Train collides with van on level crossing at Teynham, Kent, 23/10

[2HAP]

Services affected on Chatham Main Line and Sheerness Branch due to a train hitting a van on a level crossing at Teynham, Kent.

https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/922497750255767552

"Following a collision between a train and a vehicle near #Teynham in Kent, passengers are advised to check before they travel this evening".

 

[gcmozart]

Bit more info & photos here

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/sittingbourne/news/train-hits-van-at-level-134130/

Kent commuters were struggling to get home tonight after a train crash caused havoc to rush-hour rail services.

The incident happened at 3pm this afternoon when a high-speed Javelin train on its way to London St Pancras struck a delivery van on a level crossing near Teynham between Faversham and Sittinngourne.

The van driver, a man in his 30s, was taken to hospital with head injuries.

British Transport Police said officers were called to the scene at Frognal Farm crossing on the Lower Road after reports a train had struck a van. Kent Police and ambulance staff were also there...

 

[theageofthetra]

A regular crossing? Or some user operated farm access one?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Bit more info & photos here

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/sittingbourne/news/train-hits-van-at-level-134130/

All things considered, that van doesn't look that badly damaged. Obviously thoughts with the train driver, hope they're not too shaken up.

 

[najaB]

All things considered, that van doesn't look that badly damaged.

Front end side damage to both vehicles suggests it was, luckily, a glancing blow. A full-on collision could easily have resulted in tragedy rather than injury.

 

[2HAP]

A regular crossing? Or some user operated farm access one?

It's a farm crossing by the look of it. Supplied with telephones.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1073554

 

[Chris M]

Front end side damage to both vehicles suggests it was, luckily, a glancing blow. A full-on collision could easily have resulted in tragedy rather than injury.

I wonder if the rounded shape of the 395 helped to move the van out of the direct path? A flat-fronted unit might tend to push the van along the track prolonging the collision and increasing the risk that the van would encounter some unforgiving obstacle trackside.

 

[nom de guerre]

A few years ago, a suicidal person jumped in front of a 395 on the Medway Valley line, only to be lifted by the nose cone and deposited in a position of safety.

As for the crossing, it's reasonably regularly-used, mainly by locals and regulars - who follow the instructions. Will be interesting to get more detail.

 

[Clip]

As for the crossing, it's reasonably regularly-used, mainly by locals and regulars - who follow the instructions. Will be interesting to get more detail.

Certainly will - bet theres no recording of a phone call asking for permission to cross too so mr dpd could be in the deep do do

 

[a_c_skinner]

Obviously one has sympathy for all involved, and glad there are no serious injuries. Does the van's insurers get the bill?

Andrew

 

[Chris M]

Does the van's insurers get the bill?

If the van driver was at fault, then yes. At least for any physical damage, I'm not sure about delay money.
If the van driver was not at fault, then very unlikely.
I don't know which was the case in this incident.

While most level crossing incidents are the fault of the crossing user, not all are. It is possible that the signaller authorised them to cross in front of the train for example, as happened near Thetford (RAIB report).

 

[daikilo]

If the van driver was at fault, then yes. At least for any physical damage, I'm not sure about delay money.
If the van driver was not at fault, then very unlikely.
I don't know which was the case in this incident.

While most level crossing incidents are the fault of the crossing user, not all are. It is possible that the signaller authorised them to cross in front of the train for example, as happened near Thetford (RAIB report).

I would expect the van insurers (assuming it was insured) or the driver/employer will get the bill from the TOC for damage to the train and possibly hardship to anyone on the train . It will then be contested or not. As for NR, they may attempt to bill for damage to the track and crossing and for the consequentials on delays etc. IIRC, if it is found that NR is wholly or partially responsible then the insurer can try to claim the TOC bill against them.

Note that if the vehicle was not suitably insured then the driver and/or his employer will have to do the legal work!

 

[BestWestern]

A few years ago, a suicidal person jumped in front of a 395 on the Medway Valley line, only to be lifted by the nose cone and deposited in a position of safety.

At 140mph?!

 

[Mintona]

At 140mph?!

The Medway Valley line is the Strood-Maidstone West-Paddock Wood line, not HS1

 

[sjoh]

given that the third rail must've been live at the time of the incident, i can only assume there's a third rail break at level crossings?

 

[Elecman]

The 3rd rail is always broken at Level crossings for obvious reasons, ussual for a couple of metreeither side of the roadway.

 

[KingJ]

Supposedly as a result of this accident, Southeastern have short formed one service this evening and have cancelled another - details.

Given one unit was damaged by this, I can see why the 17:50 was reduced from 12 carriages to 6 - but i'm not sure why the 17:25 would be outright cancelled?

(A slightly cynical view would be that they have another unit that is out of action anyway, but have decided to use this accident as a convenient excuse to cover that? But I am curious if there would be a reason related to this accident!)

 

[MikeWh]

Supposedly as a result of this accident, Southeastern have short formed one service this evening and have cancelled another - details.

Given one unit was damaged by this, I can see why the 17:50 was reduced from 12 carriages to 6 - but i'm not sure why the 17:25 would be outright cancelled?

(A slightly cynical view would be that they have another unit that is out of action anyway, but have decided to use this accident as a convenient excuse to cover that? But I am curious if there would be a reason related to this accident!)

Originally they tweeted two short formed services and one cancellation. I called them out. They said it reduced the amount of cover for units being serviced. I said they'd still have affected two trains if yesterday hadn't happened.

 

[SPADTrap]

Originally they tweeted two short formed services and one cancellation. I called them out. They said it reduced the amount of cover for units being serviced. I said they'd still have affected two trains if yesterday hadn't happened.

Yep, spotters know more..

It hurts.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Originally they tweeted two short formed services and one cancellation. I called them out. They said it reduced the amount of cover for units being serviced. I said they'd still have affected two trains if yesterday hadn't happened.

If the train involved in the collision was made up of two units, both units would need to be checked for damage - units are designed to spread the force of a collision throughout the train to prevent any one part of the train suffering casualties. Hence two short formations. The braking system on both units would also need to be checked, as well as other systems. The cancellation may have been the train the driver was due to work next. I don't know - I'm just guessing.

 

[XCTurbostar]

Looks nasty. My thoughts are with those involved including the van driver but is sadly another instance which will be used in the saga of removing level crossings.. We’ll just have to see what the outcome of this one was.

 

[najaB]

...but is sadly another instance which will be used in the saga of removing level crossings...

What's sad about closing level crossings? They limit line speeds, cause delays to traffic and are the single highest cause of risk on the railway.

 

[nom de guerre]

Quick follow-up: the van driver crossed without contacting the signaller.

 

[najaB]

Quick follow-up: the van driver crossed without contacting the signaller.

I hope he loses his licence.

 

[4069]

Just ask yourself this: if he had never seen a user worked level crossing before, how was he supposed to work out that he had to contact the signaller, and was there anything to warn him about what might happen if he didn't?

Did the signs at the crossing make both of those things clear? I mean really clear, clear enough to actually explain what to do?

 

[Bald Rick]

Just ask yourself this: if he had never seen a user worked level crossing before, how was he supposed to work out that he had to contact the signaller, and was there anything to warn him about what might happen if he didn't?

Did the signs at the crossing make both of those things clear? I mean really clear, clear enough to actually explain what to do?

The big red sign that says "Stop. Always telephone before crossing with vehicles..." on the same post as a telephone, right next to the gate, is abundantly clear.

 

[najaB]

Did the signs at the crossing make both of those things clear? I mean really clear, clear enough to actually explain what to do?

If the signs were present then yes, they are quite clear and explicit as to the requirement to call before crossing.

 

[D365]

Did the signs at the crossing make both of those things clear? I mean really clear, clear enough to actually explain what to do?

Have you ever seen a user worked level crossing?

 

[nom de guerre]

Just ask yourself this: if he had never seen a user worked level crossing before, how was he supposed to work out that he had to contact the signaller, and was there anything to warn him about what might happen if he didn't?

Plentiful signage, containing instructions and warnings?

The presence of a telephone, to contact the signaller?

The fact the gates were closed to road traffic?

Did the signs at the crossing make both of those things clear? I mean really clear, clear enough to actually explain what to do?

I'm not aware that the signage has been changed since the incident, and trains do not regularly hit vehicles at this crossing.

Equally, you might ask yourself this: if you had never used an UWC before, and were confused by the signs and/or instructions, would you pick up the telephone and ask for advice, or open the gates and plough on regardless?

Also, it appears a second party was present at the crossing at the time of the incident and their actions should have left the van driver in no doubt as to whether it was safe to cross the line without contacting the signaller.

 

[pacenotes]

Quick one, How long would it take for the train to stop?