Level crossing stupidity...

[kevinlms]

On 05/04/2019 at 17:16, Sir TophamHatt said:

Just seen this on Facebook :

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/300842016662071/permalink/2262858317127088/

 

Record from monitoring cameras from yesterday's accident at a railway crossing in Puszczykowo (Poland)

 

The ambulance (thankfully without a patient) entered the railway crossing during the closing of the barriers.

 

Next, the ambulance driver started to perform strange maneuvers instead of breaking off the barriers.

 

After a while, the EP07-450 locomotive running the PKP Intercity train hits it.

 

In the accident, a doctor and a paramedic died, the ambulance driver managed to survive miraculously.

A case of the wrong one survived.

[ejstubbs]

8 hours ago, railsquid said:

'Victim fashion': Netherlands rail defends controversial campaign amid backlash

 

Great, isn't it?  It sometimes feels as if every time someone dies on the railway through their own bad choices it somehow ends up being partly the railway's fault.  Yet when the railways try to take robust steps to try to bring home to people the risks they might be taking, they get pilloried for it.

[PhilJ W]

8 hours ago, railsquid said:

'Victim fashion': Netherlands rail defends controversial campaign amid backlash

 

 

5 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Great, isn't it?  It sometimes feels as if every time someone dies on the railway through their own bad choices it somehow ends up being partly the railway's fault.  Yet when the railways try to take robust steps to try to bring home to people the risks they might be taking, they get pilloried for it.

The only doubt I have is as mentioned at the bottom of the article. The effect upon train drivers and witnesses to these accidents.

[101]

40 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

 

The only doubt I have is as mentioned at the bottom of the article. The effect upon train drivers and witnesses to these accidents.

 

Speaking as an ex-driver who suffered a suicide. I would say all drivers are aware of the effects of a person being hit by a train, and many will witness or have witnessed it, especially when we used to be asked to pass the remains of such incidents at caution before they were cleaned up (though thankfully any identifiable 'bits' were usually covered over) and it was always a bit of a shock.

As such I don't think showing articles of clothing will have too much effect on drivers as long as they are not identified to specific incidents, i.e. I don't think i would like to have seen items from the person i hit.

[phil-b259]

20 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

That is unbelievable - What on earth was the Ambulance driver thinking ?

 

(Presumably in Poland there is no requirement to prove a full-barrier crossing clear by some means before a train is signalled over it ?)

 

 

I hesitate to say this - but maybe the ambulance driver knew exactly what they were doing.

 

Remember Ufton Nevet? - the driver deliberately placed themselves on the crossing in order to commits suicide.

 

Looking at the you tube footage of the Polish incident its almost as though the ambulance driver deliberately positions the vehicle to ensure a head on smash (which you would have thought would have killed him / her).

 

I imagine that the Paramedic and Doctor who died may well have been in the back doing stuff and were not paying attention to the driver - otherwise why did they not bail out? there was enough time once the driver started doing weird manoeuvrers....

[phil-b259]

15 minutes ago, 101 said:

 

As such I don't think showing articles of clothing will have too much effect on drivers as long as they are not identified to specific incidents, i.e. I don't think i would like to have seen items from the person i hit.

 

But thats the problem - to have the desired effect it is necessary to identify the incident (e.g. The 14 year old girl wearing this garment is still in a Coma over a year later after attempting to retrieve her phone) - which in  turn means the driver involved is likely to recognise it with the negative effects mentioned in the news story.

[101]

29 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

But thats the problem - to have the desired effect it is necessary to identify the incident (e.g. The 14 year old girl wearing this garment is still in a Coma over a year later after attempting to retrieve her phone) - which in  turn means the driver involved is likely to recognise it with the negative effects mentioned in the news story.

 

I think I'll have to disagree with you. 

I know it that particular case as she's still alive it's probably trickier to describe. But I think generally when showing something like this it has just as much effect to say this is the tattered remains of an 18 year olds shirt as it does to say this is the tattered remains of Dave's shirt

[phil-b259]

7 minutes ago, 101 said:

 

I think I'll have to disagree with you. 

I know it that particular case as she's still alive it's probably trickier to describe. But I think generally when showing something like this it has just as much effect to say this is the tattered remains of an 18 year olds shirt as it does to say this is the tattered remains of Dave's shirt

 

Each driver is different - the BBC news item explicitly said that the driver involved in one incident had had a major relapse upon seeing the item of clothing from their incident displayed in public and that it had at a stroke undone 6 months worth of therapy to help them deal with the incident.

 

Nobody signs up as a train driver with the express knowledge that they will be killing folk (unlike say the armed forces) or that they will be exposed to blood / guts (like a Paramedic).

 

It is a proven that for some drivers, even their first incident is one too many and they have to stop driving trains or even leave the industry as a result of the mental anguish which results.  Others will be able to handle said metal health problems and remain driving for many decades.
 

Thus while you may not think you would react badly to such a campaign, it does not follow that will be the same for others.

 

That said I do think the campaign is a good idea - its just careful management is needed to minimise the negative effects within the train driving community, recognising that some will be affected far more deeply than others.

 

 

[101]

46 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Each driver is different - the BBC news item explicitly said that the driver involved in one incident had had a major relapse upon seeing the item of clothing from their incident displayed in public and that it had at a stroke undone 6 months worth of therapy to help them deal with the incident.

 

Nobody signs up as a train driver with the express knowledge that they will be killing folk (unlike say the armed forces) or that they will be exposed to blood / guts (like a Paramedic).

 

It is a proven that for some drivers, even their first incident is one too many and they have to stop driving trains or even leave the industry as a result of the mental anguish which results.  Others will be able to handle said metal health problems and remain driving for many decades.
 

Thus while you may not think you would react badly to such a campaign, it does not follow that will be the same for others.

 

That said I do think the campaign is a good idea - its just careful management is needed to minimise the negative effects within the train driving community, recognising that some will be affected far more deeply than others.

 

 

 

Which I think agrees exactly with what I said, no problem as long as a driver isn't able to identify his own incident

[Hobby]

Or they agree to it's use. Had they asked the driver concerned in that incident perhaps they'd have looked elsewhere.

[caradoc]

I agree absolutely that the effect of striking a person is awful for the (completely blameless) train Driver involved, as indeed it is for those (rail staff, Police and others) who subsequently have to attend on track to deal with the aftermath, but surely it is worth taking any measure necessary to prevent further incidents occurring, even if it does cause some upset (but wouldn't any mention of a rail fatality, or indeed any suicide, possibly have the same unfortunate effect) ?

 

[Hobby]

It's more the point that some drivers react differently to others, so if you are going to use items which can be identified from a particular incident it would be best to speak to those involved first to see what their reaction would be. You don't want to upset 6 months of rehab when other examples could be used.

[phil-b259]

29 minutes ago, caradoc said:

I agree absolutely that the effect of striking a person is awful for the (completely blameless) train Driver involved, as indeed it is for those (rail staff, Police and others) who subsequently have to attend on track to deal with the aftermath, but surely it is worth taking any measure necessary to prevent further incidents occurring, even if it does cause some upset (but wouldn't any mention of a rail fatality, or indeed any suicide, possibly have the same unfortunate effect) ?

 

 

The issue is not the general principle, but rather the implementation of it.

 

In the news article it was stated that the driver was taken completely unawares by the media campaign - and was thus unprepared to confront re-emergence of the mental trauma they thought they had successfully put behind them.

 

This could have been avoided by a little more care and background work before going public with the campaign.

 

It would be interesting to know what our train driving members think - and in particular how they would feel if they suddenly were presented with images of the clothing items worn by a person they had killed appearing in a media campaign with no advance notice.

 

Its very easy to sit there and superficially dismiss the possibility of any adverse reactions - but is that really an honest appraisal of how you would feel?  One of the big problems with mental health issues (which dies include trauma and the after effects of witnessing death close up) is that we humans are very good at hiding / suppressing our real feelings. True there is an element of 'I don't know till it happens' in all this but we can at least try and be prepared as it were.

Edited April 6, 2019 by phil-b259

[caradoc]

Fair points Hobby and phil-b259, it would be considerate to consult the Drivers involved.

[Hobby]

25 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

a person they had killed 

 

I might be being a bit pedantic but I think the words "a train they were driving had killed" is more appropriate. In most cases the driver could do nothing to stop the incident so I don't think they should be blamed. I know several drivers who have told me that's how they get over any such incidents, they look at it as they couldn't physically do anything to prevent the death so don't hold themselves to blame. 

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

I might be being a bit pedantic but I think the words "a train they were driving had killed" is more appropriate. In most cases the driver could do nothing to stop the incident so I don't think they should be blamed. I know several drivers who have told me that's how they get over any such incidents, they look at it as they couldn't physically do anything to prevent the death so don't hold themselves to blame. 

 

Its not pedantic to point out poor wording on my part when it comes to sensitive subjects such as this.

Edited April 6, 2019 by phil-b259

[martin_wynne]

RAIB response to the incident at Penrhyn:

 

 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safety-digest-022019-penrhyn-lc/level-crossing-accident-at-penrhyn-ffestiniog-railway-6-january-2019

 

Interesting note at the bottom on the number of Fs in the name.

 

Martin.

[The Stationmaster]

30 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

RAIB response to the incident at Penrhyn:

 

 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safety-digest-022019-penrhyn-lc/level-crossing-accident-at-penrhyn-ffestiniog-railway-6-january-2019

 

Interesting note at the bottom on the number of Fs in the name.

 

Martin.

To be honest I don't think much of the wording on that STOP board - it's not positive enough when it's that close to the crossing and approaching on a curve and falling gradient.  Far better to have it worded as a positive requirement to stop and then 'Ensure that crossing is clear before proceeding'.

[avonside1563]

On 10/04/2019 at 13:09, The Stationmaster said:

To be honest I don't think much of the wording on that STOP board - it's not positive enough when it's that close to the crossing and approaching on a curve and falling gradient.  Far better to have it worded as a positive requirement to stop and then 'Ensure that crossing is clear before proceeding'.

I agree to an extent, but the current sign still states 'STOP unless the crossing is clear to proceed' which it obviously wasn't as the barriers were still closed to rail traffic. Presumably had the driver followed the local instructions and come to a stand at the sign he would not have been on contaminated rail and therefore able to stop without any issues.

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, avonside1563 said:

I agree to an extent, but the current sign still states 'STOP unless the crossing is clear to proceed' which it obviously wasn't as the barriers were still closed to rail traffic. Presumably had the driver followed the local instructions and come to a stand at the sign he would not have been on contaminated rail and therefore able to stop without any issues.

If there's enough of a risk of running in to the crossing better to just have an unambiguous "stop then check" though? It then becomes habit to stop. Shouldn't conditional requirements to stop be done with signals?

[kevinlms]

18 minutes ago, Reorte said:

If there's enough of a risk of running in to the crossing better to just have an unambiguous "stop then check" though? It then becomes habit to stop. Shouldn't conditional requirements to stop be done with signals?

Plenty of examples of 'STOP for further instructions' type signs on the Scottish far north lines. Not sure of the exact wording, but they are a fixed sign without signals.

 

Ah, here's one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Electronic_Token_Block#/media/File:West_Highland_Line_single_line_permssion_sign_-_Rannoch_south_01.jpg

[Compound2632]

24 minutes ago, Reorte said:

If there's enough of a risk of running in to the crossing better to just have an unambiguous "stop then check" though? It then becomes habit to stop. 

But that was the rule. The point at issue is that the rule was habitually ignored.

[kevinlms]

18 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

But that was the rule. The point at issue is that the rule was habitually ignored.

But they're only little trains, going at low speed! What could go wrong?

[Reorte]

23 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Plenty of examples of 'STOP for further instructions' type signs on the Scottish far north lines. Not sure of the exact wording, but they are a fixed sign without signals.

 

Ah, here's one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Electronic_Token_Block#/media/File:West_Highland_Line_single_line_permssion_sign_-_Rannoch_south_01.jpg

Those are "STOP" then do something (e.g. get the token) rather than "STOP (unless somethingorother)", i.e. trains will always have to stop at them. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but there aren't any situations where the train won't stop, and permission to then proceed is indicated by the light flashing (which I suppose you could count as a token) rather than the state of some non-signalling apparatus.

[Reorte]

25 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

But that was the rule. The point at issue is that the rule was habitually ignored.

"STOP unless..." means that the stop isn't absolute, all the time, which might breed bad habits unless you can manage to get drivers to treat the barriers in exactly the same way as a signal. If they were habitually passing the sign when they should've been stopping that suggests that wasn't the case (I'm assuming they'd never dream of passing a signal at danger).