Beech Hill Crossing Death-RAIB report out

[pjnathanail]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-24232496

An accident at a level crossing which killed a four-year-old girl was caused by dim warning lights, a report says.

The car which Emma Lifsey was travelling in was hit by a train at Beech Hill Crossing in Nottinghamshire, on 4 December.

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch said the red warning lights, known as wig-wags, were old and could not be seen against bright sun on a wet road.

Network Rail said lights at the crossing have since been replaced.

The car was being driven by Emma's 67-year-old grandmother, who survived the collision, when it was struck by the train which was travelling at 60mph (96km/h).

Miss Lifsey, from Haxey in North Lincolnshire, died in hospital the day after the crash.

RAIB have now finished their report on this.

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/130924_R172013_Beech_Hill.pdf

Report 17/2013
Beech Hill
5 September 2013
Summary
At 12:31 hrs on Tuesday 4 December 2012 a collision occurred between a passenger
train and a car at Beech Hill automatic half barrier (AHB) level crossing near
Finningley, on the line between Gainsborough and Doncaster. One of the occupants
of the car, a young child, was seriously injured in the collision and later died in
hospital.

The train involved was operated by East Midlands Trains. It consisted of a single
carriage unit and was travelling at 60 mph (96 km/h) at the time of the collision.

None of the 20 passengers and two crew members on the train was injured in the accident.
Equipment beneath the train was damaged in the collision leading to the spillage of
diesel fuel from the train’s fuel tank, but there was no fire.
The level crossing was owned and maintained by Network Rail and was fitted with a
data logger which showed that the crossing was operating normally at the time of the accident, with the barriers down as the car approached. The car driver stated that she did not see that the road traffic light signals (known as wig-wags) were flashing as she approached and only noticed the lights and barriers when she was very close to the crossing. The weather was sunny at the time of the collision but there had been rain showers earlier and the road surface was wet, leading to glare from the low winter sun.

The RAIB took the wig-wag units and arranged for testing in an optical laboratory. It
was found that they were fitted with 36 W lamps and an obsolete design of red lens
unit. Their light output was measured to be well below the specification for lights of
this type. Network Rail had no plans in place to replace the light units with brighter
ones and had no process to identify that such replacement was necessary.

Any thoughts on this?
By the sound of things it was just very unfortunate, but there are also barriers so maybe the driver didn't see them?

 

[edwin_m]

Elsewhere in the report it is mentioned that the barriers were against a dark background and the sun being in the sky just above and reflecting in the road surface below would make them difficult to see. Photos of the road user's view are included in the report.

A point that occurs to me but was not made in the report was that even if a driver has concluded that the crossing is open to the road, they should still be driving cautiously because the lighting conditions could make a different obstruction nearby, such as a stopped road vehicle, equally difficult to see.

 

[Eagle]

By the sound of things it was just very unfortunate, but there are also barriers so maybe the driver didn't see them?

Looking at the photographs in the report I'd say that's definitely the case, particularly being as the barriers didn't have skirts. It also doesn't help that there's an electricity pole next to the crossing which looks very much like an upright barrier.

 

[deltic1989]

This is a very tragic accident but I can't help but slightly point a finger at the Grandmother driving the car. I obviously don't know when the Grandmother learned to drive, but when I was learning to drive, one of the regular routes that was used crossed the AHB at Thorpe-on-the-Hill, Lincolnshire.
I was always taught that when you are approaching an L/C you drive as if it is closed or about to close, I.e. slow right down and be prepared to stop. It seems that the driver of this car didn't do this with tragic consequences.

 

[Taunton]

I was always taught that when you are approaching an L/C you drive as if it is closed or about to close, I.e. slow right down and be prepared to stop. It seems that the driver of this car didn't do this with tragic consequences.

I was surprised that the report stated that Whistle boards are intended only to give an alert to pedestrians.

Having spent many years in the US and Canada, I always open the driver's window approaching a crossing and turn down the radio, to listen for the whistle, in case of failure of the crossing equipment. In North America for some classes of vehicle, eg buses, this has long been compulsory, many other drivers do the same.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This is a very tragic accident but I can't help but slightly point a finger at the Grandmother driving the car. I obviously don't know when the Grandmother learned to drive, but when I was learning to drive, one of the regular routes that was used crossed the AHB at Thorpe-on-the-Hill, Lincolnshire.
I was always taught that when you are approaching an L/C you drive as if it is closed or about to close, I.e. slow right down and be prepared to stop. It seems that the driver of this car didn't do this with tragic consequences.

Having been a passenger in cars approaching the busy level crossings over the ECML in Northumberland on very, very many occasions, with drivers at the wheel who have learned to drive much more recently than "the Grandmother", I have noticed that few of them ever exercise any such caution!

Actually, I didn't like the introduction of the term "Grandmother" in the newspaper's take on the incident, as I thought it was an unnecessarily pointed description.

 

[Eagle]

I was always taught that when you are approaching an L/C you drive as if it is closed or about to close, I.e. slow right down and be prepared to stop. It seems that the driver of this car didn't do this with tragic consequences.

The report says that she drove that road fairly regularly, so maybe she had gotten used to it rather than being cautious of it. Then again surely if you'd driven that road regularly, you might know that visibility is an issue there especially when driving into the sun, and to be more cautious there in such conditions.

Although we can make these statements about the driver all we want, it still stands that the poor visibility was the main cause and that Network Rail hadn't done enough to identify and rectify that problem.

 

[Greenback]

Although we can make these statements about the driver all we want, it still stands that the poor visibility was the main cause and that Network Rail hadn't done enough to identify and rectify that problem.

Quite. This is the official conclusion of the official investigation. We cannot hope to have access to the same amount of information that would have been available to RAIB, so there is no point in speculating what might or might not have happened on that fateful day.

 

[OuterDistant]

I was surprised that the report stated that Whistle boards are intended only to give an alert to pedestrians.

Makes sense though, as you've little chance of hearing it with the windows closed and the radio on, which is how most people these days will be driving.

Of course, in a charabanc, it's a different story!

 

[sbt]

I was always taught that when you are approaching an L/C you drive as if it is closed or about to close, I.e. slow right down and be prepared to stop.

As a note, this does not appear in the current issue of the Highway Code.

Also and after several failed (I have now given up) attempts to pass my test over 30 years I have never been taught this.

Neither of these pieces of information, of course, preclude the possibility that individual instructors train, or trained, people this way or that the teaching was official for a period of time.

It does, however, indicate that it should not be assumed that drivers will, or should, behave in this way, when considering Level Crossing safety. It also indicates that drivers should not be considered culpable if they do not behave in this way, rather they should be considered commendably cautious and safety conscious if they do.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Accident reports are not all about what went wrong. I would like to highlight the following sentence in the report:

33. ... The RAIB commends the prompt actions of the train crew in stopping the approaching locomotive and safely evacuating the passengers.

Well done that Train Crew. What they did was probably required by the rules etc. but clearly those rules etc. were applied sufficiently promptly and properly to impress the inspectors of the RAIB. Again, well done.

 

[deltic1989]

I of course cannot speak for others, I can only relate what I was taught, and I do believe that I was only taught this as there was an AHB on one of the usual route and that had there not been a crossing I most likely wouldn't have been taught this. It may (and most likely is) the case that what i was taught is not part of the syllabus and was just a little nugget of caution on the part of my instructor.

Looking at the photos in the report it does seem that sighting in the conditions described would be troublesome, the report states that in both photos the crossing is active (that is barriers lowered lights flashing) and to be honest you wouldn't know, the position of an adjacent telegraph pole is misleading too, giving the impression of a raised barrier.
If you drive a road regularly it is very easy to become complacent, and in so doing become less cautious. I know that I have become complacent on some roads that I know and almost met with disaster. You can drive a road every day for 10 years and never see a tractor come out of a field round a blind bend, and the one day that you may be feeling confident ........BANG!!!!!

The official line is inadequate warning, which is a very big factor in this tragedy but could complacency not have played a role too?

 

[Greenback]

The official line is inadequate warning, which is a very big factor in this tragedy but could complacency not have played a role too?

Who knows? The investigators will have collected plenty of evidence and they have not thought to include it as one of the causes, as far as I can see. I will bow to their expertise in accident investigation.

 

[Darren R]

It was certainly a very tragic incident, one that could possibly have been avoided. Reading the RAIB report and its conclusions, I think NetworkRail could end up facing a prosecution by the HSE now the investigation is complete.

 

[High Dyke]

Again a comprehensive RAIB report. The definitive cause was the error of the motorist in failing to stop at the level crossing which has been proved to have been working correctly. However there are causal factors, as indentified, that meant the error of the motorist was not the be all and end all of it.

It's nice to see the press (unsurprisingly) still trying to blame NR for not having the crossing up to standards...even though the car driver was the main point of blame.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Its a remarkably difficult one, but I must admit to being cautious approaching level crossings and dont hare across assuming all is clear. Personally I want to be doing a speed which means if a train is coming I can stop.

However on the other hand the driver in this case knows that because they missed the lights etc their grandaughter has died.

I suspect it will be taken further by HSE but not really sure it should be

 

[boing_uk]

I am quite alarmed that there are still incandescent lamps being used out there for signalling purposes on the highway. The last time such lamps were used in traffic signals was some time in the '70's when just about everything was upgraded to 50w tungsten halogen (or as we call them H.I lamps).

36w.. most pushbutton WAIT indicators are lit with 40w lamps!

 

[PaxVobiscum]

I am quite alarmed that there are still incandescent lamps being used out there for signalling purposes on the highway. The last time such lamps were used in traffic signals was some time in the '70's when just about everything was upgraded to 50w tungsten halogen (or as we call them H.I lamps).

36w.. most pushbutton WAIT indicators are lit with 40w lamps!

I find myself wondering why aircraft style strobe gas discharge lamps can't be fitted to all such crossings, as they are on many emergency vehicles. They are hard to ignore. How long do these last anyway? Perhaps it is the maintenance burden as much as the installation costs which are the problem.