Level Crossing Incident - Finningley (nr Doncaster) 4th December

[Searle]

I don't know that obstacle deflector/mini-snow plough looks pretty buckled on the right hand side. Still trains tend to be a hell of a lot tougher than most cars so it's hardly surprising that it is, on the surface, fairly undamaged.

That's true, I can imagine the car would be pretty mangled! If the car broke through the barrier (which it looks like it did), I'd imagine the driver couldn't react to it, and on a length of track that straight, I'd imagine the line speed to be 50mph+? That's gonna be a pretty hefty impact, but that's just my assumptions

 

[bluenoxid]

What I want to know is WTF is the HiViz jacked doing with a hood on it. No, no and no.

I think Ice has been claimed in an incident before and sadly that driver lost their life.

 

[GB]

What I want to know is WTF is the HiViz jacked doing with a hood on it. No, no and no.

Why? HV foul weather jackets often come with tear away hoods. Don't see the issue.

 

[142094]

Sure it was changed last year so that anyone working on or near the tracks should have orange HV jacket and full length trousers.

Also, also thought hoods were a no-no.

 

[YorkshireBear]

No ice round here at moment, thawed yesterday in high temperatures. (leeds granted but its similar.)

 

[westcoaster]

Also seen there was a track worker struck and fatally injured at saxilby, is that near.

 

[142094]

Also seen there was a track worker struck and fatally injured at saxilby, is that near.

Near Lincoln.

 

[sprinterguy]

Also seen there was a track worker struck and fatally injured at saxilby, is that near.

It's on the same route, but at exactly the opposite end, the same distance from Lincoln as Finningley is from Doncaster.

 

[Tracked]

No ice round here at moment, thawed yesterday in high temperatures. (leeds granted but its similar.)

Even nearer, I live at the North end of Doncaster, I work in Barnsley but it wasn't icy at 9:30 this morning when I set off

 

[AlexS]

Sure it was changed last year so that anyone working on or near the tracks should have orange HV jacket and full length trousers.

Also, also thought hoods were a no-no.

There's no problem - the chap is clearly being accompanied and the line is blocked - you don't see BTP officers wearing orange vests when they are on or about the line either. In normal circumstances it's necessary but this isn't really a normal circumstance.

 

[Me2]

Sure it was changed last year so that anyone working on or near the tracks should have orange HV jacket and full length trousers.

Also, also thought hoods were a no-no.

Following a serious incident like this staff from non railway companies/agencies gain access to the track to carry out their duties, they're not required to follow rail PPE regulations.

---

I don't like AHB crossings. Always feel safer if there's a crossing or signal box next to it

 

[Crossover]

Would the skip be there to test the LC equipment? /QUOTE]

I had wondered if it may be there to rescue the 153, but I doubt that will be necessary (assuming a 67 could couple to one anyway)

Given it seems to have a yellow, I would hazard a guess that your take on it above is correct

 

[IanXC]

Would the skip be there to test the LC equipment?

I had wondered if it may be there to rescue the 153, but I doubt that will be necessary (assuming a 67 could couple to one anyway)

Given it seems to have a yellow, I would hazard a guess that your take on it above is correct

Presumably the Doncaster Thunderbird would be the closest traction available to perform such tests at short notice too.

 

[Rich_D3167]

Would the skip be there to test the LC equipment?

No, it was en route to Peterborough via the Joint Line (Gainsborough, Lincoln, Sleaford & Spalding) as 0Z68 from Doncaster TMD. Presumably it was on a route learning run, as it had ran north along the Joint Line as 0Z67 from Peterborough earlier in the morning. At a guess, the 67 was approaching the 153 as it hit the car on the crossing, the driver saw what had happened & brough the loco to a halt.

 

[GB]

No, it was en route to Peterborough via the Joint Line (Gainsborough, Lincoln, Sleaford & Spalding) as 0Z68 from Doncaster TMD. Presumably it was on a route learning run, as it had ran north along the Joint Line as 0Z67 from Peterborough earlier in the morning. At a guess, the 67 was approaching the 153 as it hit the car on the crossing, the driver saw what had happened & brough the loco to a halt.

Indeed, the driver of the light loco brought it to a stand after seeing a red hand signal from the 153 driver.

 

[westcoaster]

Indeed, the driver of the light loco brought it to a stand after seeing a red hand signal from the 153 driver.

Was going to say the same, if you look at the picture you can still see the police ticker tape across the track in front of the 67.

 

[neonison]

I don't imagine NetworkRail would have allowed a crossing to be in operation with only one half barrier.
It would be useless if only the stub came down.

Agreed, but how long would it take NR to discover a barrier broken by a miscreant driver one hour before, or caught by another vehicle whilst it was in the "up" position. All I am saying is we should not jump to the conclusion that it was necessarily broken in the incident, likely though that is.

BBC report that the four year old girl has died. Very sad.

 

[ReverendFozz]

Agreed, but how long would it take NR to discover a barrier broken by a miscreant driver one hour before, or caught by another vehicle whilst it was in the "up" position. All I am saying is we should not jump to the conclusion that it was necessarily broken in the incident, likely though that is.

BBC report that the four year old girl has died. Very sad.

Just heard it myself on the news about the 4yo dying, and the older person being seriously ill, thoughts go out to those involved

Sent by Comrade Marxista Fozzski

 

[jopsuk]

I may be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the barriers themselves have ways of detecting serious damage and sending out an alert to the signal box.

 

[bolli]

Last line of the BBC article

The Labour MP for Bassetlaw John Mann and the RMT rail union are calling for level crossings to be phased out.

hock:

 

[Trainfan344]

R.I.P to that little girl.

 

[BestWestern]

Last line of the BBC article

The Labour MP for Bassetlaw John Mann and the RMT rail union are calling for level crossings to be phased out.

hock:

Yep, that's a nice sensible suggestion. Good ole Uncle Bob, never slow to make a complete arse of himself :roll:

 

[YorkshireBear]

Yep, that's a nice sensible suggestion. Good ole Uncle Bob, never slow to make a complete arse of himself :roll:

Stating the obvious too, no new level crossings are being built anyway. And slowly they are being removed.

Network rail has said it would get rid of everyone if it could.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

It's actually worse than the short quote indicates.

Crossings 'should go'

The Labour MP for Bassetlaw John Mann and the RMT rail union have called for level crossings to be phased out.

The union's general secretary Bob Crow said: "There is no need for these barriers anymore.

"There should be a clear programme by Network Rail now, and the government should be fully behind them, that we are going to eliminate barriers altogether."

(my bolding on the quote)

I fail to see how removing the barriers from the crossings is going to improve safety.:roll:

 

[jon0844]

Might as well get rid of trains - as they're actually what kill people in vehicles, or derail and kill passengers because of a collision.

What do you think of that idea Bob?

Crossing with barriers, full or half, have no reason not to be 100% safe if used properly (assuming there's no failure of the barriers/lights - which I really don't believe is likely given the number of failsafes).

 

[BestWestern]

Stating the obvious too, no new level crossings are being built anyway. And slowly they are being removed.

Network rail has said it would get rid of everyone if it could.

Indeed, a lot of work has been done recently to reduce the risk, and this ought to be highlighted. Not only removal of crossing but also the massive media campaign to encourage drivers to actually stop. It should also always be highlighted that problem in incidents like this lies with the road traffic, not the railway.

For the railway's part, I could understand a suggestion that all half barrier locations be replaced with some form of full barrier system (this obviously wouldn't have stopped this incident but we all know how commonly half barriers are misused), and in light of this occurrence perhaps it might also be time to consider tougher barrier designs which will repel a vehicle rather than simply crumple, at least if the vehicle is coming from the off-crossing side (obviously they need to allow an 'escape' if driven at from inside the crossing). There will always be locations where it is either a level crossing or a closed road however, and the need to eradicate the actions of motorists who cause serious rail collisions will continue for some years to come.

 

[ainsworth74]

Network rail has said it would get rid of everyone if it could.

Well it would certainly make the railway easier to operate if there was no one else around but I think that this is perhaps an extreme reaction!

It seems that the railway continues to be assumed guilty in the media (from the way they're wording their reports) with very little to suggest that it's nearly always road vehicle drivers that cause problems.

 

[ushawk]

Might as well get rid of trains - as they're actually what kill people in vehicles, or derail and kill passengers because of a collision.

What do you think of that idea Bob?

Crossing with barriers, full or half, have no reason not to be 100% safe if used properly (assuming there's no failure of the barriers/lights - which I really don't believe is likely given the number of failsafes).

He would complain as it would be putting people out of a job of course !!!

 

[tbtc]

It seems that the railway continues to be assumed guilty in the media (from the way they're wording their reports) with very little to suggest that it's nearly always road vehicle drivers that cause problems.

Agreed.

Is it just me, or has anyone else picked up on the number of times this has been described as an "unmanned" level crossing in the media? Not sure whether that's a suggestion that all level crossings should be staffed though.

Presumably CCTV and the accident report will answer where the fault lay here, before we start speculating about who was in the wrong.

 

[Tomnick]

He would complain as it would be putting people out of a job of course !!!

Given how many signal boxes have little purpose other than to control an adjacent LC these days (where they're not really required to break a section), plus of course numerous crossing keepers, his original suggestion would see many of his members lose their jobs. Not much thought gone into that one, methinks!