Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The cause of the tragic Bedford train crash that killed a driver has been revealed.
Shaun Burton, 60, was driving an East Midlands Railway service when it hit the back of a stationary train run by the same operator.
Investigators have confirmed the stationary train had come to an unexpected stop because a fault with its own warning equipment caused the brakes to apply.
This failure automatically turned the signal behind it to red.
But just nine seconds before the crash, Shaun's approaching train was still travelling at 76mph.
Data recovered from the wreckage reveals the brakes were suddenly applied, reducing the speed to 49mph upon impact.
The horror smash at Elstow injured 162 people, leaving 53 in hospital and eight in a critical condition.
Forward-facing CCTV shows the signal was clearly displaying red as Shaun's train approached and passed it.
Yet investigators have stressed they do not know if the automatic warning system inside his cab gave him the correct audio and visual alerts.
The Rail Accident Investigation Branch says “it is not yet possible to say what indication the driver received” before the tragedy.
The full investigation will now consider the actions of everyone involved and any factors that may have influenced them.
The Daily Express article is poorly worded in my opinion, especially the part that says " This failure automatically turned the signal behind it to red", which is what @158143 has understandably picked up non.
This is just nonsense; the signal would have simply remained red. The journalist who wrote that could have easily got someone who understands the subject to proof read it, but they chose not to.
Edit: also see @Mile Post 13 's reply below, which I thoroughly agree with.
Its factually incorrect because, as I interpret it, it implies that the stopping of the train caused to signal in rear to go to red - which of course is incorrect
Its factually incorrect because, as I interpret it, it implies that the stopping of the train caused to signal in rear to go to red - which of course is incorrect
Investigators have confirmed the stationary train had come to an unexpected stop because a fault with its own warning equipment caused the brakes to apply.
This failure automatically turned the signal behind it to red
Exactly and would have remained red. The article seems to suggest - as @185143 points out - that the signal 'reverted', but as far as I know, there is no evidence for this, or suggestion of this being the case.
I believe the author simply doesn't understand the subject, and yet is writing an article as if they do, which is poor journalism in my opinion.
Yes, and it would have remained red because it stopped and didn't clear the section.
To claim that article is misleading is just pedantry. Papers like the Express are well versed in writing accessible summaries for their readers - rail enthusiasts rather less so, I'd suggest!
Yes, and it would have remained red because it stopped and didn't clear the section.
To claim that article is misleading is just pedantry. Papers like the Express are well versed in writing accessible summaries for their readers - rail enthusiasts rather less so, I'd suggest!
It's not pedantry, because to those not familiar with the operation of railway signalling, one might conclude that the signal turned red just before the Corby driver passed it.
Yes, and it would have remained red because it stopped and didn't clear the section.
To claim that article is misleading is just pedantry. Papers like the Express are well versed in writing accessible summaries for their readers - rail enthusiasts rather less so, I'd suggest!
To claim that article is misleading is just pedantry. Papers like the Express are well versed in writing accessible summaries for their readers - rail enthusiasts rather less so, I'd suggest!
It is misleading. It was not a failure of the AWS which caused the signal to be red, as the rag implies. It went red simply because the train was there, and would have done so whether the train had a fault or not.
Yes, and it would have remained red because it stopped and didn't clear the section.
To claim that article is misleading is just pedantry. Papers like the Express are well versed in writing accessible summaries for their readers - rail enthusiasts rather less so, I'd suggest!
The writer either not understanding or maybe some other reason.
In practice, all signals that have a red aspect revert to red (although we don't normally use this term for this), in this case the signal reverted to red when the first train that passed the signal travelled onto the next track circuit. The track circuit detecting the train in section put the signal to red. It then remained red because the track circuit was occupied.
I disagree; I appreciate you are entitled to your opinion, but clearly several other forum members disagree. I suggest we leave it there as you have your opinion and we have ours, and it's clear you're not going to budge.
You have a lot more faith in such publications than I do.
I also don't think you can make any presumptions about the people disagreeing with you; many of whom work within or for the rail industry and some of whom may actually do jobs where clear and effective communication is very important.
The Daily Express and many other similar publications just use click bait headlines and articles to get traffic...and therefore advertising revenue...through their website (you will notice on Facebook for example they'll put up a post with the click bait headline then a link to follow through as the first comment of the post that goes to the article on their website)
Always makes me laugh when they come out with nonsense like 'ITV The Chase AXED in HUGE schedule shake up' - only for the article to go on and mention it has just been taken off air for the day because the horse racing is on!
The RAIB's preliminary report includes the statement "Data from railway systems recorded that the track circuit for the section of track on which train 1B67 was standing was shown as occupied. The signal interlocking would have therefore changed the signal behind the train, WH154, to display a red (danger) aspect, with the intention of protecting train 1B67 from other train movements."
We all know that the signal would have been at red from when the train entered the section, but the wording above does give the impression that the signal turned to red as a consequence of the train's unexpected stop.
Always makes me laugh when they come out with nonsense like 'ITV The Chase AXED in HUGE schedule shake up' - only for the article to go on and mention it has just been taken off air for the day because the horse racing is on!
Surely it’s correct but only to a point; with the train being in section, yes it was “automatically” changed to a red as you might expect; what was unexpected is that it didn’t step up to a different aspect as normally that train would continue at line speed. It states “this failure” caused it to be red which is not technically true, more that it came to a stand and therefore was at red. I wouldn’t suggest it is misleading though, personally.
Honestly, I’ve seen much worse reporting on this incident that this snippet suggests. This is just written in layman’s terms and most people don’t have an inkling of knowledge about the operational terms of the railway - or indeed any industry.
I certainly didn’t read that the signal reverted from that snippet, as the OP suggests.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
We all know that the signal would have been at red from when the train entered the section, but the wording above does give the impression that the signal turned to red as a consequence of the train's unexpected stop.
I guess it could have been worded slightly better to state “automatically changed and then remained at red” but again you have to be careful it doesn’t get too convoluted and unclear whilst trying not to get into technical detail that the readership wouldn’t understand.
No, because you understand how the signalling system works. But the implication to the layman is that the fault was the direct cause of the signal going to red, when you and I and most people on this forum would realise that it would have gone to red anyway. The fault was the indirect cause of the signal still being at red when the second train reached it, but only because the fault caused the first train to stop in the section, so the section was still occupied and the signal didn't clear.
A fault causing the signal to revert to red in front of the first train would have resulted in the driver making an emergency stop, (as happened at Clapham) but there has been no suggestion this is what happened.
Don't get worked up about this. The Express is not important and can be ignored. It sells 102,000 a day - well that's what the UK Press Gazette reported before they realised there was no point in covering print circulations any more. That'a about 3 copies per outlet. Even their click traffic is declining. They have no money for writers and the main job is to get clickbait online asap.
Don't get worked up about this. The Express is not important and can be ignored. It sells 102,000 a day - well that's what the UK Press Gazette reported before they realised there was no point in covering print circulations any more. That'a about 3 copies per outlet. Even their click traffic is declining. They have no money for writers and the main job is to get clickbait online asap.
The press really does not (and cannot be expected to) understand the details of railway operations, but they should be expected to gain information and quotes from experts which are accurate and helpful. Good journalism depends on this.
There is almost always a compromise between detailed accuracy and making the story accessible to readers who will probably only understand road-related examples (signals being compared to traffic lights being a common one).
In that case you might want to see today's Guardian which has an excellent accessible quality report. You only have to look at the respective cover price of the various "news"papers to realise where to find quality journalism
I see the Express is now foaming at the mouth online about RAIB's latest update stating that the stationary train was stopped by the AWS fault.
The trouble is that they (like other tabloids) want to find either a hero to put on a pedestal or someone to hound out of their job, or preferably both. And of course they can't wait for due process because then it's old news and doesn't sell so many papers/get so many clicks, so actually they don't want to know about accurate, reasoned explanations.
The problem with the statement as I see it is that it could be interpreted that, if there hadn't been a fault with the AWS which turned the signal to red, the signal would have remained green after the 810 had passed it. So if, for instance, a train had made a routine station stop there would be nothing to prevent a following train crashing into it. Or at least, my wife interpreted it that way and said it had put her off travelling by train in future.
No national media outlet ever covers any technical issues well unless it is a trade specific title (e.g. Modern Railways) and at a parochial level the words ‘local’ and ‘crap’ are completely interchangeable where the media are concerned.
I’d trust the writers of Viz over any newspaper on railway details.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
