Train crashes into truck in the Netherlands

[Bemined]

Yesterday there was a big crash in the Netherlands at a level crossing in Meteren, between Utrecht and 's-Hertogenbosch. ProRail has released a video from a crash showing the truck doing a bizar manoeuvre on the level crossing:

Aanrijding tussen trein en vrachtwagen op overweg in Meteren

Op een overweg bij Meteren vond vandaag, donderdag 30 november, net na 11.00 uur een aanrijding plaats tussen een vrachtwagen en een trein. Treinverkeer op de lijn Utrecht-Den Bosch is direct stilgelegd. Hulpdiensten zijn ter plaatse.

www.prorail.nl

The first car of the train derailed and detached itself from the rest of the train but stayed nearly straight so there were only a few minor injuries. A second train coming from the other direction was grazed by the derailed car but stayed on the track and was able to stop before the level crossing. The track was damaged severely and they expect it takes until next Friday to repair it.

 

[D1511]

Holy crap, that's serious. It's remarkable there weren't more injuries.
I can't work out what the hell the truck driver was doing ......was his trailer grounding on the crossing, causing him to try to reverse and take another line over the crossing? Bizarre manoeuvre indeed!

 

[philden]

Maybe the truck is trying to reverse into the turning on the left, just before the tracks?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Maybe the truck is trying to reverse into the turning on the left, just before the tracks?

Replies to the video clip on twitter suggest that may be the case. The road left before the crossing being a cul-de-sac with no turning place.
NOTE I haven't looked it up to check!

 

[Beebman]

Video report in Dutch (with auto-translated English audio) from local TV station Omroep Gelderland:

Google translation of the video description:

At a railway crossing in Meteren, a truck full of pears was hit by a passing train. The truck became stuck on the track when the barriers were lowered. The driver was unable to avoid the collision. Five people sustained minor injuries, but according to local residents, "it was a lucky accident on all sides."

At 1:22 the video has an aerial view of one of the tracks buried in pears.

 

[DanielB]

Replies to the video clip on twitter suggest that may be the case. The road left before the crossing being a cul-de-sac with no turning place.
NOTE I haven't looked it up to check!

Later media reports, including the video posted by @Beebman, state a slightly different cause: the truck was supposed to drive to a weighing bridge after loading. That weighing bridge was located at a different company's site directly next to the railway.
For some reason, I've seen the explanation differ between media, the truck driver drove past the weighing bridge and ended up on the level crossing a few meters further. So that would explain why he was trying to reverse into the road on the left, enabling him to drive back to the weighing bridge.

 

[chiltern trev]

Is it ok that if you drive onto a level crossing when it is 'green' for road traffic and a vehicle stops then should the barriers be able to come down?

Did this crossing have lidar to scan for obstructions this preventing the barrier operation and therefore presenting red lights to all approaching trains?

 

[DanielB]

Is it ok that if you drive onto a level crossing when it is 'green' for road traffic and a vehicle stops then should the barriers be able to come down?

Perfectly normal in the Netherlands.

Did this crossing have lidar to scan for obstructions this preventing the barrier operation and therefore presenting red lights to all approaching trains?

No, this accident took place on an AHOB (translated: automated half barrier crossing) and as barriers are only blocking one half of the road vehicles are supposed to be able to escape.
Lidar has only been in use on ADOBs (automated double barrier crossing) where someone could get stuck between the barriers, though these don't exist anymore (replaced by tunnels).

Level crossings in the Netherlands in general are not connected to the signalling system. They close when a train is in a specific section of the track circuits. An exception are crossings near stations which can be controlled by the signaller: these are either set to "stop" (when a train is scheduled to stop at the station) or "door" (when a train is not supposed to stop). In the first case they'll then automatically close when the activated timer reaches zero, what also turns the signal green.
The crossing at which the accident happened has signals controlled by a signaller at both sides (as it is near a junction), so technically could be set to red but that obviously requires someone to inform the signaller of the obstruction on the crossing. At most crossings that would not even be possible as these are on lines with automatic signals and only turn red when the ATB track circuit is short-circuited.

 

[Bemined]

There is only one level crossing remaining in the Netherlands that is activated by the signaller, the rest is automated. They close as soon as a train is detected in an active announcement zone, typically between 20 and 30 seconds before the train reaches the level crossing. This is shorter than the braking distance of the train, so it will not be possible for the train to make a full stop within this time even if there was some kind of detection. There is a built-in delay for the signal to clear when the train is already within the announcement zone when the route is being set, but that is just a fixed time delay, no actual feedback that confirms there is no traffic stuck on the crossing.

 

[AdamWW]

Is it ok that if you drive onto a level crossing when it is 'green' for road traffic and a vehicle stops then should the barriers be able to come down?

Did this crossing have lidar to scan for obstructions this preventing the barrier operation and therefore presenting red lights to all approaching trains?

I'd have thought that if you operated them like full barrier crossings with a train not getting a clear signal until the barriers are down and the crossing proved to be clear you might as well make them full barrier crossings.

And they would need to be closed for a lot longer.

 

[Bemined]

Lines like this can have 10 to 14 trains per hour in each direction, if you want to ensure the crossing is clear of traffic before clearing the signal they will probably be closed most of the time.

 

[Belperpete]

Is it ok that if you drive onto a level crossing when it is 'green' for road traffic and a vehicle stops then should the barriers be able to come down?

Did this crossing have lidar to scan for obstructions this preventing the barrier operation and therefore presenting red lights to all approaching trains?

There are plenty of automatic half barrier crossings in the UK where the same would happen. If the barriers start to lower, then you are supposed to drive off the crossing. By the time the crossing starts to operate, it is usually too late to stop the train if the crossing is obstructed, so little point in providing lidar.

 

[edwin_m]

There are plenty of automatic half barrier crossings in the UK where the same would happen. If the barriers start to lower, then you are supposed to drive off the crossing. By the time the crossing starts to operate, it is usually too late to stop the train if the crossing is obstructed, so little point in providing lidar.

And many of these are being converted with obstacle detection, therefore full barriers which must be lowered before the signal can be cleared for the train to approach. This no doubt increases safety but has the side-effect of increasing road closure times.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

And many of these are being converted with obstacle detection, therefore full barriers which must be lowered before the signal can be cleared for the train to approach. This no doubt increases safety but has the side-effect of increasing road closure times.

At a tangent but as an alternative you could reduce line speed so that stopping distances are reduced. Like a 'stop and whistle' or 'pull the string to activate the crossing sequence'. Why should it be the road user that suffers longer delays?

 

[edwin_m]

At a tangent but as an alternative you could reduce line speed so that stopping distances are reduced. Like a 'stop and whistle' or 'pull the string to activate the crossing sequence'. Why should it be the road user that suffers longer delays?

That is done at open crossings, where the driver has to slow to a speed that they can stop from if the crossing is obstructed or the lights are not functioning.

For other crossings I'd say that the risk virtually all arises from incorrect behaviours by the drivers of road vehicles, and indeed occupants of road vehicles are much more likely to be injured in any crossing collision. So it's justifiable that those road users should suffer more inconvenience to increase their own safety against their own actions.

 

[Bemined]

Ideally they want to get rid of all level crossings, but that is expensive and takes a lot of time so they prioritise level crossings without barriers and the ones with lots of traffic. Sometimes the compromise is to close the level crossing or downgrade it to cyclist and pedestrians only. And in this case that seems to be a feasible option as well as there is an existing underpass a kilometre to the north.

 

[Falcon1200]

If the barriers start to lower, then you are supposed to drive off the crossing.

No vehicles should be on the crossing when the barriers start to lower!

Why should it be the road user that suffers longer delays?

Because 99% of level crossing incidents are caused by road users; If they could be trusted nothing much more than traffic lights would be required, instead of the expense and complication the railway has to go to.