Welcome, Guest.
It's April 26, 2017, 1:45pm.
Please login or register.
Home Page Coaster fails in Strathclyde Park
SeSco    Secret Scotland    Around the country  ›  Coaster fails in Strathclyde Park Moderators: Admin
Users Browsing Forum
MSN Bot and 27 Guests

Coaster fails in Strathclyde Park  This thread currently has 3255 views. Print Print Thread
2 Pages 1 2 » All Recommend Thread
Admin
June 26, 2016, 7:12pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
Long time since I've even been in Strathclyde Park (just outside walking distance), but when I used to drop in I would have to say I was less than impressed by a walk through the theme park.

Here, I'm wearing my Engineer's Hat and just going with my own gut feeling.

The place had (has? ) an even more temporary and 'thrown up' feeling a travelling fair, and felt very down-market compared to theme parks I had visited in Morecambe or Blackpool.

Didn't fancy the look of the rides, and over the years feel justified as the park has featured more than once with ride failures.

Now there has been another, and it looks serious.

Police are not even releasing full or detailed casualty info hours after the incident itself, although they have revised the total number down, which has to be good.

Rollercoaster crash: Ten people hurt at M&D's theme park - BBC News
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail
FordPerfect
June 26, 2016, 7:59pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
At one time  , I used to peruse the framed certificates  -  in most cases issued by the Showmans Guild  

AFAIK  , all area should be better covered  -  competent person(s)   NDT  , mechanical / hydraulic  ,  electrical / electronic

History - ADIPS

I had better stop typing soon , due to area of past employment  

When you see a carriage guide roller assembly loose on the deck  -  'fragmentation' is the word , periodic visuals (that may include a cursory daily check) rather than the thorough examination &  periodic NDT    
Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 1 - 44
Admin
June 26, 2016, 9:09pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
While I don't know the industry in detail, it looks like the matter still comes under the real Health and Safety Executive, and there is no exemption from normal legal requirement for sage operation of machinery.

That machinery happens to be for entertainment as opposed to factory production or similar.

It's one thing to have a go at rogue operators and those who do not adhere to standards or legislation. Try as you might, until they run their hardware into the ground, and kill or injure riders, you are not going to dissuade those who are intentionally going to operate as criminals, and only be stopped when they are caught - sadly, that only happens after an incident.

But it's another matter to suggest that those operating to the standards in place today, and demonstrably able to show they are audited and have the required tests and certification in place.

But I do have experience of (and was fiscally qualified ie could have appeared in court as an 'expert' witness) systems where trade bodies and third parties certified end use hardware, and know that those organisation and their people are monitored and assessed.

There was once a fairground ride manufacturer and maintainer along the road from my work, in Polmadie, and I only had occasion to visit once - and that was a long time ago, 1990s. Like nearly all the industrial works in and around that area, that place is gone now, but even though my visit was largely casual, even back then, I was more than a little surprised at the level of regulation applied.

By 'surprised' I don't mean I didn't expect to see it, more that I was surprised to see there was so much.

Then again, as I recall the rides there were rather large, not the sort of 'kiddie' thing you see that is only a few metres across. This place had big, serious rides.

I wonder what happened to the place?

I'd no reason to go back, and all the other businesses we used to visit there folded too

The rules don't really make the hardware safe, the operators do.

I used to have a mate that ran a taxi servicing business. He made a mint and went to the US, so I can say that while his standard of work was excellent, the taxi drivers were usually anything but, The rules and regs are many, and there are inspectors on the road pulling taxis for random inspection. They often fail for poor maintenance despite the rules, and if you had heard them while in his works getting their taxis fixed, they they would have been happy not to spend a penny on maintenance, as long as their taxis moved and could get fares in them. I used to go spend a Saturday morning there just for fun, to see the cabs that had been put off the road by inspections during the week, and had to be certifiable for Monday.

Aw...

Ignore me - I had a bad day
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 2 - 44
Admin
June 26, 2016, 9:34pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 3 - 44
FordPerfect
June 26, 2016, 9:52pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
As mentioned in the previous link The HSG175 ,  it should be all present and correct .  Much more stringent than there used to be but still a  "guidance"  not a regulation such as Loler Regs. that you would meet in industry , similar mechanisms & structures - well sort of    

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/hsg175.pdf
Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 4 - 44
Admin
June 27, 2016, 3:35pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
No, still not seeing your point.

Being 'guidance' from the HSE does not mean the document can be ignored.

The fairground rides MUST still meet the requirements of HSE legislation, and 'Duty of Care' must still be able to be demonstrated, or the operator is open to prosecution for failing to comply.

A guidance document from the HSE is just that, guidance.

It provides a means for those that the HSE legislation applies to have information available which will allow them to comply with the regulations IF they follow it, but does not COMPEL them to follow it.

Provided the operator can demonstrate that they have a system that provides the same result as they guidelines, they are free to use it.

It does NOT allow an operator to ignore them, or not have a documented and demonstrable system in place.

This would fail audit and inspection, and would show that a 'cowboy' was being dealt with, and they would be shut down.

Sadly, even with 100% inspection, and even rules to be followed, there will still be failures in service as nothing in perfect.

Look at Challenger. While we can list procedural failures as major contributors, nothing on the shuttle gets there without being tested and documented, but a change in operating environment was enough to turn a launch into a disaster... and ground the program until it was radically altered.

At a more realistic level... consider F1, or even the BTCC.

Engines and chassis built and rebuilt before each race, with all parts individually inspected and changed for new (regulations permitting) if there is any doubt, or their time is up.

Yet we still see, even this near 100% testing, cars that go on the grid... and break down, or get pulled because their telemetry indicates imminent failure.

Yes, it's a guidance document, but in the world of HSE (or any other similar body), guidance does NOT mean OPTIONAL.

Operators still have to meet their legal duties, or prosecution will follow.

The case investigation is just starting:

M&D's rollercoaster crash: Two children in 'serious' condition - BBC News
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 5 - 44
FordPerfect
June 27, 2016, 5:08pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
Quoted from Admin
No, still not seeing your point.

Being 'guidance' from the HSE does not mean the document can be ignored.

The fairground rides MUST still meet the requirements of HSE legislation, and 'Duty of Care' must still be able to be demonstrated, or the operator is open to prosecution for failing to comply.

A guidance document from the HSE is just that, guidance.

It provides a means for those that the HSE legislation applies to have information available which will allow them to comply with the regulations IF they follow it, but does not COMPEL them to follow it.

Provided the operator can demonstrate that they have a system that provides the same result as they guidelines, they are free to use it.

It does NOT allow an operator to ignore them, or not have a documented and demonstrable system in place.

This would fail audit and inspection, and would show that a 'cowboy' was being dealt with, and they would be shut down.

Sadly, even with 100% inspection, and even rules to be followed, there will still be failures in service as nothing in perfect.

Look at Challenger. While we can list procedural failures as major contributors, nothing on the shuttle gets there without being tested and documented, but a change in operating environment was enough to turn a launch into a disaster... and ground the program until it was radically altered.

At a more realistic level... consider F1, or even the BTCC.

Engines and chassis built and rebuilt before each race, with all parts individually inspected and changed for new (regulations permitting) if there is any doubt, or their time is up.

Yet we still see, even this near 100% testing, cars that go on the grid... and break down, or get pulled because their telemetry indicates imminent failure.

Yes, it's a guidance document, but in the world of HSE (or any other similar body), guidance does NOT mean OPTIONAL.

Operators still have to meet their legal duties, or prosecution will follow.

The case investigation is just starting:

M&D's rollercoaster crash: Two children in 'serious' condition - BBC News


In a Court of Law  ,  a Judge would ask the question 'what is the current acceptable standard of safety'  a barrister would pop-up and state  BS (BSI)  ,  BS  EN ,  ISO  ,  HSG175 ,  ASME (possibly)  -  so very much after the event.  In the case of amusement equipment (same with a step escalator), there is no specific regulation(s)  / SI  created under a enabling act & signed by a Minister of State.  The example of Loler Regs. being just one of many where there are specifics for certain equipment, this is the law that stipulates the periodic examination of certain inductrial equipment , such examinations being enforced by law , if all goes well - then there should not be any bad events  

Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 6 - 44
FordPerfect
June 28, 2016, 8:08am Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
btw   You take your car for a  MOT test ,  all it means is that at that time defects were noted by the examiner and you receive a  Pass or Fail certificate ,  you receive  'advisories'  (observations).  This is not a certificate that the vehicle is safe to run once it has left the station for the next 12 months ,  essentiallythis is the same as the  "Certificate" that should be posted at a prominent position near the entrance to such amusement machinery.

             Now in industry , things are different  eg  Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999 ,  Loler Regs 1998 ,  other regulations covering dangerous machinery such as the Power Press Regulations.

In the case of the above , then the 'competent person'  signing the 'Report of Thorough Examination' is issuing a certificate stating the equipment is safe to operate for a further periond (normally 6 or 12 months) and includes / subject of any repairs required 'immediately' or within a specified period (IMHO to be sensible this should not exceed 1 month / at the very outside 2 months)  .  Of course - equipment such as this the makers recommendations have first shout ,  probably high stressed components like carrige castings / fabrications are radiograph defect free at new stage , it could be the NDT interval was all wrong in the light of experience  
Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 7 - 44
Admin
June 28, 2016, 9:39pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
Actually, in court, he defendant would be asked to produce evidence that they had complied with the relevant legislation. That does not have to be a specific ISO, Health and Safety regs still apply to everyone regardless. You cannot claim any sort of exemption from them. Even one person making cuddly soft toys at home, if it their work.

If they could not demonstrate reasonable procedures (which is the purpose of the guideline doc referred to previously), then they would be in trouble.

Unfortunately, I worked in this field, and getting into specifics for a given case will pr-empt the coming case, and not have full disclosure.

So, lest this drag on and on with point and counterpoint, I for one won't venture further, and we will have to agree to disagree and move on,

=====

While I was out, I noticed the tabloid doing their best to demonise M&D in the same way they hunted a certain bin lorry driver.

I saw various accusations and headline splashes implying terrible things at M&D after it was claimed they sent the failed car out only a mere 5 hours after it had been repaired.

5 HOURS!!!

What were they thinking?

It should have been locked in shed for at least a month to see if tried to kill anybody, and only let out onto the tracks if ran for a week without any hiccups.

BBC hadn't even mentioned that when I looked:

M&D's rollercoaster crash: Three boys and man still in hospital - BBC News

Maybe another carrier did, it was not in the feed I got this afternoon though.
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 8 - 44
FordPerfect
June 29, 2016, 11:38am Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
Minor running repairs / adjustments /wear parts renewals - you can expect and the procedures may / will  call for water-weights proving tests. This would cover moving parts such as transmission , moving load bearing parts - that is another matter.    However , this does seem a sudden and catastrophic structural component failure involved (the photographic evidence is there) and probably pre-existing , probably originating from a tiny fatigue crack propagation    In the final analysis - the time-span will be determined     Work done to rectify this sort of defect (if ever located) , then that would involve much more stringent testing before handing / signing back to operation  
Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 9 - 44
Admin
June 29, 2016, 11:49am Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
The devil is in the detail of course, and all I could see while out was the headline, which was the thing that ticked me off as regards the tabloid trigger for a witch-hunt.

I don't know if there were any details of what the repair involved was, which doesn't really matter for my point, as this was only with regard to the tabloid grabbing a headline and jumping to a conclusion - or rather publishing a headline with an implication to guide readers to an obvious conclusion.

We'll see what turns up later I suppose.
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 10 - 44
FordPerfect
June 29, 2016, 4:55pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
As you suggested , presently best to write nothing , that is what the press is for  

M&D's paid £100k compensation for injuries in the past five years for 'scarring and broken bones' - Daily Record
Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 11 - 44
Admin
June 29, 2016, 5:26pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
Roller coaster = Bin lorry II

The Daily Record is again doing what cannot be done in court.

Presenting the past record of the subject and calling for conviction/guilt on that basis, and not bothering to consider the relevant material to the current event.

First comment after the Record is from someone asking if the can get a refund for an M&D season ticket as they are 'never going back'.

Wonder why, since all the events in the Record article were reported on (I remember them, and I'm not even interested), so why did they buy a season ticket if they now want a refund?

I'm almost minded to wonder if that first comment is a 'plant'  
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 12 - 44
Admin
June 29, 2016, 6:53pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
I'm not suggesting ANY relation or similarity to the park event.

Merely noting with interest the extent of investigation into a helicopter failure, and the analysis accorded to the evidence there. A helicopter is, of course, a much harsher environment than coaster.

AND lack of pre-judgement or public influence by the media, guiding people to assign blame before any investigation or results are even known.

Norway helicopter crash gearbox 'in road accident' - BBC News
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 13 - 44
Admin
June 29, 2016, 7:13pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
BBC has some updates:

Notably:

M&D's rollercoaster had passed its annual safety check - BBC News

I haven't, or rather can't, see what is in this, as all I am getting is a black box where the video should appear.

Regardless, it's an echo of the statement/example posed earlier, and even the annual check is a snapshot.

I mentioned helicopters, and their parts have timed lives, once reached, a new part goes on regardless, and he old one often examined and evaluated after removal.

Interesting, even small helis (2 person) have a life on their airframe. Reach 2,000 hours use (or whatever, I'm just using illustrative numbers) and its done, off to the scrapheap. Engines are the same, for example, a full stripdown and rebuild at 1,000 hours (this is in addition to regular service and maintenance), then when it clocks up 2,000 that it into the recycling bin too. Not even a full rebuild is acceptable.

And update:

M&D's rollercoaster crash: Two boys remain in serious condition - BBC News
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 14 - 44
Admin
July 2, 2016, 8:09am Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
Interesting...

When they said they had closed the theme park - it never even occurred to me that that they meant the indoor area too.

I had just pictured the outdoor area with the rides.

Silly me

M&D's partially reopens days after 30ft roller coaster crash
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 15 - 44
Admin
July 9, 2016, 10:46pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
M&D's last new ride - nobody came

Nope. Nope. Nope


Don't worry...

As far as I can tell, this is a spoof!
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 16 - 44
FordPerfect
July 18, 2016, 2:56pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 17 - 44
FordPerfect
July 18, 2016, 3:00pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
Just checked news stream - plenty there  eg   :-

M&D's safety officer banned after passing Tsunami rollercoaster just 16 days before it crashed - Glasgow Live

AMUSEMENT INSPECTION SERVICES LIMITED - Overview (free company information from Companies House)

CRAIG BOSWELL - RIVERSIDE - SHOWMAN

Ltd.  Co.  - not good    

Clue    

And in a possible clue to the Tsunami crash, it adds: “Ride controllers should pay particular attention to any corrosion of those parts.

SOURCE.

Scottish theme park safety inspector gave Tsunami rollercoaster all-clear 16 days before horror crash - Mirror Online
Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 18 - 44
Admin
July 18, 2016, 4:42pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
Not sure why reference are being made to a company that was wound up more than a year ago, and not mentioned in any of the articles.

Or to make the point that it is limited - this is fairly normal for most companies, and has no relevance to any HSE, criminal, or negligence cases that may arise.

What's missing is any information relating to this man's status, if he is qualified or competent, works for himself, or is employed, or has just set himself up on his own say-so and is issuing worthless pieces of paper while claiming they are valid.

If so, it does highlight systemic problems, as the legislation may be in place, but not the external verification.

I come from a similar... let's say industry in part... yet would not have been able to do this, for long at least, as I/we were subject to audit and accreditation, both independently via a Government based system, and by customers.

A rogue insider could still have baulked he system, as this fellow may have, but could not have done so for long before being discovered and thrown out.

This was rare, due to the nature of the business/work, but it did actually happen.

As an aside, by chance, we found a company in India had done what amounted to 'cloning' our business (name and everything), but discovered that there was nothing that could be done as there were no reciprocal agreements between the UK and India, so they were free to, in effect, pretend they were us.

Of course, they could not have tried to do business in the UK, but that would have been unlikely.
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 19 - 44
FordPerfect
July 18, 2016, 4:52pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
The Ltd. Co. is defunct and has been for a while , so it is a question if  Craig Boswell is a bona fide  'Sole Trader'  as Amusement Inspection Service.

Prohibition notice under such circumstances - quite rare.  Competency level will all come out in the wash    

The  'documentation' that he issued -  peruse my previous comments  

----

My understanding , going back over 40 years - in the case of a Ltd. Company  - a director or employee 'competent person' or possibly both as the case may be - in the case of HM Court - then in both cases would be called as a witness  
Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 20 - 44
Admin
July 18, 2016, 5:06pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
Yes, as I hinted too.

There was no indication (as I saw) in the stories as to whether or not he was presenting himself as working for that dissolved company - it may come out later?

'Competent' is now considered to be laid down in the guidelines that have been referred to earlier, as they are relatively new docs. I'm not claiming to have read them in detail, nor will I.

Nowadays it is expected that a chain can be shown, and documentation to justify someone being seen as meeting the requirement of being a competent person within the scope of the activity being considered.

Meet those requirements and you are ok in court - fail to have a trail or documentation... expect a book to hit you!

It's all down to actually doing the things required AND being able to demonstrate that now, if you can't, then it quickly becomes evident you are conning.

It's interesting (for me at least) to have looked at the documents defining my own little corner - although I did not read the current material in detail, it seem it has changed markedly since its last revision.

Previously, it tended to identify specific documentation requirements, which I often complained about, as out particular operation just did not require one or two of these aspects, BUT they were a requirement that HAD to be addressed.

The new etalon laying down the rules is written in a way that lays down the same overall requirements for documentation/evidence/records etc, but differs markedly in that it does not lay down the rules for them  a specific form, and leaves that in a more open way for the business to define for itself.
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 21 - 44
FordPerfect
July 18, 2016, 5:28pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 22 - 44
FordPerfect
July 18, 2016, 5:31pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 23 - 44
Admin
July 18, 2016, 5:40pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
The AdDips doc you seem to keep referring to is only a guideline. It does not set out the requirements.

You have to go higher up the chain than that.

It only helps those involved with advice as to how to meet the requirements.

You will find the doc that sets out the legal position on the free docs section of the HSE web site.

That one sets out what must be met.

HSE sets out the legal needs, then there are any number of industry specific guidelines below that, such as that one mentioned, which those in a specific industry can look for guidance relevant to them.

Meet or follow those (and that means actually doing what they advise) and you should be confident of meeting the requirement of reasonable efforts.

But if someone does not, then it's fairly obvious...

Not even meeting the requirement of guidance is never going to meet the demands of legislation.
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 24 - 44
Admin
July 18, 2016, 5:43pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
Quoted from FordPerfect

Not relevant.

Many such bodies are 'not for profit'.

Funding can be by Government sponsorship (indeed, this was where my accreditation came from), or by the trade.
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 25 - 44
FordPerfect
July 18, 2016, 7:04pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
I can't be bothered to delve in further , I would expect it is a trade organization - inspection is self-policing     in the main contracted out  
Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 26 - 44
FordPerfect
July 18, 2016, 8:30pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Secret
Posts: 5060
It is all presently procedural  ,  the bloke may not have done a bad inspection.  His last report of examination may at some time be published ,  it is doubtful if any parts fall within the scope of Loler Regs.  Let us face it - to do a full structural inspection - the track would have to be smothered with scaffolding along with days in the bucket of a mobile elevating inspection hoist.  There was probably limitations made by way of 'Observations' stating that to complete the required thorough examinations the owner needed to make further additional preparations ,  NDT on specified parts  .  he may have called for certain works to be done within a specified period or even immediately  BUT he would not be empowered to pull the fuses before he left site.  He could even have issued pending full report - a ' Site Notification of defect(s) affecting safe operation' ..    Of course - I doubt if the HSE 'experts' have ever completed such a examination.  Grease & £rap , inclement weather - they would not continue until cleaned down to their satisfaction & tenting erected      along with manufacturers engineer stood at their sides..
Logged Offline
E-mail E-mail Reply: 27 - 44
Admin
July 22, 2016, 2:17pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
The tabloids will be celebrating, and maybe even wetting themselves:

M&D's rollercoaster crash: Park sorry over 'fear' advert - BBC News

I won't be out for the next few days so won't see the papers on the shelves in the shops, but I can't believe the won't have this up front and be 'horrified' or some-such.
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 28 - 44
Admin
July 26, 2016, 6:17pm Report to Moderator Report to Moderator

Ctrl-Alt-Del-Aye-Right!
Secret
Posts: 13222
Location: Scotland-ish
Park re-opens, wet weather here though (it's just along the road) so I guess it will be quiet anyway.

Lanarkshire’s M&D’s theme park reopens after rollercoaster crash - The Scotsman
Logged Offline
Site Site E-mail E-mail Reply: 29 - 44
2 Pages 1 2 » All Recommend Thread
Print Print Thread

SeSco    Secret Scotland    Around the country  ›  Coaster fails in Strathclyde Park

Thread Rating
There is currently no rating for this thread