RAIB Grosmont report available

[Pumbaa]

Main page http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2012/report232012.cfm

Full report http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/121018_R232012_Grosmont.pdf

Fatal accident at Grosmont, North Yorkshire Moors Railway
21 May 2012

Summary

At around 12:20 hrs on 21 May 2012, a volunteer train guard was fatally injured after becoming trapped between two coaches at Grosmont station on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway. The coaches had just been uncoupled and the accident occurred when the steam locomotive that was reversing the uncoupled coach away from the stationary coaches changed its direction. The driver applied the brake as soon as he realised this, but there was insufficient distance to stop and avoid trapping the guard who had moved back between the vehicles to complete the work associated with the uncoupling.

The locomotive changed direction because its screw reverser was not locked and moved under the weight of the valve gear from reverse to forward gear. It is likely that the guard moved back between the coaches because he had no reason to believe that the locomotive and coach moving away from him would change its direction.

The RAIB has identified two key learning points relating to the locking of screw reversers and not going between railway vehicles unless they are stationary. It has also made a recommendation to the North Yorkshire Moors Railway relating to the competence management system covering shunting..

 

[Jonfun]

Whilst this is naturally a difficult issue to comment on, and with utmost respect to the traincrews involved, it needs to be remembered by heritage railmen that whether or not they are a volunteer does not impact on the danger that their negligence to duty can cause. In this case, had one party nor the other been negligent in their duties, there would have been minimal consequence. But as a result of them both erring, we ended with this tragedy.

I won't claim to being the world's greatest Guard, but I genuinely hope that all across the railway industry (and in particular the heritage railway industry) can learn from this, however as a volunteer on a heritage line myself, I can with 100% certainty say that there are certain types who think that it's all about playing trains, and because they've been spotting on Crewe station for 40 years nothing will ever go wrong - and unfortunately, it's these types which will never learn.

However, it's human to err, and maybe it just happened at completely the wrong time for this crew; RIP Guard Lund.

 

[Monty]

Hopefully the lessons learned from this terrible accident will prevent something like this happening again in the future. My thoughts are with the late guard's family.

 

[60163tornado]

Im a volunteer at the NYMR and i know the driver of this really well (no names given) and i heard that there is a court case on it, is this true?
Could just be speculation

 

[Trainfan344]

I thought Preserved railways would already have a policy of "if it's moving don't go inbetween it?"

 

[ainsworth74]

I thought Preserved railways would already have a policy of "if it's moving don't go inbetween it?"

If you read the report in paragraph 56 it says that:

The NYMR rule book states that persons must not go between vehicles for any purpose unless the vehicles are at rest. Although the guard did not adhere to this rule, it is likely that in seeing the locomotive and coach moving away he believed that it was safe to go between the coaches. It is unlikely that he would have seen or heard the change in direction of the moving vehicles.

The NYMR already had/has such a rule and imagine all other preserved railways do as well (and if they don't I hope in the aftermath of this they'll adopt such a rule).

 

[MattRobinson]

The NYMR already had/has such a rule and imagine all other preserved railways do as well (and if they don't I hope in the aftermath of this they'll adopt such a rule).

At the KWVR, we certainly have that rule, but we got an operating notice sent out soon after the incident to remind us all of it.

With regards to Jonfun's comments, when I did my PTS on the railway we discussed to what extent working on a heritage railway was more or less dangerous than working on the mainline. Remember, the vast majority of people who volunteer at preserved railways do so a few days a month and thus are not working in the dangerous environment day in, day out as people who work on the mainline railways do.

Furthermore, due to the style of the stock, the views from the driving cabs are pretty dire. When you look out of the cab of a modern locomotive or multiple unit, you can see much more than out of the cab of a steam locomotive or single cab heritage diesel (I know there's still some single cab locos working like the class 20s but they generally now work in pairs on the mainline with the cabs facing outwards) on the basis that there isn't a boiler or engine room restricting your view.

'60163tornado', from the beginning of the report (paragraph 1)

The purpose of a Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) investigation is to improve railway safety by preventing future railway accidents or by mitigating their consequences. It is not the purpose of such an investigation to establish blame or liability.

If there is a court case, the RAIB don't have anything to do with it.

My thoughts are obviously with the guard's family.

 

[SussexMan]

The bit I was amazed at in the report was this section:

9. The NYMR has around 100 full-time paid employees (including the functional managers of the railway).

Is that really correct? I never would have guessed that any preserved railway would have had that many full-time staff. The report doesn't say "full-time equivalent" so I assume that it doesn't include part-time/seasonal staff.

However, the NYMR website says:

The North Yorkshire Moors Railway has a small nucleus of paid staff, but is largely operated by volunteers.

I've always found the RAIB reports to be accurate but has a mistake crept in here?

 

[E&W Lucas]

The bit I was amazed at in the report was this section:



Is that really correct? I never would have guessed that any preserved railway would have had that many full-time staff. The report doesn't say "full-time equivalent" so I assume that it doesn't include part-time/seasonal staff.

However, the NYMR website says:



I've always found the RAIB reports to be accurate but has a mistake crept in here?

Tha RAIB report is correct.