-
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!
Potters Bar accident caused by points failure
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
shinkansen1966
Member
Isn't it about time someone was prosecuted for these deaths at Potters Bar ?
Network Rail have already said that "much as change since Potters Bar". So Network Rail: what was wrong with the rail network when those seven were killed in 2002?
At first, Jarvis said the crash might be due 'sabotage'. Since then Jarvis has gone into adminstration. Reckon the most senior paid managers will move onto some other jobs with monstrous salaries. Their collective consciences "clear".
Network Rail have already said that "much as change since Potters Bar". So Network Rail: what was wrong with the rail network when those seven were killed in 2002?
At first, Jarvis said the crash might be due 'sabotage'. Since then Jarvis has gone into adminstration. Reckon the most senior paid managers will move onto some other jobs with monstrous salaries. Their collective consciences "clear".
flymo
Established Member
Just curious as to why this has taken over 8 years to come to a conclusion? Surely a time frame of weeks or perhaps months would be better otherwise what is the point in all this? The company or companies 'responsible' for the infrastructure have long since gone. Do any current companies have any liability in this case?
The report is online but the basic answer is in the article:
Now, whose decision was it to hand over day-to-day maintenance of infrastructure to private contractors? But can it be proven that the decision to do that was negligent?
Ultimately, the railways should never have been privatised. Perhaps we should bring charges against John Major, as I believe it was his Government who implemented privatisation.
"All of the recommendations made by both the industry's own formal inquiry and the health and safety investigation have been actioned."
The report is here:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RSSB_PottersBarFinalReport2005.pdf
Recommendations are on page 148.
I don't really understand why people want this to be continually reported on, when it was concluded 5 years ago.
In other news today, a long-running £4m report, determined that the Pope is Catholic.
shinkansen1966
Member
Easy.
If they had held this inquest straight after the accident, prosecutions might well have followed. If you leave it long enough, the urgency to find the guilty parties passes away.
I expect the ex chair of ex Jarvis is now earning several hundreds of thousands per annum running an engineering consultancy somewhere. Safe in the knowledge they'll never have to discuss their safety record at Potters Bar and resultant deaths.
I thought it was concluded on 18 March 2005.
shinkansen1966
Member
Guess it was that Jarvis bollocks about it being "sabotage". Bet Jarvis knew all along.
Well this is always the way, make a nice long investigation, saying how thorough it is, and make it drag on so long that the purpose and ability to do anything legally have long since gone. It's just like the senseless killing of an innocent man during the G20 unrest. They now say too long has elapsed to pursue a GBH charge and the officer (I use that term VERY loosely) MAY face diciplinary measures. How can it only be 'may face' discipline measures? It's an absolute disgrace. Nothing surprises me anymore of this country, successive governments and largely Labour aided by 9/11 and 7/7 have cultivated a culture of fear which they then excuse to go along with their 'do what we say, not as we do' approach.
People should face charges, but even if they do nothing will come of it, this will have been sorted out a long time ago behind closed doors. Us ordinary 'drone ants' are simply not meant to hear or realise why the upper echelons of society protect themselves so rigorously, we are just meant to accept it.
People should face charges, but even if they do nothing will come of it, this will have been sorted out a long time ago behind closed doors. Us ordinary 'drone ants' are simply not meant to hear or realise why the upper echelons of society protect themselves so rigorously, we are just meant to accept it.
shinkansen1966
Member
Exactly. If you were at the top of your corporate game with an large share of power and wealth, why would you want to compromise your position by admitting your company had anything to do with deaths of 7 people on a train ?
We live in a funny world where the media rejoice at the axing of speed cameras, which have probably saved more lives than all the train crashes put together, yet I have to wince when they paint a picture of an accident waiting to happen.
Whilst clearly there was serious failures in the cases of Hatfield, Potter's bar, Grayrigg, not least the appalling case of sending the Pway to the wrong line after reports of rough riding at Potters bar, there is a serious need to keep this into perspective. I say this to avoid gold plating rail even more than road, forcing the costs up further, when you could save more lives spending money and re-training on the latter.
That doesn't mean lessons shouldn't be learnt on the railways, management and processes cannot improve from top to bottom, there is always room for improvement and it's extremely tragic when the best education ends up being accidents.
Rail is currently 32 times safer than travelling by car, 512 times safer than walking, 401 times safer than cycling, 1473 times safer than a motorbike, 3 times safer than a bus and about on the level, per passenger KM as air travel, and safer by passenger journeys by some margin.
SPADs, passenger fatalities, and workforce fatalities have all consistently fallen since the war, whatever picture the RMT and press like to paint.
http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/ASPR_2009_10_KeyFactsandFigures.pdf
Whilst clearly there was serious failures in the cases of Hatfield, Potter's bar, Grayrigg, not least the appalling case of sending the Pway to the wrong line after reports of rough riding at Potters bar, there is a serious need to keep this into perspective. I say this to avoid gold plating rail even more than road, forcing the costs up further, when you could save more lives spending money and re-training on the latter.
That doesn't mean lessons shouldn't be learnt on the railways, management and processes cannot improve from top to bottom, there is always room for improvement and it's extremely tragic when the best education ends up being accidents.
Rail is currently 32 times safer than travelling by car, 512 times safer than walking, 401 times safer than cycling, 1473 times safer than a motorbike, 3 times safer than a bus and about on the level, per passenger KM as air travel, and safer by passenger journeys by some margin.
SPADs, passenger fatalities, and workforce fatalities have all consistently fallen since the war, whatever picture the RMT and press like to paint.
http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/ASPR_2009_10_KeyFactsandFigures.pdf
Ploughman
Established Member
Just remember that although the management may have changed from British Rail to Jarvis to Network Rail.
The men on the ground are probably still the same ones that did the maintenance before the incident and still do it now.
Is it likely that practices will have changed all that much or will old habits die hard?
The men on the ground are probably still the same ones that did the maintenance before the incident and still do it now.
Is it likely that practices will have changed all that much or will old habits die hard?
Cover up!!...Geezer at the top clears off with a golden bye bye and a fat pension, but we are told we must pay these amateurs or they will go abroad...bye bye...see you boys. (that's my family viewing comment). There must be lots of excellent engineering and business grads out there willing to take on the jobs, responsiblity and err. remmuneration...sadly they don't shake hands the right way or play in the right golf club. Complete and utter British con...BP, RBS, Jarvis...and the rest...these clowns should be behind bars...whither accountability. I would love to see the diaries of these idiots that justifies their salaries. Top of the tree? ...take the flak pal:-x
Greeny
Member
Agreed 100%.
Mmm...interesting. QC tonight on radio 4 suggests that the legal process, if in the public interest, has only just begun: regardless of the fact that companies may have disappeared...people could still prosecuted if "it is in the public interest". Watch this/that space I guess.
moggie
Member
Couldn't agree more. So if the NR spokeperson is implying that (only) Private Contracors were to blame for Potters Bar than it makes the similar catastrophic failure of the point mechanism at Greyrigg even more unforgivable as NR had recent experience to relate to. The only common thread here that I see is that NR are in charge of managing their contractors and providing adequate access to the line to carry out vital maintenance checks. Anyone in the industry knows the pressure on gaining access these days because of the skewed system of compensation NR have to pay the TOCs and no doubt at the time off charged to the IMC as was. perhaps this is what the coroner is alluding to?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And now we'll get the over reaction of the press every time a points failure occurs that is properly detected by the signalling system.
:cry:
Indeed. An absolute disgrace. If it hadn't been a police officer, and had been a regular member of the public, I believe the outcome would have been different. Now imagine if a member of the public had done that to a police officer, and got away with it? Absolutely no chance!
Yes, and I can't understand how they moan that cameras raise loads of money, yet then say that cameras cost money and when the funding ends the cameras may go. How on earth does that make sense?
Yes, the main BBC News headline is that there are safety fears and there may be more deaths.
Imagine if the headline was that there were road safety fears and there may be deaths on the roads?!?! People would be like, "so what?" Yet when there are rail safety fears, there is hysteria.
And why do you not have reports of families of people who died in motorway pile-ups 8 years ago demanding public inquiries?
If there was a public inquiry into road safety, with standards of safety set as high as expected of railways, a possible outcome would be to close all roads immediately!
I can see rail closures occurring in the next few years due to high costs (many of which are due to setting very high safety standards), people will then be forced onto buses. The passengers who use that service will, statistically, be less safe, but the media and various health & safety bodies won't care about that! It's crazy...
I seem to remember, in Thatcher's years either Tebbit or oily Parkinson, suggested that the railways were too safe! I suspect he meant, of course, that there was a very intensive safety culture. When you think about it, if a contractor on a station left a cable trailing across a platform, then half the station would be shut. However, how many times, once you've been brought up in a railway environment, do you see contractor street activities and violations of public safety that would make the railway inspectorate rewrite the manuals?
So where do you stop and say "oh that'll be ok, it's their fault if they trip over it etc etc":roll:
So where do you stop and say "oh that'll be ok, it's their fault if they trip over it etc etc":roll:
Speed cameras replaced traffic police, which have been decimated in the last 10 years (even to the point where they now deal with domestic police incidents) and have been somewhat self defeating given they only detected speeding, at that very spot, which is a cause of very few accidents (but clearly a factor in the severity).
I am glad they're going to get rid of cameras and hopefully go back to using more police. If they don't, we have a problem. Police, with ANPR, can spot more offences and use their 'nose' to spot other things a camera can't.
That said, SPECS works well to keep average speeds down which is better than speed at an exact point as people surf through.
Seriously, Swindon has proven that cameras made little difference. Better road design can reduce far more accidents, even though it's a lot more expensive. Good thing is, road design stops accidents. A camera might just film an accident - which is no consolation to the family of the deceased, even if they later go on to prosecute someone.
I totally agree about the safety comparison between driving/walking/cycling/going by train etc. Not that I ever needed convincing otherwise. To be fair, I think most people would accept train travel to be very safe. As indeed is going by tube, bus and other public transport.
I went through Potters Bar on the day of the accident (but NOT on a train), and live in Hatfield, and neither incidents within close succession have put me off rail travel. But, it has to be said that I am not put off driving either. While there may be (and ARE) more accidents, I feel that I am in control when driving and can reduce my own personal risks, although you are of course at risk from other people - but that would be the same in any case. I would never step out of the door if I was worried, and even at home, a truck could crash into the front room...
I am glad they're going to get rid of cameras and hopefully go back to using more police. If they don't, we have a problem. Police, with ANPR, can spot more offences and use their 'nose' to spot other things a camera can't.
That said, SPECS works well to keep average speeds down which is better than speed at an exact point as people surf through.
Seriously, Swindon has proven that cameras made little difference. Better road design can reduce far more accidents, even though it's a lot more expensive. Good thing is, road design stops accidents. A camera might just film an accident - which is no consolation to the family of the deceased, even if they later go on to prosecute someone.
I totally agree about the safety comparison between driving/walking/cycling/going by train etc. Not that I ever needed convincing otherwise. To be fair, I think most people would accept train travel to be very safe. As indeed is going by tube, bus and other public transport.
I went through Potters Bar on the day of the accident (but NOT on a train), and live in Hatfield, and neither incidents within close succession have put me off rail travel. But, it has to be said that I am not put off driving either. While there may be (and ARE) more accidents, I feel that I am in control when driving and can reduce my own personal risks, although you are of course at risk from other people - but that would be the same in any case. I would never step out of the door if I was worried, and even at home, a truck could crash into the front room...
Normally, I would suspect that it was just a typical media overreaction, but yestreday got me worried. As I went over a very similar crossover at Chathill in an up HST from Aberdeen, I experienced one of the biggest jolts I have ever felt. Not sure if I did the right thing by reporting it to the guard later on, but it seemed like a good idea. It's probably just a coincidence, and I may have overreacted myself, but I'm almost certain that bumps and jolts are becoming worse at the moment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Still, I suppose we can all be thankful that the Networker was not running a few minutes late. If it had been, a 225 would have ploughed into the wreckage at 115 mph.
I'm glad someone mentioned the speed camera thing again. After I made my little claim, I went off to do some research about how many lives they are estimated to save.
It's a fair point about coppers, but they cost and awful lot and cannot be at problem road layouts at all times.
Now, I wasn't going to pick a pro-speed camera site like 'Brake', I picked the most pessimistic figures I could find: from none other than the Daily Mail, courtesy of Dr Linda Mountain (she sounds a big girl) of Liverpool University's engineering department.
According to them:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...HALF-lives-ministers-claim.html#ixzz0vDInLLDf
Only 50 lives a year eh? That's 7.14 times the number of people killed at Potters bar, but when Oxfordshire turned them off, when Hammond ended his 'war on the motorist' the media and many commentators held this up as a marvellous thing! Jolly good show chaps!
Er hello? Has logic gone out the window? We're spending billions of extra pounds on stuff like TPWS, train driving retraining and so on, to save the odd life on the railways, and when there is a clear way of saving lives on the roads the government cancels funds for the scheme! Meanwhile the ORR drag rail staff up on criminal prosecutions, the media attacks them through every paper in the land, creating the impression they are a bunch of Charlatans, and the ticket prices go up more to damn well make sure people get killed on the favoured less safe form of travel.
Anyway, as it turns out, there have been around 60 fatalities of passengers on trains since 1990, and while it's difficult to estimate how many accident would have/or has been been prevented exactly since the introduction of the speed camera over the last 20 years, it has probably been in the order of 1000 people. Yet the fantasy world of the media has managed to brainwash everyone (and in fairness, this includes a fair bit of faulty logic by the population itself) that safety devices on the roads and fines are a bad thing, and a jolly good thing, in fact make sure you sack the staff, send them to prison for a long time and fine the companies millions, on the railways.
I went to a meeting once at the road haulage association once and all they could do was take the **** about the amount of train accidents and moan about the government putting in all these nasty safety devices.
Madness.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not some sort of speed camera evangelist, but I'm fascinated by perception versus reality, and on many subjects, especially the railways, all logic goes out the window, and policy is straight from the fantasy world of the Daily Mail, the Sun, and various people that don't examine any facts before they open their mouths.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm generally of the agreement that the people at the top that take the so-called responsibility should pay the price if there are clear failures.
Having said that, it's no good the RMT blaming management, when there are clear failures nearer the coal face as well. Somebody wasn't doing their job properly on the Pway, and somebody wasn't doing their job properly sending track inspectors out to the wrong line. Sometimes it's not all about profits, but sloppy working where the balance sheet isn't an issue.
Above all, lets get serious with the killers on the roads and start naming and shaming them for their mistakes and sloppiness and leading some support to the families where tragedy has struck there too.
Last edited:
One thing I have noticed in the new reports by RAIB compared to the old MOT reports is that they do not apportion blame to the individuals concerned.
If it were an accident on the roads, it would almost be like apportioning blame to the insurance company rather than the driver.
If it were an accident on the roads, it would almost be like apportioning blame to the insurance company rather than the driver.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
The RAIB does not exist to apportion blame. That is for HSE and other organisations if they wish for charges to be brought. The RAIB solely exists to investigate the cause of the incident and to make recommendations to ensure an incident similar does not happen again. It's a fundamental principle of the organisations.
I don't believe a Gatso stops accidents overall, even if it does for that 50 yard stretch that it covers. It just means someone crashes elsewhere (well, that's assuming we believe that it's only people going fast that have accidents and that isn't even true).
I do believe that a camera might reduce accidents at certain junctions, slip roads etc, but it's still a cheap 'fix' as it might - or might not - work. Compared to your rail safety examples, it doesn't compare. It doesn't STOP speeding, but it may CATCH those speeding. With drunk driving, drug driving, untraceable drivers and so on - they're simply not good. To compare, you might say that you install cameras to monitor railway workers to check if they're making mistakes - but it sounds silly then. That's what I think about the roads being monitored by a fixed camera, which may not even be active because of budget cuts and therefore are letting people off anyway.
The proper solution, which costs money, is to design out problems in junctions - and, to be fair, many councils and the Highway Agency are doing it (with very limited funds). I bet there are many plans to improve a number of junctions, roundabouts and so on that you know are dangerous. Lack of funds may be all that stops some of these things being fixed. Maybe the Government should stop NEW road building but invest in making existing roads SAFER. That would be far more beneficial, but would you or I want to pay for it? I bet that would make a MASSIVE improvement to road safety, including injuries were people don't actually die.
Still, we like to have cheap fixes. Once a camera goes up, some might think they can scrap the proper solution (redesigning a junction etc) and that reflects our thinking for many years. To be honest, the railway is usually forced to do things en masse - but the road network is all over the place.
I do believe that a camera might reduce accidents at certain junctions, slip roads etc, but it's still a cheap 'fix' as it might - or might not - work. Compared to your rail safety examples, it doesn't compare. It doesn't STOP speeding, but it may CATCH those speeding. With drunk driving, drug driving, untraceable drivers and so on - they're simply not good. To compare, you might say that you install cameras to monitor railway workers to check if they're making mistakes - but it sounds silly then. That's what I think about the roads being monitored by a fixed camera, which may not even be active because of budget cuts and therefore are letting people off anyway.
The proper solution, which costs money, is to design out problems in junctions - and, to be fair, many councils and the Highway Agency are doing it (with very limited funds). I bet there are many plans to improve a number of junctions, roundabouts and so on that you know are dangerous. Lack of funds may be all that stops some of these things being fixed. Maybe the Government should stop NEW road building but invest in making existing roads SAFER. That would be far more beneficial, but would you or I want to pay for it? I bet that would make a MASSIVE improvement to road safety, including injuries were people don't actually die.
Still, we like to have cheap fixes. Once a camera goes up, some might think they can scrap the proper solution (redesigning a junction etc) and that reflects our thinking for many years. To be honest, the railway is usually forced to do things en masse - but the road network is all over the place.
Well I guess there are a lot of ways road safety can be improved. I guess what I'm interested in, is the public will not tolerate, and probably quite rightly, railway (and for that matter aviation accidents) yet road accidents are par for the course.
I suspect some haulage company managed to kill someone on the roads, through no fault of their own quite recently. Do we see them plastered all over the front pages of daily newspapers? Doubt it, it might reach a few lines in a local newspaper at worst.
Are their calls for a public inquiry or a ban on heavy lorries mixing with light cars, as there are bans on Mk1 coaches with comprehensive signalling systems? I doubt it.
There are active campaigns to take down safety devices on roads, and active campaigns to *increase* safety management and devices on the rails. With the net result people now complain out the cost of the railways and switch to the less safe mode. As Yorkie points out, what if costs cannot be reduced and we lose half the rail network and people are forced to drive, cycle and so on resulting in more deaths, that we tried to save (and probably quite laudably) on the railways?
I'm afraid that is nothing short of a complete farce, not good safety management, or good factual, balanced reporting from the press. That is scape goat politics and pushing an agenda through distortion to make money to do what is popularist, not logical. We are supposed to be an intelligent species.
I suspect some haulage company managed to kill someone on the roads, through no fault of their own quite recently. Do we see them plastered all over the front pages of daily newspapers? Doubt it, it might reach a few lines in a local newspaper at worst.
Are their calls for a public inquiry or a ban on heavy lorries mixing with light cars, as there are bans on Mk1 coaches with comprehensive signalling systems? I doubt it.
There are active campaigns to take down safety devices on roads, and active campaigns to *increase* safety management and devices on the rails. With the net result people now complain out the cost of the railways and switch to the less safe mode. As Yorkie points out, what if costs cannot be reduced and we lose half the rail network and people are forced to drive, cycle and so on resulting in more deaths, that we tried to save (and probably quite laudably) on the railways?
I'm afraid that is nothing short of a complete farce, not good safety management, or good factual, balanced reporting from the press. That is scape goat politics and pushing an agenda through distortion to make money to do what is popularist, not logical. We are supposed to be an intelligent species.
Last edited:
It could be that road accidents are often considered the fault of the driver. That is not necessarily true, often the victim was blameless, especially if the victim is a passenger of if there was some sort of technical fault.
My concern with speed cameras is the heavy braking involved when someone approaches a camera at speed, then accelerates the other side. That in itself has caused accidents. Comparing the accident figures for motorways and unrestricted autobahns, restricting speed to 70 does not seem to make much difference, and I suspect that a 100 mph speed limit on motorways would not have much effect on accident rates, although it would increase fuel consumption. However, there are two aspects of railway practice that might help, constant speed restrictions and reminder boards. Replace all national speed limit signs with (60) or (70) signs in a red disc, and place reminder boards after every junction, and a direct order to keep to a speed might have a distinct psychological effect. That's standard railway practice, and I've seen similar signs on Continental roads.
My concern with speed cameras is the heavy braking involved when someone approaches a camera at speed, then accelerates the other side. That in itself has caused accidents. Comparing the accident figures for motorways and unrestricted autobahns, restricting speed to 70 does not seem to make much difference, and I suspect that a 100 mph speed limit on motorways would not have much effect on accident rates, although it would increase fuel consumption. However, there are two aspects of railway practice that might help, constant speed restrictions and reminder boards. Replace all national speed limit signs with (60) or (70) signs in a red disc, and place reminder boards after every junction, and a direct order to keep to a speed might have a distinct psychological effect. That's standard railway practice, and I've seen similar signs on Continental roads.
moggie
Member
I think camera's are a problem and would love to know what assessments were carried out to justify their provision on safety grounds - little I suspect. Countless times (and any driver will relate to this) you are trundling along in a line of traffic all behaving ourselves (which most will do when the traffic is busy as you have little choice not to). So there you are - 60 mph, straight road for the next few hundred metres or so, no obvious hazard. Your perception is that 60 mph with a couple of car lenghts or so to the next vehicle in front is fine, sensible, then the bl**dy brake lights go on in front for no apparent reason (cos matey isn't sure if it's a 50 or 60 mph limit momentarily or if he's doing 63.789mph or whatever). Suddenly out of knowhere (no ability to perceive a hazard as there isn't one to be seen) the car in front is suddenly a lot closer, my brakes are applied quickly and matey behind me has just s**t himself as I pray he's as alert as me and so on and so on. That's adding to road safety is it? And remember - no one is breaking the law. I'm not too close yet the little yellow box on the side of the road behind the trees has just instantly changed to situation. We all know this is revenue gathering - a nice lttle earner. If the tories do one thing it'll be to remove many (but not all) of the things (I'd accept them to enforce 30 mph).
Oh and by the way TPWS is an active system that stops collisions or significantly reduces the likelihood and severity of a collision in the knowledge that another train is not a few metres behind ready to whack the train in the rear, unlike the system above. The uninformed may snear but the TPWS system (if full ATP is unaffordaby which it surely is now) is the biggest single contribution to rail safety in years.
Oh and by the way TPWS is an active system that stops collisions or significantly reduces the likelihood and severity of a collision in the knowledge that another train is not a few metres behind ready to whack the train in the rear, unlike the system above. The uninformed may snear but the TPWS system (if full ATP is unaffordaby which it surely is now) is the biggest single contribution to rail safety in years.
Again, thats the fault of the driver failing to observe thier surrounding. Just becuase no one is breaking the law doesnt mean they are driving correctly.
Im not a fan of speed cameras any more than the next driver and the effectiveness of Gatso's is debatable, but people need to take responsibility for thier own driving and their own actions....cameras are generally sign posted and painted yellow after all.
So the camera isnt a hazzard then?
But the "national speed limit" is not the same for all vehicles, for a car it is a simple 60 or 70, but for a 44 tonne artic it is 40, 50 or 56? and coaches 50, 60 or 70?
If you replace the GLF with proper speed boards then the new speed would apply to all vehicles which would not be correct, which is why we use the GLF.
- Status