York - Harrogate level crossing crash

[Pinza-C55]

I was just a little curious about what people here think of this ruling by a judge over the crash between a tractor and a train at Oakwood on the York - Harrogate line ?
It seems he had used the crossing before and the lights were working but the judge says "the lights should have been bigger" ? The tractor driver was 22 and I wouldn't expect him to have poor eyesight.

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14947594.Judge_slams_rail_company_over_crossing_crash/

The Recorder of York Judge Paul Batty QC heard that nothing had been done to protect rail passengers or farm workers since a Harrogate to York service with 66 passengers and three train crew on board crashed at about 65 mph into a tractor at the Oakwood Farm crossing near Flaxby 19 months ago.

He also heard that there had been other accidents at the crossing involving trains and that two generations of the Webster family which owns Oakwood Farm had been urging the rail authorities for 40 years to get it made safe without success.

The crossing gates can still be opened as a train approaches and the warning lights are too small, despite the official investigation into the latest crash recommending that they be changed eight months ago, York Crown Court heard.

“I am quite satisfied, sadly, that this was an accident waiting to happen,” the judge said.

“I am further satisfied from what I have heard in this court this morning that the rail operators really must as a matter of extreme urgency attend to the concerns that have been raised, not only from the landowner but from the rail accident investigator’s report in respect of this collision.

“It is a mercy that no-one was seriously injured or killed. Plainly there could have been carnage had the train been derailed.”

He was sentencing Andrew Doney, 22, of Moorside Drive, Ripon, who admitted endangering the safety of rail users by driving a tractor across the crossing as the train approached.

“It would be an affront to justice if I was to deprive you of your liberty,” he told the forestry worker. “The greater responsibility for this accident lies elsewhere rather than with you.”

He ordered him to do 150 hours’ unpaid work and pay £300 prosecution costs.

 

[TheEdge]

Excellent, another stupid soundbite that appears to remove even more of the onus on users of level crossings to actually use them safely.

Does the judge expect enourmous beacons and interlocked gates at every UWC? I can see that working out for all of 17 seconds before hundreds and hundreds of level crossing failures...

 

[najaB]

Does the judge expect enourmous beacons and interlocked gates at every UWC? I can see that working out for all of 17 seconds before hundreds and hundreds of level crossing failures...

If you read the linked article you'd see that the judge didn't come up with the idea of increasing the size of the lights. It was a recommendation of 'the official investigation' (assuming the RAIB report), and one would like to think they know a thing or two about what is practical on the railway.

 

[TheEdge]

I did read it thanks very much but you clearly miss the point of my post

“It would be an affront to justice if I was to deprive you of your liberty,” he told the forestry worker. “The greater responsibility for this accident lies elsewhere rather than with you.”

...

The responsibility lies with the tractor driver.

The tractor driver started to cross the railway line when the MSL was displaying a red light.

Dataloggers show that the lights were red when he drove onto the crossing. For a judge to publically say greater responsibility lies elsewhere is awful. The railway provided the equipment, the tractor driver ignored it, he caused the crash.

 

[najaB]

For a judge to publically say greater responsibility lies elsewhere is awful. The railway provided the equipment, the tractor driver ignored it, he caused the crash.

The judge didn't absolve the driver of responsibility - he got fined and community service. To paraphrase the judgement he said that the driver was responsible for causing the collision, but NR bears responsibility for failing to ensure that the crossing was as safe as practicable - as such it would have been disproportionate to impose a custodial sentence.

The RAIB report summary says as much:

The underlying causes of the accident were that Network Rail did not ensure that the risks at the crossing were adequately mitigated, and that the process for the introduction of the gate operating equipment was adequately managed.

The judge further based his judgement on the fact that the crossing had previously been reported as unsafe with no action taken, and even after this incident it is unchanged.

 

[GB]

This is oakwood farm UWC.

I can only surmise both sides are identical.

I'd like to know what was considered specifically unsafe about it.

 

[lincolnshire]

Before it was updated it used to be minature Red and Green lights showing if it was safe to cross and get out and open the gates by hand crossing before driving over. It was often had the gates wide open and not closed to the railway line, you could see them from driving down the A59 when you looked across as there was earlier reports on here about the gates been in that position. So Network Rail has improved it since them days.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is oakwood farm UWC.

I can only surmise both sides are identical.

I'd like to know what was considered specifically unsafe about it.

I think you will find that its the one I described above, it has since been upgraded since that picture, it now has p.v.( solar) panel and small wind turbine for chargeing the batteries and a differant sort of set up.

You can see the panel and wind turbine off the road passing by ( A59 ).

 

[daikilo]

Here is the RAIB report.
https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/collision-between-train-and-tractor

The sides are similar and the accident happened on the other side.

 

[GB]

I think you will find that its the one I described above, it has since been upgraded since that picture, it now has p.v.( solar) panel and small wind turbine for chargeing the batteries and a differant sort of set up.

You can see the panel and wind turbine off the road passing by ( A59 ).

Yes I realise the picture is of the crossing concerned and that it is prior to any works being done. However it is of a time similar to when the accident occured and id like to know what was so dangerous about it. The lights and signs look perfectly legible to me.

 

[R4_GRN]

I live in Broughty Ferry and avoid the crossing if I can as there are plenty of other routes using bridges over the line. However when I do use the crossing I still check nothing is coming on the track before crossing. Probably a waste of time as the train from the north would hit the car if travelling fast if I was on the line. Surely it is up to drivers to ensure it is safe to cross at all times even when gates are open.

I had to use an unmanned crossing near Cupar and you had to phone for permission to cross but I still protected my safety by keeping a good lookout.

If you get hit by a train even if you have done all the right things and human, mechanical or electrical faults leave you poorly placed it is no consolation if you are dead

 

[daikilo]

Yes I realise the picture is of the crossing concerned and that it is prior to any works being done. However it is of a time similar to when the accident occured and id like to know what was so dangerous about it. The lights and signs look perfectly legible to me.

I recommend you read the report as what actually happened was not what was intended, it seems.

 

[lincolnshire]

Here is the RAIB report.
https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/collision-between-train-and-tractor

The sides are similar and the accident happened on the other side.

I am glad someone has dug the link to the report out, I knew it had changed in the past few years as its now a P.O.G.O crossing where you press the button and the gates open for you and you no longer have to get out and open and close both gates by hand to use it.

 

[trainmania100]

There is a similar crossing at Southease railway station, you must phone the signaller usually to get permission to cross. Shouldnt take that long to cross, the signaller would only give permission if the train was a fair distance away. The signal lights are rather small, they dont look like the flashing ones at most public level crossings and no idea if there is an alarm either.

 

[snowball]

Excellent, another stupid soundbite that appears to remove even more of the onus on users of level crossings to actually use them safely.

Does the judge expect enourmous beacons and interlocked gates at every UWC? I can see that working out for all of 17 seconds before hundreds and hundreds of level crossing failures...

It was RAIB, not the judge, who said:

The underlying causes of the accident were that Network Rail did not ensure that the risks at the crossing were adequately mitigated, and that the process for the introduction of the gate operating equipment was adequately managed.

 

[TheEdge]

The POGO equipment is independent of the railway signalling system, so the gates can be opened or closed at any time even if a train is approaching and the MSL is displaying a red light. Therefore the safe use of the crossing still relies
upon the user checking the MSL before crossing.

Witness evidence following the accident indicates that both red and green MSL lights were working at the time of the accident. The RAIB’s analysis
of the crossing’s data logger indicates that the control system of the MSLs
(paragraph 37) was working correctly at the time of the accident.

I understand that NR have been told to alter it but that doesn't detract at all from the fact the crossing was working as designed. As the train approached the MSL reverted to red, had the tractor driver look at those lights there would not have been a crash. I've used an crossing with user operated lights, I pressed the button, it was green, I crossed. There was nothing stopping me opening the gates and crossing without pressing the buttons, but being capable of following basic instructions meant I was not hit by a train.

But yet again more money is going to have to be thrown and protecting people from themselves because of, yet again, responsibility for using crossings safely has been implied as not the issue of the user.

 

[najaB]

I understand that NR have been told to alter it but that doesn't detract at all from the fact the crossing was working as designed. As the train approached the MSL reverted to red, had the tractor driver look at those lights there would not have been a crash.

To quote from the RAIB report, with some pertinent points highlighted:

57. There was a sign mounted on the right-hand roadside post instructing users how to use the crossing (figure 8). This sign, although not of the correct type authorised by Network Rail in September 2013 for the nationwide use of the POGO equipment, instructed users to push the button and to cross only when the green light was showing. Although there is conflicting evidence, the RAIB’s view is that the tractor driver did not see these instructions because he had already used the button on the left-hand post. There was no such sign on the left-hand post as Network Rail did not consider that this button would be used to open the gates (paragraph 74). Had there been a sign at the left-hand post, it might have prompted the driver to recheck the MSL before crossing.

64. The red light of the LED MSL is a single light, situated on the right-hand side of the road. It has a diameter of 90 mm and is small compared to a public road traffic light which has a diameter of 200 mm (figure 10). It is below the tractor driver’s eye line. It is likely that it was fitted at this location and height to be visible to pedestrian users of the crossing. In addition, the lights of the MSLs are mounted on a board on which there is text (figure 3). That, combined with the many other signs present, cause the MSL’s to be less conspicuous (figure 11).

74. ...The poor conspicuity of the MSLs (paragraph 64) and the lack of instruction signs at the left-hand post on how to use the crossing safely(paragraph 57) were probable factors in the accident. There had previously been suggestions to address both these factors in order to improve the crossing.

Edit: It's easy to say "he didn't use it correctly" but when the instructions of how to use it weren't displayed next to a button that opened the gate, and the position of the lights made them difficult to see clearly, I can understand why the judge says that NR has to shoulder some of the blame for this incident.

 

[TheEdge]

But how does any of that remove the onus of the user to check crossing signals? The judge is implying this is more NR's fault than the driver of the tractor.

 

[daikilo]

I understand that NR have been told to alter it but that doesn't detract at all from the fact the crossing was working as designed. As the train approached the MSL reverted to red, had the tractor driver look at those lights there would not have been a crash. I've used an crossing with user operated lights, I pressed the button, it was green, I crossed. There was nothing stopping me opening the gates and crossing without pressing the buttons, but being capable of following basic instructions meant I was not hit by a train.

But yet again more money is going to have to be thrown and protecting people from themselves because of, yet again, responsibility for using crossings safely has been implied as not the issue of the user.

Not exactly, the RAIB seems to believe that NR could have done a better job on the conceptual design and probably the signage. It is the issue of lulling a person into a false sense of security because they think that what they have done is what was intended.

 

[Pinza-C55]

If I was Network Rail I would replace the lights with the biggest ones I could find in stores and install cctv. Then, when another accident occurred, ask the learned judge for his comments.

 

[R4_GRN]

Surely the most important Health and Safety Officer is yourself?
We are to ready to Blaim others for our inability to be aware of our safety

 

[najaB]

Surely the most important Health and Safety Officer is yourself?

Of course. Which is why it's entirely appropriate that the tractor driver received a fine and community service. That doesn't detract from the fact that there were clear deficiencies in the implementation of the POGO crossing which needed to be rectified.


This thread (and several others I can think of) is symptomatic of the growing inability for people to categorise issues as anything other than black or white - the ability to see 'the gray in between' is sadly lacking from discourse.</soapbox>

 

[DaleCooper]

But how does any of that remove the onus of the user to check crossing signals? The judge is implying this is more NR's fault than the driver of the tractor.

I'm with TheEdge on this. Even if there were no lights, no gates, no instructions I would still ensure no trains were coming before crossing. I often use a foot crossing on a preserved line which sees about half a dozen trains on those days when it's operating and those are doing about 10mph; I still look both ways every time before crossing. Over cautious perhaps but what does it cost me?

It's also significant that a judge's pronouncements are more likely to reach the general public than an RAIB report.

 

[najaB]

I often use a foot crossing on a preserved line which sees about half a dozen trains on those days when it's operating and those are doing about 10mph; I still look both ways every time before crossing. Over cautious perhaps but what does it cost me?

In this case though, we are dealing with a poorly implemented safety system that didn't take human behaviour into consideration.

The tractor driver would have seen the green light as he approached the crossing. Based on that, he would have pressed the button to release the gate - in his mind the light is still green. He's probably hurrying a bit as he doesn't want to take too much time crossing the railway. There was no sign to remind him to check the light again and the position and sizing of the lights meant that the now-red light didn't stand out.

Should he have checked again? Of course. And that's why he's been fined and given community service. But anyone who claims with 100% certainty that they would definitely have checked again is either not human or lying.

It's also significant that a judge's pronouncements are more likely to reach the general public than an RAIB report.

In this case it's probably a good thing as NR doesn't appear to have acted on the recommendations in the RAIB report. Maybe they will now.

 

[GB]

But anyone who claims with 100% certainty that they would definitely have checked again is either not human or lying.

Really?

 

[DaleCooper]

In this case though, we are dealing with a poorly implemented safety system that didn't take human behaviour into consideration.

But there was a safety system, albeit imperfect, so to place more blame on NR than the driver is going too far. The farmer knew there were dangers, what safety system did he have? Ultimately the only completely safe system would be to close the crossing although there would still be trespassers and no doubt NR would get the blame for that.

 

[najaB]

Really?

Yes, really. All humans fail to react correctly at some point(s) in time. If we didn't then we wouldn't need safety systems such as AWS/TPWS.

 

[TheEdge]

Should he have checked again? Of course. And that's why he's been fined and given community service. But anyone who claims with 100% certainty that they would definitely have checked again is either not human or lying.

Seriously? I check, check and recheck when crossing a railway. I was wandering around the depot I work at today and I was the only driver on duty, so if I was wondering about no trains would be moving. I'm still looking around for trains even then.

 

[najaB]

But there was a safety system, albeit imperfect, so to place more blame on NR than the driver is going too far.

I don't think the judge did so. I read 'greater blame' to mean 'root cause' rather than 'greater part of the blame'.

 

[daikilo]

NajaB, there was a sign on the second post with push-buttons but not on the first which the driver used. Sod would not have approved, and it seems nor did the judge (or the RAIB).

 

[najaB]

Seriously? I check, check and recheck when crossing a railway. I was wandering around the depot I work at today and I was the only driver on duty, so if I was wondering about no trains would be moving. I'm still looking around for trains even then.

Give it enough time and one day you'll neglect to check. It's human nature, and considering yourself infallible is to court catastrophe.

To quote an example from a recent post in another thread:

Late 1970s Hornsey. A 312 in a siding with a plastic bin-liner thing wrapped around the pantograph. What caused a fully trained passed-out Guard after seeing it there to climb up and try and remove it?

Brian was a lovely chap and the eulogies at his funeral were fulsome and generous...