Collision and derailment on RH&DR

[TBirdFrank]

I do not see exactly what point you are making - please clarify.

Surely the NR level crossing case the other day shows that previous operating practices and assumptions need revisiting.

Occupation crossing practice was written in the days of horse and cart and hay stooks, not John Deeres and forty ton loads.The risks today are completely different.

The RAIB reports according to its own standing orders.

The CPS prosecutes if there is sufficient evidence.

As yet there is no outcome,hence why I do not see what on earth you are blethering about.

 

[alexl92]

Surely the NR level crossing case the other day shows that previous operating practices and assumptions need revisiting.

Occupation crossing practice was written in the days of horse and cart and hay stooks, not John Deeres and forty ton loads.The risks today are completely different.

But a John Deere with a 40-ton load driving on a farm track or road can still stop a heck of a lot faster than a train with however many carriages.

The user must make sure it is safe to cross before doing so, because the railway has priority. Just as in the UK, pedestrians must make sure it is safe for them to cross a road before stepping out.

I can't comment on this case because I don't know what happened but in other recent level crossing cases, aside from that for which NR has just been fined, it has generally been the user who has been in error. In my opinion the rules are fine.

 

[paul1609]

But a John Deere with a 40-ton load driving on a farm track or road can still stop a heck of a lot faster than a train with however many carriages.

The user must make sure it is safe to cross before doing so, because the railway has priority. Just as in the UK, pedestrians must make sure it is safe for them to cross a road before stepping out.

I can't comment on this case because I don't know what happened but in other recent level crossing cases, aside from that for which NR has just been fined, it has generally been the user who has been in error. In my opinion the rules are fine.

Its still inappropriate to comment before the safety digest is published. As well as the road user all railways have duties on these crossings to have carried out risk assessments, ensure that the sighting distances are maintained-through vegetation control, fences gates and signage have been maintained and forthe crossing surface to be maintained so that road vehicles don't become trapped.

 

[notverydeep]

The RAIB have published their safety digest about this accident. It appears the tractor had stopped with a counterweight at the front fouling the track. It had just started to reverse at the time of the impact. Incorrect use of the crossing and no briefing of the occupier are indicated in common with several previous accidents. The report seems to imply that the train driver could have braked earlier than they did.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ng-collision-near-dymchurch-10-september-2016

 

[2HAP]

I'd put the blame squarely on the tractor driver. The sign is clear enough. Always phone before crossing, close gates after crossing. All of which was far too much bother for him. The train was where it was supposed to be. The tractor was not.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Like I said in the immediate aftermath, there seems to be an assumption that the "little trains" would be able to stop much quicker than "real" ones. This of course forgets that it is still a steel wheel on a steel rail, so will not behave much differently simply because it is smaller.

A notice at each crossing (both public and occupation ones) on the RHDR reminding people of this would probably help.

 

[TBirdFrank]

The RAIB are now added to the bunch of paper pushing ****ing idiots who do NOT live in the real world. The railway has a legal parliamentary right to operate and is responsible for its own staff and for providing safe to use installations. To suggest that all 66,000,000 potential users in the UK should now be briefed by the railway before the line is operated is simple utter nonsense. Only in Britain

 

[DarloRich]

The RAIB are now added to the bunch of paper pushing ****ing idiots who do NOT live in the real world. The railway has a legal parliamentary right to operate and is responsible for its own staff and for providing safe to use installations. To suggest that all 66,000,000 potential users in the UK should now be briefed by the railway before the line is operated is simple utter nonsense. Only in Britain

but that isnt what the report says at all - And you must know that so why the over the top hyperbole?

An example of what RAIB actually mean: My friend ( a farmer in North Yorkshire) has his land bisected by a railway line. He has rights to use a UWC. He and his family and his direct staff are well aware of how to use the crossing. After an incident on a farmers crossing NR wrote to him suggesting he advise any temporary or contract workers how to use the crossing. These people are provided by contracting companies to operate his agricultural machinery at busy times and many of these chaps have poor English. He drew up a simple one page sheet for distribution to these companies telling them how to use the crossing.

 

[edwin_m]

The RAIB are now added to the bunch of paper pushing ****ing idiots who do NOT live in the real world. The railway has a legal parliamentary right to operate and is responsible for its own staff and for providing safe to use installations. To suggest that all 66,000,000 potential users in the UK should now be briefed by the railway before the line is operated is simple utter nonsense. Only in Britain

The point is that this crossing is only for use by the local farmer and those working on that farm. There's a bit of a loophole if it's the public access to the farm and therefore could be used by any visitors, but I don't think that applies here. Public level crossings are "briefed" to users via the Highway Code.

 

[QueensCurve]

but that isnt what the report says at all - And you must know that so why the over the top hyperbole?

An example of what RAIB actually mean: My friend ( a farmer in North Yorkshire) has his land bisected by a railway line. He has rights to use a UWC. He and his family and his direct staff are well aware of how to use the crossing. After an incident on a farmers crossing NR wrote to him suggesting he advise any temporary or contract workers how to use the crossing. These people are provided by contracting companies to operate his agricultural machinery at busy times and many of these chaps have poor English. He drew up a simple one page sheet for distribution to these companies telling them how to use the crossing.

In this case, given the small population of users for the crossing, breifing the people who might use it seems a reasonably practicable risk reduction measure.

 

[SussexMan]

I am assuming that in the past, research has been undertaken which looks at a requirement to do something when that requirement seems out of proportion to the need to do it or benefit in doing it.

In this case the requirement is to phone a number before crossing with a vehicle or animals. If the person wanting to cross can't see the rationale for making that phone call, they probably won't. For example, the farmer crossing at 5am one morning or the tractor driver with a mate who can see down the line and can see there is no train in sight.

Or maybe they have rung in the past only to not get an answer or get some answerphone message because the railway is shut. Or perhaps been told to wait but find they have to wait 5 minutes because all the signalman knows is that there is a train somewhere between point A & B and the crossing is in between A & B. So they wait 5 mins, train passes and then they cross but then thinks, it would have taken me 10 sec to cross but I had to wait 5 min.

 

[TBirdFrank]

Not hyperbole at all, and nor is it possible to take such an easy line as yours, and suggest that the likely users of an occupation crossing are going to be restricted to a handful of identifiable users.

An occupation crossing may be considerably more than a link between working fields and be a main farm drive used by the postman, the milk tanker, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all - so my point stands.

I am very much of the opinion that this country runs subject to adults being responsible for their own actions. Railways and level crossings have been around for a couple of hundred years with well honed legal frameworks governing their use. Drivers should be aware of their responsibilities to use crossings properly without wet nursing, or should not be at the wheel. Its called driving without due care, or dangerous driving, or causing death by dangerous driving.

In this case there was no fault with the railway but there was with the tractor driver and he and/or his employer should be held 100% responsible

 

[edwin_m]

Not hyperbole at all, and nor is it possible to take such an easy line as yours, and suggest that the likely users of an occupation crossing are going to be restricted to a handful of identifiable users.

An occupation crossing may be considerably more than a link between working fields and be a main farm drive used by the postman, the milk tanker, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all - so my point stands.

I am very much of the opinion that this country runs subject to adults being responsible for their own actions. Railways and level crossings have been around for a couple of hundred years with well honed legal frameworks governing their use. Drivers should be aware of their responsibilities to use crossings properly without wet nursing, or should not be at the wheel. Its called driving without due care, or dangerous driving, or causing death by dangerous driving.

In this case there was no fault with the railway but there was with the tractor driver and he and/or his employer should be held 100% responsible

As I posted two or three back, that is a problem with some occupation crossings but not with this particular one, since it appears to be linking fields rather than being the route from the main road to the farmhouse. And if drivers were fully aware of their responsibilities then neither useage would be a problem anyway.

 

[philthetube]

The RAIB have published their safety digest about this accident. It appears the tractor had stopped with a counterweight at the front fouling the track. It had just started to reverse at the time of the impact. Incorrect use of the crossing and no briefing of the occupier are indicated in common with several previous accidents. The report seems to imply that the train driver could have braked earlier than they did.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ng-collision-near-dymchurch-10-september-2016

I imagine that while the tractor would be easy to see the weight on the front would be much less so, possibly why the driver did not brake earlier.

 

[edwin_m]

I imagine that while the tractor would be easy to see the weight on the front would be much less so, possibly why the driver did not brake earlier.

It also means that the tractor would have to stop with the cab further back to be safely clear of the line. The driver might have stopped at the "normal" position relative to the crossing, due to either forgetting about the weight or being unable to get a good view from further away.

 

[alexl92]

It also means that the tractor would have to stop with the cab further back to be safely clear of the line. The driver might have stopped at the "normal" position relative to the crossing, due to either forgetting about the weight or being unable to get a good view from further away.

I think that's what the report suggests happened, if I understood correctly.

 

[2HAP]

None of which absolves him of blame, as he hadn't phoned to check the line was clear before passing through the gates.

 

[notverydeep]

None of which absolves him of blame, as he hadn't phoned to check the line was clear before passing through the gates.

While the immediate cause was indicated as an action on the part of the tractor driver, the digest does suggest that the railway had not done all it could to mitigate the risk of this occurrence.

This is an important element because it was the railway's staff and passengers that suffered the thankfully minor consequences in this case. The absence of these mitigations is a little surprising in the case of the RH&DR, given the much more serious consequences of crossing miss-use on two previous occasions, albeit at a different type of crossing to this one.

The RAIB has been fairly consistent in its suggestion that both Network Rail and Heritage railways can and should do more to reduce the risk to passengers and staff from errors made by crossing users - as well as the risk to crossing users themselves. These recommendations have spanned many different types of crossing including UWCs in several cases. The managers of the RH&DR and other railways should be reading these and implementing relevant recommendations as part of their professional duty of care to customers and staff.

Blaming crossing users is all very well, I am not saying they don't have a responsibility, they clearly do. However, I am reminded a late friend who as a motorcyclist and instructor frequently observed that most accidental deaths of motorcyclists and cyclists were the fault of motorists. In his case it was, but that is not much help to him written on his grave stone.