Derailment at Sudbury

[boing_uk]

Ahh the good old RMT, wading in with bold statements where others logically do not tread.

Level crossings are not unsafe; they are just less safe than bridges. By that very logic, driving is unsafe and everyone should walk or use public transport, yet I do not see the RMT calling for a ban on cars and HGV's.

But no, people are willing to accept a certain level of risk for cost and convenience and it is the same with level crossings. The cost to remove every level crossing, be it road, track or footway would cost an enormous amount of money and also cause one hell of an inconvenience.

How would, say, Lincoln High Street crossing be removed successfully? Or Bamber Bridge crossing? It would involve wholesale demolition of numerous properties and diversion of pedestrian desire lines. £1M per crossing is not just a conservative estimate, it is ludicrously so, particularly in more urbanised areas where there may be significant service diversions that could easily cost £1M in themselves, particularly for trunk mains.

The only surefire way of preventing people from cutting up railway barriers will be something like protecting the crossing with rising bollards, which to be fair will be MUCH cheaper than a road bridge and a damn sight more effective in stopping errant vehicles.

 

[Metroland]

Old Timer says what Paul 1609 was thinking but wouldnt put in print for fear of upsetting the railway taliban (Swanage Branch)

It's all speculation, I meanwhile have stuck to the facts as we know them so far.

There are a number of other transport professionals that get mighty upset when I point out things, usually backed with evidence. Do they not think it applies the other way about?

Personally, like other (ex) railwaymen I get very pi***ed off an offended when members of this forum or members of the public get into finger pointing and wild speculation about the short comings of the railway industry (of which there are some) but which often get lifted straight from the pages of the Daily Mail and do not paint a fair picture.

It may be popular to bash the railways, but I'm on this forum for the only one reason, as I always have been, not as a popularity contest, but to separate the myths from the facts because I am sick to the back teeth of people that whose intellectual processes seem little more than reciting what they have read in the tabloids.

While I am not saying you fit into the above Paul, you do have a record of glass half full bashing for no apparent reason. Just because other people do not have the backbone or are too proud to say anything, doesn't mean the rest have to sit back and take the constant drivel.

The real weakness of this forum is there are not enough people doing what I am doing.

If you want to know why enthusiasts get so much stick as well as the industry, look no further, you have yourselves entirely to blame.

 

[GearJammer]

Im off to bed GB, but i'd be very interested to hear what you (and anyone else that watched it) thought about that police camara action special? I thought it was largely very good, let down by a few things and barely scratched the surface on others.

 

[GB]

I guess there is only so much you can fit into a 45 minute programe. Backs up alot of what Metroland was saying though ie Fidling tachographs, driving while tired and poor regulation of the industry etc etc. But then this isnt really suprising though.

 

[O L Leigh]

I have to say that there are some points worth considering in this thread and some that are not.

I made some parallels to the fatal collision at Black Horse Drove in my earlier post, and I still think they stand up.

Black Horse Drove crossing is also a user-worked crossing with gates. However, due to it's slightly unusual legal position (the roadway between the boundary fence was never adopted even when the road either side of the crossing was) it additionally fitted with miniature red/green lights at the time the line was electrified due to the expected increase in train frequency and train speed. These did not prevent the fatal collision either because the tractor driver (who was English) found the crossing gates left open (witness evidence is contradictory on this point) or the tractor driver was complacent about the running of trains and believed the line to be clear based on experience (the train was running 7 minutes late).

The point I am trying to make is that a system is only as good as the people who use it. A user-worked crossing like Sewage Farm crossing that has a fairly high degree of usage is particularly vulnerable to misuse. I would be very surprised if every single vehicle movement over this crossing was done by the book, and am inclined to agree with OT's suspicion that the gates were routinely left open. However, some of the other points he raises are speculation. For example, traincrew may indeed have regularly reported crossing gates left open, as I have done for similar crossings along my routes. The problem is that an absence of reports does not indicate the presence of a problem. In spite of my own suspicions, this could have just been a one-off who just happened to be unlucky.

As for what can be done, well user-worked crossings are found on all manner of roads of varying types including farm roads. Sometimes these can stand idle for weeks or even months, but then you might get a flurry of activity. Fitting all of these crossings with additional technology would be prohibitively expensive and attempts to tie them into the signalling system would be needlessly complex and frankly pointless. If someone unlatches a gate I'm approaching at 90mph I won't have much chance of stopping in time. Likewise, automatic locks are easily circumvented, would only work if the gate is closed and will require the section of line to be equipped with treadles at the very least.

The problem is one that isn't going to go away. There are no magic bullets or easy solutions and there will continue to be collisions and derailments for as long as people continue to run the risk.

O L Leigh

 

[tempests1]

For such a small branch line it seems to have a fair bit of misfortune. Such as the Buffer Stop collision in 2006.

 

[transportphoto]

My local radio station (Heart 102.4fm) reported today that the failed train will be removed to day, however 'National Express East Anglia' say that they will need to repair the track before it is put back into service.

I don't know how true this is, I have put the emphasis on NXEA and 'they' because that is how they said it :roll: of cause we all know that Network Rail will undertake the work.

 

[Invincibles]

Surely NXEAs statement just simplifies things for the readers, no one really bothers about the intracacies of which subcontractor does the work on behalf of which contractor under the orders of which body in a newspaper article.

As the people who operate the train service they are the ones whose leaflets people read and as such can take credit/blame accordingly.

A nice underpass for the road at Bamber Bridge would be lovely, not sure the Lancs and Yorks pub would agree though

 

[Z12XE]

BBC Look East have reported a little while ago that the driver of the tanker has been charged with endangering the safety of the railway, and will appear at Bury St Edmunds Magistrate tomorrow.

They also speculated that the costs associated with this incident could run into millions, thats one expensive drum of crap....

 

[GearJammer]

thats one expensive drum of crap....

lol

 

[DMUchap]

The Ipswich evening star has said that that locals saw the sewage flying everywhere. So the 156 will have to be repaired AND disinfected. :roll:

 

[jopsuk]

I'm sceptical- whilst damaged, the tanker doesn't look badly ruptured (no sign of it "bursting" from the pictures I've seen.

Also, what locals? It seems unlikely anyone was wandering past at the time. I know there were reports of people nearby hearing the crash, but by the time they would have been able to see anything, it would have been "over", surely?

 

[Geezertronic]

What the locals saw was probably the sh*t hitting the fan

 

[wyvfe1]

The Ipswich evening star has said that that locals saw the sewage flying everywhere. So the 156 will have to be repaired AND disinfected. :roll:

The London Metro 19/8/2010 page 24 has a picture with a caption "A rescue worker inspects the mangled carriage after a passenger train hit a tanker"

But the photo shows someone spraying (probably) disinfectent

 

[GodAtum]

The 38-year-old driver of a tanker involved in a collision with a train in Suffolk has been charged with endangering safety on the railway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-11021364

If found guilty what sentance is he likely to get?

 

[GB]

It can carry a maximum sentence of life, however to get any where near that you would have to prove intent to endanger lives so who knows what he will get in this instance as I'm not sure that intent was there.

The sweage tanker did leak it's contents quite considerably, the whole site was contaminated as was the local water course

 

[Old Timer]

If I recall correctly, and without checking, the maximum for for a deliberate Obstruction of the Line under the 1861 Offences Against the Persons Act section 33 is life but intent must be proved.

UWC offences used to be prosecuted under section 34 which does not require intent, and is two years prison I believe.

There is also the possibility that he could be charged under section 36 of the Malicious Damage Act 1861, alongside or instead of. There again is no need to prove a deliberate intent.

 

[TDK]

If I recall correctly, and without checking, the maximum for for a deliberate Obstruction of the Line under the 1861 Offences Against the Persons Act section 33 is life but intent must be proved.

UWC offences used to be prosecuted under section 34 which does not require intent, and is two years prison I believe.

There is also the possibility that he could be charged under section 36 of the Malicious Damage Act 1861, alongside or instead of. There again is no need to prove a deliberate intent.

So to conclude from the media report he may be charged breaking the railway laws and not the highway laws? Initially it was reported that he may be charged with dangerous driving?

 

[swt_passenger]

... £1M per crossing is not just a conservative estimate, it is ludicrously so, particularly in more urbanised areas where there may be significant service diversions that could easily cost £1M in themselves, particularly for trunk mains.

But that's the sort of figure you would get if you average ALL level crossings, because the bridge or underpass with major demolition needed in an urban area is at one end of the scale, but a rural footpath over a single track is at the opposite end of the cost scale.

Looking for example at the Chiltern proposals for Bicester to Oxford - that quotes closing X number of 'level crossings' and gives all the details of how it will be achieved. Some are fairly straightforward, as an example by diverting various footpaths by a few hundred yards they can be combined onto one bridge...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So to conclude from the media report he may be charged breaking the railway laws and not the highway laws? Initially it was reported that he may be charged with dangerous driving?

RTA offences may not be possible if it isn't a public highway, I suspect, but I'm not a lawyer. In any case, as intent to endanger life won't be provable, the sentencing powers will be similar, ie 2 years...

Initial media reports would have been pretty much off the cuff anyway - 'dangerous driving' is a bit of a catch all for news journalists - it's rare for them to use other terms such as reckless, careless etc, but they're all slightly different definitions...

 

[Old Timer]

So to conclude from the media report he may be charged breaking the railway laws and not the highway laws? Initially it was reported that he may be charged with dangerous driving?

Where a level crossing is on a public highway then the primary charge would be under the relevant RTA, usually supported by the two 1861 Acts for good measure.

At Court these were normally withdrawn.

Where a level crossing is on private land then obviously the RTA cannot apply as there is no public highway, hence the two 1861 Acts.

I would need to check the basis of the fine for failure to comply with gate closure but from memory it falls under the Byelaws.

The road vehicle driver cannot be prosecuted for any RTA offences only Railway offences - unless the road is designated as a public highway or is maintained at the public expense, which is not something I was given information on and so I believe it isn't.

 

[GearJammer]

Can i assume then that you all think this tanker driver should be locked up? Coz i don't!

 

[the sniper]

Can i assume then that you all think this tanker driver should be locked up? Coz i don't!

This'll be interesting...

Why not?

 

[GB]

Can i assume then that you all think this tanker driver should be locked up? Coz i don't!

Given the amount of damage and devastation he has caused due to his neglect I certainly believe a custodial sentence is warranted.

Why do you not? What do you think should happen to him?

 

[90019]

Can i assume then that you all think this tanker driver should be locked up? Coz i don't!

I want to know the full circumstances before making a decision whether he should or not, rather than making assumptions.

 

[GearJammer]

Well first off, thankfully no one was killed, and i don't think locking the bloke up is going to do anybody any good, ok he f**ked up big style, but his actions as careless as they were were not deliberate, he never went out to deliberately hurt anyone and like i said no one was killed, i think the bloke has probably already learnt his lesson, by all means his licence should be ripped up, maybe fined, take a retest, do community service.... but i really don't see jail as acheiving much, i think its pretty safe to say he'll never do it again, what needs to be focused on is making sure no other bugger (regardless of what there driving) does the same again!

 

[Old Timer]

Strictly my opinion but I would not expect a custodial sentence, simply a large fine, or maybe a fine and a suspended sentence.

Why you ask ?

Well quite simply, this will not be the first occasion when the crossing was used without calling the signalman. There will be a history of that, supported by the fact that next week the phone itself will be red hot.

The defence solicitors will call for records before and after - Case proven.

That will immediately demonstrate that there is a history of regular misuse of the crossing and that this was known and no action taken. How I hear you ask ?

Well it will be found that the gates were being continually left open, with no real action being taken. His defence team will call for records of reports from train crews to demonstrate again that there was an "acceptance" of the situation.

The defence team will argue that although the road vehicle driver did not follow the UWC onstructions, that neither did the majority of other users and therefore driving straight across became the custom and practice.

They will ask to see records of any previous enforcement action. There will be little.

I would expect there may be whistle boards. They will establish through questioning if these boards are complied with.

The fact that he is a foreigner will to some degree allow his team to push the argument that he was simply following the lead given by others.

The prosecution will be unable to demonstrate that there has been a single act of gross irresponsibility by him.

I am sorry if that causes upset, but this has happened many times before and until Network Rail clamp down hard on crossing misuse, the judiciary will not sentence hard.

They WILL sentence hard if it can be proven that the act was exceptional, not run of the mill. That requires a proper plan and a campaign, followed up by covert surveillance and immediate criminal prosecution.

 

[GB]

Strictly my opinion but I would not expect a custodial sentence, simply a large fine, or maybe a fine and a suspended sentence.

Why you ask ?

Well quite simply, this will not be the first occasion when the crossing was used without calling the signalman. There will be a history of that, supported by the fact that next week the phone itself will be red hot.

The defence solicitors will call for records before and after - Case proven.

That will immediately demonstrate that there is a history of regular misuse of the crossing and that this was known and no action taken. How I hear you ask ?

Well it will be found that the gates were being continually left open, with no real action being taken. There is no evidence to support this

His defence team will call for records of reports from train crews to demonstrate again that there was an "acceptance" of the situation. There is no evidence to suggest tran crews knew anything prior to this.

The defence team will argue that although the road vehicle driver did not follow the UWC onstructions, that neither did the majority of other users and therefore driving straight across became the custom and practice. Instructions that must be complied with by law.

They will ask to see records of any previous enforcement action. There will be little.

I would expect there may be whistle boards. They will establish through questioning if these boards are complied with. No, they will establish via the OTDR this was complied with
The fact that he is a foreigner will to some degree allow his team to push the argument that he was simply following the lead given by others. Not good enough. He is a proffesional driver working for a proffesional company

The prosecution will be unable to demonstrate that there has been a single act of gross irresponsibility by him. The instructions are clear. He did not follow them (for what ever reason) and admitted that fact, ergo:gross irresponsibility
I am sorry if that causes upset, but this has happened many times before and until Network Rail clamp down hard on crossing misuse, the judiciary will not sentence hard.

They WILL sentence hard if it can be proven that the act was exceptional, not run of the mill. That requires a proper plan and a campaign, followed up by covert surveillance and immediate criminal prosecution.

Your opinions seem to be based on little more than perhaps some prior knowledge of other areas or incidents. What happens in one place does not automatically transfer to another.

 

[yorksrob]

Looking at some of the posts from more experienced posters than I, it seems that regardless of the individual circumstances of this case, there exists a minority of drivers using these crossings who for whatever reason, don't follow their instructions (and from the ones I've seen - including the one at Yalding where an EMU ploughed into a car in a fatal accident a few years ago - there is usually a large sign surrounded by a red border with instructions on how to proceed).

Bearing in mind, there is literally no chance of all of them getting flashing lights, bridges etc, wouldn't it be sensible to give the BTP powers to randomly set up a hidden camera on some of them to moniter crossing movements for a few weeks. This could then be compared to the signalman's log and if significant misuse occurred, the road owners could be warned to do better. Then, if during a later hidden monitoring of the crossing, a substantial amount of misuse were still seen to be occurring, the courts would be given the power to close the crossing permanently with no compensation to the owners.

In this way, if owners such as Anglian Water were faced with a costly detour or relocation they might decide that it was their responsibility to know what their contractors were doing on their road.

 

[boing_uk]

In this way, if owners such as Anglian Water were faced with a costly detour or relocation they might decide that it was their responsibility to know what their contractors were doing on their road.

Do they not already have this responsibility to a certain degree under the Occupiers Liability Act 1996?

 

[yorksrob]

Do they not already have this responsibility to a certain degree under the Occupiers Liability Act 1996?

TBH I've no idea. But unless there's somebody enforcing it, the act might as well not exist anyway. The post earlier regarding a sudden increase in users calling during a foggy patch suggests that if such an act exists, it's possibly not being used.