Collision with tractor near Leominster (22/05/25)

[RailwayRookie]

Would they need to be called out? Or can it be done from Cardiff ROC? When speaking to a signaller a while back the impression I was given was that the recordings of the crossing phones could be remotely monitored.

This is true, all comms can be remotely monitored, and thats any phone call not just crossings. It doesnt have to be a ROC or IECC either. Anyone with Internet access and the right permissions can listen to them from home if they really wanted to.

 

[AlterEgo]

Nor was there any basis for an allegation that the tractor driver was misusing the crossing. Rather, I was (and remain) surprised at the difference in approach to the three major protagonists by the police.

For what it's worth, my thoughts lean towards that the driver never should have been arrested, rather than encouraging police interviews of rail personnel in the event of an incident.

Indeed.

It may be the case the tractor driver said something at the scene which raised suspicion but it seems unlikely. If a tractor trailer ends up getting hit by a train there are four likely human sources to consider by the police. The driver of the road vehicle, the driver of the train, the signaller, or someone responsible for maintenance of the train.

It's notable that car/vehicle drivers are routinely told they get away with murder all the time but the reality is in this case, the tractor driver:

- followed all safety procedures correctly
- was qualified and competent to drive
- drove, indeed, to the proper standard
- had his property destroyed as a result of a third party's incompetence, and was a victim

They were arrested, and on bail, presumably, for the best part of a year.

The signaller:

- was a competent and safety critical member of staff with several years' experience
- turned up to work fatigued, and knowingly so
- gave permission for the tractor to cross when it was not safe to do so, contrary to their training
- did not check the block instrument, contrary to their training
- used their mobile phone while undertaking safety critical duties, contrary to policy
- caused a serious accident which hospitalised two people and damaged railway and private property, and could well have killed someone

No police consequences.

I'm not making a determination on if "the signaller should face severe consequences". However I invite others to reflect on what might have happened had the tractor driver been working unexpectedly, tired, after a family emergency, under pressure from an older colleague, and in doing so wilfully drove their vehicle in such an obviously dangerous way (and indeed in a way which was ingrained, a regular occurrence, and reckless) and caused an accident on the road.

I would love to know what the police's reasonable suspicion here is. You can't just arrest someone who you find at the scene of an accident because "well it's usually the tractor driver's fault when a train and tractor crash isn't it". If the police come because my wife has died at home they can't arrest me unless they reasonably suspect foul play by me because of evidence they gather or witness at the time, despite it "usually being the husband who did it".

 

[Taunton]

Strange that a knowledgeable enthusiast/observer could knock up from Real Time Trains a pretty accurate prediction of when there would be a train approaching any crossing on either line, to double-check what the signaller was telling them, this being Open Source data taken from industry sources.

But the industry itself appears, from the multiple incidents of crossing accidents on rural lines, to turn its back on these sources, stick with methods of 100 years ago where you just say "passed the section signal, all I know", and that's it.

 

[Harpo]

Strange that a knowledgeable enthusiast/observer could knock up from Real Time Trains a pretty accurate prediction of when there would be a train approaching any crossing on either line, to double-check what the signaller was telling them. This being Open Source data taken from industry sources. But the industry itself appears, from the multiple incidents of crossing accidents on rural lines, to turn its back on these sources, stick with methods of 100 years ago where you just say "passed the section signal, all I know", and that's it.

There’s a huge difference between a piece of proprietary software and a safety critical system. Especially in the price.

 

[Krokodil]

Nor was there any basis for an allegation that the tractor driver was misusing the crossing.

Did the officers know that at the time? Until established that the signaller had given permission then it was certainly a possibility.

rather than encouraging police interviews of rail personnel in the event of an incident.

Which is certainly something they've done in the past, I vaguely recall something from perhaps the early 2000s on the WCML.

Strange that a knowledgeable enthusiast/observer could knock up from Real Time Trains a pretty accurate prediction of when there would be a train approaching any crossing on either line, to double-check what the signaller was telling them. This being Open Source data taken from industry sources. But the industry itself appears, from the multiple incidents of crossing accidents on rural lines, to turn its back on these sources, stick with methods of 100 years ago where you just say "passed the section signal, all I know", and that's it.

Isn't there a trial on the Heart of Wales Line for something that would provide signallers with a better idea of where in a long section a train actually is, for this purpose?

 

[AlterEgo]

Did the officers know that at the time? Until established that the signaller had given permission then it was certainly a possibility.

The key thing is "on what grounds did they suspect the tractor driver *didn't have* permission?" necessitating their arrest?

 

[Taunton]

I don't think you are going to get an apology from the police for this. They don't do things like that.

There’s a huge difference between a piece of proprietary software and a safety critical system. Especially in the price.

I think many of us here are well aware of that, but the fact that the data comes from the railway industry itself but they don't use it is a notable thing. I suspect it's more reliable than "Stop Look Listen" boards. Aviation works well on radar returns and predictions on where the aircraft might go.

 

[Harpo]

the fact that the data comes from the railway industry itself but they don't use it is a notable thing.

It’s not completely unused as I presume it’s the same data that populates train positioning systems used on an information-only basis by controls and signalboxes?

I’m not an engineer but I’d guess that as soon as that data exits signalling systems it can’t be considered reliable for safety decisions without an awful lot of safeguards?

 

[matchmaker]

You're right it is rare. However I do think Stockport (No.2?) may be one other location using two signallers during the day?

I think Stirling Middle has two, although one is on the SAK panel, rather than the frame.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Which is certainly something they've done in the past, I vaguely recall something from perhaps the early 2000s on the WCML.

I recall that too. Somewhere in southern Scotland I think. realtively minor derailment (no serious injuries) . Driver arrested and Police (was it local or BTP?) wanted to interview all the passengers. Meanwhile RAIB were prevented from accessing the site to check for evidence that deriorates, such as pressure in the brake pipes.

 

[JamesT]

The key thing is "on what grounds did they suspect the tractor driver *didn't have* permission?" necessitating their arrest?

A train ran into their tractor? What percentage of the time where there is a collision at a crossing is it not the road side misusing it?

 

[35B]

Did the officers know that at the time? Until established that the signaller had given permission then it was certainly a possibility.

I've no idea, hence my caution in jumping to conclusions. But "it was a possibility" is not "reasonable suspicion", and I then struggle with the inconsistency of treatment of the three people who, by the performance of their paid duties, could have directly caused the collision.

 

[Taunton]

Isn't there a trial on the Heart of Wales Line for something that would provide signallers with a better idea of where in a long section a train actually is, for this purpose?

It does seem bizarre that parents can look on a little phone app and see exactly where their children's train is on their way home from school, but the railway themselves have found it impossible to use the same technology to find where their trains are.

More sophisticated off-the-shelf applications are already widely used by heavy plant providers to show on a large screen back at base exactly where all their excavators are, which way they are pointing, speed, fuel level, engine hours, mileage, driver's name and qualifications, everything.

 

[AlterEgo]

A train ran into their tractor? What percentage of the time where there is a collision at a crossing is it not the road side misusing it?

"It's usually the car driver's fault" is not grounds for arrest in the same way as "it is usually the spouse who did it" wouldn't be grounds to arrest the husband of a deceased woman immediately without any evidence.

The test is that there must be concrete facts or intelligence that would lead a reasonable, impartial person to the exact same conclusion of suspicion. In this case it is assumed no facts existed other than a train crashed into a tractor trailer. Doesn't seem reasonable or impartial to arrest one party based on the fact other people in the past have committed similar offences.

And while we are on the subject of misuse, if NR detected how many times the crossing here was misused annually by the signallers with their unsafe working practices which were an accident waiting to happen - how many instances would that be?

 

[Harpo]

It does seem bizarre that parents can look on a little phone app and see exactly where their children's train is on their way home from school, but the railway themselves have found it impossible to use the same technology to find where their trains are.

But you wouldn't use it to tell a child that they can cross the road safely. It's information only.

 

[WAB]

It does seem bizarre that parents can look on a little phone app and see exactly where their children's train is on their way home from school, but the railway themselves have found it impossible to use the same technology to find where their trains are.

More sophisticated off-the-shelf applications are already widely used by heavy plant providers to show on a large screen back at base exactly where all their excavators are, which way they are pointing, speed, fuel level, engine hours, mileage, driver's name and qualifications, everything.

this is all already available for many fleets, but it’s being able to rely on the data when even a brief delay or lag could have serious consequences.

 

[zwk500]

Strange that a knowledgeable enthusiast/observer could knock up from Real Time Trains a pretty accurate prediction of when there would be a train approaching any crossing on either line, to double-check what the signaller was telling them. This being Open Source data taken from industry sources. But the industry itself appears, from the multiple incidents of crossing accidents on rural lines, to turn its back on these sources, stick with methods of 100 years ago where you just say "passed the section signal, all I know", and that's it.

One problem with integrating the TOC GPS data with signalling displays is that GPS is by it's nature geographic, while the signalling displays are inherently diagramattic. That means you either need to do a lot of processing in the background to match geographic positions to the signalling display to get the information required, or provide a separate display that will require the signaller to take their attention off the signalling to check the level crossing situation.
This is, of course, little different to operating a MCB or MCB-CCTV crossing, but it is an additional impact on workload that would need to be considered before the geographic screen could be fitted.

However, the industry is not unaware of the possibilities of the data. I think this system has been mentioned before, but the industry is looking at how to use better data without needing to get into expensive changes to signalling:

The video shows Universal Signalling proposing a system that is stand-alone from the signalling, utilises a separate reader so doesn't need modification to stock, and utilises cheap beacons that can be secured directly to existing sleepers so needs minimal possession access to install. It provides a geographic readout in the signalbox of the position of a train in the section and it's proximity to the level crossings, ranked on a red-amber-green proximity by approximate time until the train passes the crossing. Network Rail installed it on the Heart of Wales line as a trial.

 

[Annetts key]

Strange that a knowledgeable enthusiast/observer could knock up from Real Time Trains a pretty accurate prediction of when there would be a train approaching any crossing on either line, to double-check what the signaller was telling them. This being Open Source data taken from industry sources. But the industry itself appears, from the multiple incidents of crossing accidents on rural lines, to turn its back on these sources, stick with methods of 100 years ago where you just say "passed the section signal, all I know", and that's it.

I don't think you are going to get an apology from the police for this. They don't do things like that.



I think many of us here are well aware of that, but the fact that the data comes from the railway industry itself but they don't use it is a notable thing. I suspect it's more reliable than "Stop Look Listen" boards. Aviation works well on radar returns and predictions on where the aircraft might go.

It’s not completely unused as I presume it’s the same data that populates train positioning systems used on an information-only basis by controls and signalboxes?

I’m not an engineer but I’d guess that as soon as that data exits signalling systems it can’t be considered reliable for safety decisions without an awful lot of safeguards?

The base information that web sites like Real Time Trains and all the others use comes from Network Rail, but it's coming from a non-safety critical system (normally the train describer system or TD). Hence it can't be relied on for any safety critical use.

There are countless failure modes that may result in a train not being shown, or not being shown in the correct berth.

In most cases, especially for long sections, the TD is not very accurate, as it only gets reporting information when a train passes a section signal (an automatic or controlled signal that can show a red / danger aspect). If these signals are three miles aapart, it can't tell you where in that three mile section the train is...

In mechanical signal box areas the TD may get some of it's movement data by signallers (or other staff) manually entering the details. If the update is late or wrong...

What you may see on the web sites may include a computed position - that is, a computer is calculating where the train is expected to be, not it's actual position. It would be extremely unwise to use such 'information' to 'help' with the safety of level crossings.

 

[43096]

What you may see on the web sites may include a computed position - that is, a computer is calculating where the train is expected to be, not it's actual position. It would be extremely unwise to use such 'information' to 'help' with the safety of level crossings.

But relying on the capability of the supposed professional staff involved didn't exactly 'help' with the safety of this crossing, did it.

 

[Krokodil]

It does seem bizarre that parents can look on a little phone app and see exactly where their children's train is on their way home from school, but the railway themselves have found it impossible to use the same technology to find where their trains are.

More sophisticated off-the-shelf applications are already widely used by heavy plant providers to show on a large screen back at base exactly where all their excavators are, which way they are pointing, speed, fuel level, engine hours, mileage, driver's name and qualifications, everything.

Before authorising someone to cross the line, you need to be absolutely sure that the train still is 10 miles away and isn't actually 1 mile away but the signal hasn't updated. The system has to "fail safe".

"It's usually the car driver's fault" is not grounds for arrest in the same way as "it is usually the spouse who did it" wouldn't be grounds to arrest the husband of a deceased woman immediately without any evidence.

In alleged domestic abuse cases it's not uncommon for the police to be arresting one of the individuals even if the grounds was just "neighbours heard some shouting". They do it as a precaution, because of how much grief they'd get if they didn't make an arrest and it later turned fatal.

The other factor that may have influenced the decision to arrest one party and not the others is that the driver instructor was injured and medical care would have been the priority.

 

[AlterEgo]

In alleged domestic abuse cases it's not uncommon for the police to be arresting one of the individuals even if the grounds was just "neighbours heard some shouting".

That is evidence; it would be reasonable to arrest the tractor driver if someone at the scene said they saw him cross recklessly or without using the phone. Likewise, if I crash my car and someone says they saw me doing about 90mph and dangerously overtook, that might well be reasonable suspicion.

As it was, several witnesses were all present (they were assisting with opening and closing the gates to effect a speedy and responsible crossing) who all must have witnessed the driver use the phone and cross normally. One assumes they told the police the same.

 

[Krokodil]

That is evidence

It's evidence that the neighbour heard some shouting. Not that a crime was committed.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's evidence that the neighbour heard some shouting. Not that a crime was committed.

It is evidence and could be admissible in court "I heard shouting coming from the property at the same time the victim claims to have been hit" is evidence.

Regardless, we are talking about reasonable suspicion to arrest which is a much lower threshold than that.

 

[Krokodil]

It is evidence and could be admissible in court "I heard shouting coming from the property at the same time the victim claims to have been hit" is evidence.

Except that the alleged victim has not claimed to have been hit, in fact they are practically holding onto their partner's ankles in a bid to stop them being taken to the nick.

Regardless, we are talking about reasonable suspicion to arrest which is a much lower threshold than that.

I can't see the tractor driver winning a "wrongful arrest" suit.

 

[MadMac]

Before authorising someone to cross the line, you need to be absolutely sure that the train still is 10 miles away and isn't actually 1 mile away but the signal hasn't updated. The system has to "fail safe".

Something sticks in my mind about a “near miss” somewhere in the fairly recent past where it emerged that the display showed the crossing concerned in the wrong position relative to its supposedly “protecting” signal. Questions were no doubt asked about just how that eluded the various stages of checking…..

 

[AlterEgo]

I can't see the tractor driver winning a "wrongful arrest" suit.

It's not about that, it's about the fact the police arrested the tractor driver when it turns out the person who actually caused the accident was miles away, because of their own preconceptions about who would be to blame, absent any evidence to support it. In fact, where vehicles have been struck by a train, it is frequently the case that the railway has been to blame and not the vehicle driver.

Report 04/2017: Collision at Hockham Road user worked crossing

Collision between a train and tractor at Hockham Road user worked crossing, Thetford on 10 April 2016.

www.gov.uk

Report 12/2018: Collision at Frognal Farm User Worked Crossing

Collision at Frognal Farm User Worked Crossing, 23 October 2017.

www.gov.uk

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b5891d740f0b6338b116dd3/R082018_180719_Stainforth_Road.pdf

Report 05/2025: Passenger train collision with a road vehicle at Redcar level crossing

Passenger train collision with a road vehicle at Redcar level crossing, Redcar and Cleveland, 1 May 2024.

www.gov.uk

Report 07/2016: Collision between train and tractor at Oakwood Farm User Worked Crossing

Collision between a train and a tractor at Oakwood Farm User Worked Crossing, Knaresborough, 14 May 2015.

www.gov.uk

Just a few non-exhaustive examples skimmed off RAIB's database which involved actual collisions in the last 9-10 years.

It's notable that the public gets told everyone misuses crossings all the time - maybe 3000 times a year - yet this method of working was patently unsafe, routine, and an accident waiting to happen. How many times a year did this happen at this signalbox alone? The call is coming from inside the house from NR's management, I think.

 

[AdamWW]

it's about the fact the police arrested the tractor driver when it turns out the person who actually caused the accident was miles away, because of their own preconceptions about who would be to blame, absent any evidence to support it.

Do we actually know the bit in bold is true?

 

[AlterEgo]

Do we actually know the bit in bold is true?

Given there was no evidence of any sort of misuse on the part of the tractor driver, and multiple witnesses who saw the incident, what other explanation could there be? Even posters here are saying "well they were driving a vehicle that got hit by a train, why wouldn't you arrest them?" (while not considering alternatives like "the driver is telling the truth and the signaller did give permission to cross") which is simply a massive presumption. Nobody thought about arresting the signaller "just in case they had committed an offence".

This presumption is baked into attitudes elsewhere mostly as a by-product of NR's consistent campaign about how it's always the stupid irresponsible public causing danger at crossings. That's not a criticism of the campaign - it is quite right for them to educate and deter the public from very risky behaviour. But the most dangerous factor at level crossings is actually the people in charge and the systems at play, which can be overriden or ignored, and lax management who are either complicit to this behaviour or blind to it. There is a much bigger picture to consider.

 

[AdamWW]

Given there was no evidence of any sort of misuse on the part of the tractor driver, and multiple witnesses who saw the incident, what other explanation could there be? Even posters here are saying "well they were driving a vehicle that got hit by a train, why wouldn't you arrest them?" (while not considering alternatives like "the driver is telling the truth and the signaller did give permission to cross") which is simply a massive presumption. Nobody thought about arresting the signaller "just in case they had committed an offence".

I don't know, but given that none of us were there and we're going by rather limited reporting I don't feel comfortable in making assumptions as to what the logic of the police was.

Skimming back through this thread it still doesn't seem to be entirely established that it was the tractor driver.

As it was, several witnesses were all present (they were assisting with opening and closing the gates to effect a speedy and responsible crossing) who all must have witnessed the driver use the phone and cross normally. One assumes they told the police the same.

I'm not sure that it would be reasonable to consider them independant witnesses given they were involved in the crossing process.

 

[AlterEgo]

Skimming back through this thread it still doesn't seem to be entirely established that it was the tractor driver.

It has been.

No further action will be taken against a man after a passenger train collided with his tractor and trailer in Herefordshire, the British Transport Police has said.

Leominster rail crash tractor driver to face no further action

The Department for Transport say the investigations into the crash are still ongoing.

www.bbc.co.uk