction.

On 31/01/2022 13:43, Recliner wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>
>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
>> photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
>> think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>
> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and
> the first bogie entered that section.

There was a suggestion on Twitter that the driver could have reversed,
but if I'd been the driver, I think that I'd have been very happy just
to get everybody off the train safely. Including myself!

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>
>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
>>> photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
>>> think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>
>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>> entered that section.
>
> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
> the waterflow?

If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the track, and the
track is less supported on that side; but the water flow is not actually in
contact with the track itself.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
> On 31/01/2022 13:43, Recliner wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>
>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
>>> photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
>>> think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>
>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and
>> the first bogie entered that section.
>
>
> There was a suggestion on Twitter that the driver could have reversed,
> but if I'd been the driver, I think that I'd have been very happy just
> to get everybody off the train safely. Including myself!
>

Yes, you definitely wouldn't be moving that train without authority from NR
and various people watching the affected bogie to make sure it didn't
misbehave! And you also wouldn't be doing it without that authorisation etc
because every action you take is recorded.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <stbfjm$8q7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:38 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>>
>>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
>>>> photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
>>>> think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>>
>>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>> entered that section.
>>
>> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>> the waterflow?
>
>If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the track, and the
>track is less supported on that side; but the water flow is not actually in
>contact with the track itself.

The water flow pictured is well below the track, and wouldn't washing
away one side more than the other make it tilt rather than slew?
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:25:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <stbfjm$8q7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:38 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>>> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>>>
>>>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
>>>>> photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
>>>>> think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>>> entered that section.
>>>
>>> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>>> the waterflow?
>>
>>If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the track, and the
>>track is less supported on that side; but the water flow is not actually in
>>contact with the track itself.
>
>The water flow pictured is well below the track, and wouldn't washing
>away one side more than the other make it tilt rather than slew?

The earth would have slipped sideways, towards the water.

In message <545lvglmbpbolf7phj2r53o36ki53kdaq9@4ax.com>, at 14:26:41 on
Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:25:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <stbfjm$8q7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:38 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>>>> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
>>>>>> photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
>>>>>> think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>>>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>>>> entered that section.
>>>>
>>>> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>>>> the waterflow?
>>>
>>>If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the track, and the
>>>track is less supported on that side; but the water flow is not actually in
>>>contact with the track itself.
>>
>>The water flow pictured is well below the track, and wouldn't washing
>>away one side more than the other make it tilt rather than slew?
>
>The earth would have slipped sideways, towards the water.

Towards the upstream water, or the downstream water?

To try to avoid this exchange of views carrying on for too many more
cycles, the track is shown skewing towards the upstream.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <545lvglmbpbolf7phj2r53o36ki53kdaq9@4ax.com>, at 14:26:41 on
> Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:25:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <stbfjm$8q7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:38 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>>>>> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
>>>>>>> photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
>>>>>>> think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>>>>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>>>>> entered that section.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>>>>> the waterflow?
>>>>
>>>> If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the track, and the
>>>> track is less supported on that side; but the water flow is not actually in
>>>> contact with the track itself.
>>>
>>> The water flow pictured is well below the track, and wouldn't washing
>>> away one side more than the other make it tilt rather than slew?
>>
>> The earth would have slipped sideways, towards the water.
>
> Towards the upstream water, or the downstream water?
>
> To try to avoid this exchange of views carrying on for too many more
> cycles, the track is shown skewing towards the upstream.

Towards whichever side the water has eroded the support from under the
track.

We've already determined that the water isn't [1] touching the track, so
isn't directly affected by the direction of water flow.

The downstream side of the track the train is standing on, is adjacent to
the other track; so less opportunity for that side to have experienced as
much erosion (at the time these photos were taken).

[1] or at least wasn't, in these early photos; later photos show much more
erosion and a much wider gap

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <545lvglmbpbolf7phj2r53o36ki53kdaq9@4ax.com>, at 14:26:41 on
> Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:25:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <stbfjm$8q7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:38 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>>>>> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
>>>>>>> photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
>>>>>>> think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>>>>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>>>>> entered that section.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>>>>> the waterflow?
>>>>
>>>> If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the track, and the
>>>> track is less supported on that side; but the water flow is not actually in
>>>> contact with the track itself.
>>>
>>> The water flow pictured is well below the track, and wouldn't washing
>>> away one side more than the other make it tilt rather than slew?
>>
>> The earth would have slipped sideways, towards the water.
>
> Towards the upstream water, or the downstream water?
>
> To try to avoid this exchange of views carrying on for too many more
> cycles, the track is shown skewing towards the upstream.

If you watch a stream of water cutting a channel, it’s usually the upstream
end of the channel that gets the most energetic erosion.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <545lvglmbpbolf7phj2r53o36ki53kdaq9@4ax.com>, at 14:26:41 on
>> Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:25:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <stbfjm$8q7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:38 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>>>>>> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than the earlier
>>>>>>>> photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from the braking train (I
>>>>>>>> think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>>>>>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>>>>>> entered that section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>>>>>> the waterflow?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the track, and the
>>>>> track is less supported on that side; but the water flow is not actually in
>>>>> contact with the track itself.
>>>>
>>>> The water flow pictured is well below the track, and wouldn't washing
>>>> away one side more than the other make it tilt rather than slew?
>>>
>>> The earth would have slipped sideways, towards the water.
>>
>> Towards the upstream water, or the downstream water?
>>
>> To try to avoid this exchange of views carrying on for too many more
>> cycles, the track is shown skewing towards the upstream.
>
> If you watch a stream of water cutting a channel, it’s usually the upstream
> end of the channel that gets the most energetic erosion.

Yes. In this case, the right hand (upstream) side of the embankment clearly
collapsed first, so the top of the embankment will have slid to the right
and into the water. That exposed the left hand side of the embankment,
which then washed away as well, leaving both tracks hanging.

In message <stefg7$jhv$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:37:11 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <545lvglmbpbolf7phj2r53o36ki53kdaq9@4ax.com>, at 14:26:41 on
>> Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:25:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <stbfjm$8q7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:38 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>>>>>> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than
>>>>>>>>the earlier photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from
>>>>>>>>the braking train (I think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>>>>>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>>>>>> entered that section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>>>>>> the waterflow?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the
>>>>>track, and the track is less supported on that side; but the water
>>>>>flow is not actually in contact with the track itself.
>>>>
>>>> The water flow pictured is well below the track, and wouldn't washing
>>>> away one side more than the other make it tilt rather than slew?
>>>
>>> The earth would have slipped sideways, towards the water.
>>
>> Towards the upstream water, or the downstream water?
>>
>> To try to avoid this exchange of views carrying on for too many more
>> cycles, the track is shown skewing towards the upstream.
>
>If you watch a stream of water cutting a channel, it’s usually the upstream
>end of the channel that gets the most energetic erosion.

Yes, but why does that cause lateral slewing (upstream), rather than
more droop?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stefg7$jhv$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:37:11 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <545lvglmbpbolf7phj2r53o36ki53kdaq9@4ax.com>, at 14:26:41 on
>>> Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:25:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <stbfjm$8q7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:38 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>>>>>>> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>>>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than
>>>>>>>>> the earlier photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from
>>>>>>>>> the braking train (I think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>>>>>>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>>>>>>> entered that section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>>>>>>> the waterflow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the
>>>>>> track, and the track is less supported on that side; but the water
>>>>>> flow is not actually in contact with the track itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> The water flow pictured is well below the track, and wouldn't washing
>>>>> away one side more than the other make it tilt rather than slew?
>>>>
>>>> The earth would have slipped sideways, towards the water.
>>>
>>> Towards the upstream water, or the downstream water?
>>>
>>> To try to avoid this exchange of views carrying on for too many more
>>> cycles, the track is shown skewing towards the upstream.
>>
>> If you watch a stream of water cutting a channel, it’s usually the upstream
>> end of the channel that gets the most energetic erosion.
>
> Yes, but why does that cause lateral slewing (upstream), rather than
> more droop?

The collapsing embankment would first have slid sideways into the water,
rather than descending vertically. There wasn't a through flow of water at
that stage, so no upstream or downstream.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <stefg7$jhv$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:37:11 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <545lvglmbpbolf7phj2r53o36ki53kdaq9@4ax.com>, at 14:26:41 on
>>>> Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:25:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <stbfjm$8q7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:38 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>>>>>>>> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>>>>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than
>>>>>>>>>> the earlier photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from
>>>>>>>>>> the braking train (I think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>>>>>>>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>>>>>>>> entered that section.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>>>>>>>> the waterflow?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the
>>>>>>> track, and the track is less supported on that side; but the water
>>>>>>> flow is not actually in contact with the track itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The water flow pictured is well below the track, and wouldn't washing
>>>>>> away one side more than the other make it tilt rather than slew?
>>>>>
>>>>> The earth would have slipped sideways, towards the water.
>>>>
>>>> Towards the upstream water, or the downstream water?
>>>>
>>>> To try to avoid this exchange of views carrying on for too many more
>>>> cycles, the track is shown skewing towards the upstream.
>>>
>>> If you watch a stream of water cutting a channel, it’s usually the upstream
>>> end of the channel that gets the most energetic erosion.
>>
>> Yes, but why does that cause lateral slewing (upstream), rather than
>> more droop?
>
> The collapsing embankment would first have slid sideways into the water,
> rather than descending vertically. There wasn't a through flow of water at
> that stage, so no upstream or downstream.

Or the upstream side of the embankment was washed away first, causing the
rest of the embankment and the rails to slide that way. I think this has
been suggested in other subthreads already.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <stefg7$jhv$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:37:11 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <545lvglmbpbolf7phj2r53o36ki53kdaq9@4ax.com>, at 14:26:41 on
>>>>> Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:25:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <stbfjm$8q7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:38 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>>>>>>>>> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than
>>>>>>>>>>> the earlier photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from
>>>>>>>>>>> the braking train (I think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>>>>>>>>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>>>>>>>>> entered that section.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>>>>>>>>> the waterflow?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the
>>>>>>>> track, and the track is less supported on that side; but the water
>>>>>>>> flow is not actually in contact with the track itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The water flow pictured is well below the track, and wouldn't washing
>>>>>>> away one side more than the other make it tilt rather than slew?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The earth would have slipped sideways, towards the water.
>>>>>
>>>>> Towards the upstream water, or the downstream water?
>>>>>
>>>>> To try to avoid this exchange of views carrying on for too many more
>>>>> cycles, the track is shown skewing towards the upstream.
>>>>
>>>> If you watch a stream of water cutting a channel, it’s usually the upstream
>>>> end of the channel that gets the most energetic erosion.
>>>
>>> Yes, but why does that cause lateral slewing (upstream), rather than
>>> more droop?
>>
>> The collapsing embankment would first have slid sideways into the water,
>> rather than descending vertically. There wasn't a through flow of water at
>> that stage, so no upstream or downstream.
>
> Or the upstream side of the embankment was washed away first, causing the
> rest of the embankment and the rails to slide that way. I think this has
> been suggested in other subthreads already.
>

Yes, it's just that Roland keeps ignoring it.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stefg7$jhv$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:37:11 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <545lvglmbpbolf7phj2r53o36ki53kdaq9@4ax.com>, at 14:26:41 on
>>> Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:25:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <stbfjm$8q7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:38 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>>>>>>> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>>>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than
>>>>>>>>> the earlier photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from
>>>>>>>>> the braking train (I think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>>>>>>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>>>>>>> entered that section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>>>>>>> the waterflow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the
>>>>>> track, and the track is less supported on that side; but the water
>>>>>> flow is not actually in contact with the track itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> The water flow pictured is well below the track, and wouldn't washing
>>>>> away one side more than the other make it tilt rather than slew?
>>>>
>>>> The earth would have slipped sideways, towards the water.
>>>
>>> Towards the upstream water, or the downstream water?
>>>
>>> To try to avoid this exchange of views carrying on for too many more
>>> cycles, the track is shown skewing towards the upstream.
>>
>> If you watch a stream of water cutting a channel, it’s usually the upstream
>> end of the channel that gets the most energetic erosion.
>
> Yes, but why does that cause lateral slewing (upstream), rather than
> more droop?

Because the upstream side of the track gets eroded-under first, before the
other side of the track. So the track is unsupported under one side only;
has non-zero weight and is not a rigid structure. Why do you think it
*wouldn't* slew to one side? It's not Hornby "long straight" rigid track
which can be used as a bridge without any further support!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <stefg7$jhv$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:37:11 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <545lvglmbpbolf7phj2r53o36ki53kdaq9@4ax.com>, at 14:26:41 on
>>>>>> Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:25:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <stbfjm$8q7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:38 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <bopfvgt9rqcdhovh9aiti9vq6thiirkaj3@4ax.com>, at 13:43:10 on
>>>>>>>>>> Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:31:11 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <st8l2g$8md$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:28 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10457643/Train-driver-avoids-d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erailment-leaving-cab-dangling-track-damaged-floodwater.html?ito=native
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _share_article-masthead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail but ........
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ianhardie9018/status/1487783395660869633?s=21
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That shows a significantly bigger sideways displacement than
>>>>>>>>>>>> the earlier photos. I wonder how much of that was "push" from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the braking train (I think the rogue water flow was the opposite direction).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it does give the impression that it was derailed. I think the
>>>>>>>>>>> sagging track may have slewed towards the water, and the first bogie
>>>>>>>>>>> entered that section.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why would the track have slewed (before the train arrived) upstream wrt
>>>>>>>>>> the waterflow?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the water flow has washed away the ballast underneath the
>>>>>>>>> track, and the track is less supported on that side; but the water
>>>>>>>>> flow is not actually in contact with the track itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The water flow pictured is well below the track, and wouldn't washing
>>>>>>>> away one side more than the other make it tilt rather than slew?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The earth would have slipped sideways, towards the water.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Towards the upstream water, or the downstream water?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To try to avoid this exchange of views carrying on for too many more
>>>>>> cycles, the track is shown skewing towards the upstream.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you watch a stream of water cutting a channel, it’s usually the upstream
>>>>> end of the channel that gets the most energetic erosion.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but why does that cause lateral slewing (upstream), rather than
>>>> more droop?
>>>
>>> The collapsing embankment would first have slid sideways into the water,
>>> rather than descending vertically. There wasn't a through flow of water at
>>> that stage, so no upstream or downstream.
>>
>> Or the upstream side of the embankment was washed away first, causing the
>> rest of the embankment and the rails to slide that way. I think this has
>> been suggested in other subthreads already.
>>
>
> Yes, it's just that Roland keeps ignoring it.

Yes, looking back it was Anna, and they’ve[1] just repeated it.

Sam

[1] grits teeth and types supposedly gender neutral pronoun

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 03/02/2022 10:26, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
It's not Hornby "long straight" rigid track
> which can be used as a bridge without any further support!
>
>

Now that is a good idea, why does not British Railways do that? ;-)

--
Colin

On 03/02/2022 11:50, ColinR wrote:
> On 03/02/2022 10:26, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>  It's not Hornby "long straight" rigid track
>> which can be used as a bridge without any further support!
>>
>>
>
> Now that is a good idea, why does not British Railways do that? ;-)
>

Because Hornby patented the idea.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 03/02/2022 11:50, ColinR wrote:
>> On 03/02/2022 10:26, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>  It's not Hornby "long straight" rigid track
>>> which can be used as a bridge without any further support!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Now that is a good idea, why does not British Railways do that? ;-)
>>
>
> Because Hornby patented the idea.

And have you seen the prices these days?!

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <stg84j$cr0$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:43:47 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> If you watch a stream of water cutting a channel, it’s usually the
>>>upstream end of the channel that gets the most energetic erosion.
>>
>> Yes, but why does that cause lateral slewing (upstream), rather than
>> more droop?
>
>The collapsing embankment would first have slid sideways into the water,
>rather than descending vertically. There wasn't a through flow of water at
>that stage, so no upstream or downstream.

As soon as the embankment has crumbled below the level of the sleepers,
which isn't much, then the only force on the track is gravity -
downwards.

--
Roland Perry

In message <stg922$iiu$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:59:30 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>>> If you watch a stream of water cutting a channel, it’s usually
>>>>the upstream end of the channel that gets the most energetic erosion.
>>>
>>> Yes, but why does that cause lateral slewing (upstream), rather than
>>> more droop?
>>
>> The collapsing embankment would first have slid sideways into the water,
>> rather than descending vertically. There wasn't a through flow of water at
>> that stage, so no upstream or downstream.
>
>Or the upstream side of the embankment was washed away first, causing the
>rest of the embankment and the rails to slide that way. I think this has
>been suggested in other subthreads already.

So I can understand your model, where and how was the upstream side
washed away. By and along the main river, and not perpendicular?

--
Roland Perry