Collision with vehicle at North Rode

[martin_wynne]

Published today:

 

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources/091214_R332009_North_Rode.pdf

 

Anyone think the fence repair shown in figure 19 is a scandal? Bearing in mind the possible severity of the consequences if it happens again. Remember Great Heck?

 

Martin.

[60maniac]

Being local to me it worry's me how many places i've seen like this around here and the way people drive I won't rant on about that feel sorry for the drivers that had to witness this happen lets hope network rail put some decent fencing up to prevent this,thanks for posting was interesting read. Many thanks Richard

[Glorious NSE]

That's one very bent 4x4....

[Russ (mines a pint)]

INtresting read:

Anyone think the fence repair shown in figure 19 is a scandal? Bearing in mind the possible severity of the consequences if it happens again.

Yes you'd think at the very least some Armco along the front of the fence!- just in case it happens again!

[edcayton]

Yes, but it does state that the function of the fence is to keep out trespassers and Not to stop runaway vehicles. Clearly this is a temporary repair to restore the fence to its pre-accident condition. It is to be hoped that a solution to this problem is found (eg ARMCO or similar)and installed as a matter of urgency.

 

However, it is very to say with hindsight that this accident was easily foreseeable with a full risk assessment. Are we to have Armco all along all rail lines from now on?

 

If we are talking risk assessment then what do we make of a train hurtling through the darkness at 125 mph, needing 1 km or more to stop and the driver relying on a signaller several miles away to tell him his path is clear when neither of them can see if it is?

 

Doesn't this sound like a mad form of transportation which would not be allowed if it were to be invented today?(not to mention having live high voltage supply rails all over the place !)

 

I do question the whole business of risk assessment. Am I right in thinking that the French don't fence their railways including TGV lines?

 

A very interesting post, Martin, and thank you for putting it on here. I expect my views may differ from yours, and I have been accused of playing Devil's advocate. I wonder how many replies it will generate.

 

Ed

[Russ (mines a pint)]

However, it is very to say with hindsight that this accident was easily foreseeable with a full risk assessment. Are we to have Armco all along all rail lines from now on?

That would be a bit silly and costly as there are lots of places where it would'nt be unnecessary- you would think they'd put some here now though! and identify similar places where it might occur.

I expect my views may differ from yours, and I have been accused of playing Devil's advocate. I wonder how many replies it will generate.

It might be fair to say these dozy motorists get whats coming to them! - but in this case the train stayed upright and did'nt hit anything catastrophic- imagine if it had hit the bridge? -or a train coming the other way? Like Great Heck.

 

The Train's staff and passengers deserve to be protected from this style of incompetence, even if these type of motorists are better off 'wiped out' of the gene pool!

 

I thought it was a good demonstration ot those life saver bar thingy's.

[Fat Controller]

Yes, but it does state that the function of the fence is to keep out trespassers and Not to stop runaway vehicles. Clearly this is a temporary repair to restore the fence to its pre-accident condition. It is to be hoped that a solution to this problem is found (eg ARMCO or similar)and installed as a matter of urgency.

 

However, it is very to say with hindsight that this accident was easily foreseeable with a full risk assessment. Are we to have Armco all along all rail lines from now on?

 

If we are talking risk assessment then what do we make of a train hurtling through the darkness at 125 mph, needing 1 km or more to stop and the driver relying on a signaller several miles away to tell him his path is clear when neither of them can see if it is?

 

Doesn't this sound like a mad form of transportation which would not be allowed if it were to be invented today?(not to mention having live high voltage supply rails all over the place !)

 

I do question the whole business of risk assessment. Am I right in thinking that the French don't fence their railways including TGV lines?

 

 

 

A very interesting post, Martin, and thank you for putting it on here. I expect my views may differ from yours, and I have been accused of playing Devil's advocate. I wonder how many replies it will generate.

 

Ed

Until recently most railway lines in France have been unfenced, apart from LGV lines, but fencing is being introduced in urban areas, where SNCF have Trespass and Vandalism problems every bit as bad as Network Rail's.

The obligation of the railways to provide fencing along their routes in Britain had nothing to do with safety originally, but was concerned with stopping the Great Unwashed wandering on to landowners' fields.

[Kenton]

nothing to do with safety originally, but was concerned with stopping the Great Unwashed wandering on to landowners' fields.

Not much changed then?

[unravelled]

I know it's easy with hindsight, but something as simple as laying out the parking with vehicles parallel to the fence would make a difference, and reduce the risk of a repeat.

 

 

One thing I've often wondered, if in this situation. Would shorting the running rails with jump leads have done any good, as an early warning?

 

Dave

[Fat Controller]

I know it's easy with hindsight, but something as simple as laying out the parking with vehicles parallel to the fence would make a difference, and reduce the risk of a repeat.

 

 

One thing I've often wondered, if in this situation. Would shorting the running rails with jump leads have done any good, as an early warning?

 

Dave

Isn't the bit around North Rode fitted with axle-counters, not track-circuits? In which case, you'd be better off with a red petticoat than some jump leads.

[martin_wynne]

Yes, but it does state that the function of the fence is to keep out trespassers and Not to stop runaway vehicles. Clearly this is a temporary repair to restore the fence to its pre-accident condition. It is to be hoped that a solution to this problem is found (eg ARMCO or similar)and installed as a matter of urgency.

Hi Ed,

 

Did you misread the date? It's 12 months since the accident.

 

It's understandable that the original risk might have gone unnoticed. But after having it demonstrated, to do nothing at all for 12 months to prevent a repeat is reckless negligence. A few lorry loads of rubble could have been dumped along the base of the fence within 24 hours as a temporary fix. Let's hope that those responsible don't have to face another such accident which leads to loss of life.

 

Martin.

[David Rickard]

Well next time UPS do a risk assessment, they'll have to include this, and one would hope they'll actually do something to rectify it. Given the state of the original fence, I don't think they will. It'll be flagged up as a risk, but such a low risk, would they bother doing anything about it?

 

Ultimately, it won't make them money adding some sort of barrier, and it probably isn't a liability to them as such, so they'll just take the risk. They'll most likely work on the basis of 'my land, so I do what I want' and tell the RAIB and Network Rail to get lost.

[vc-10]

I'm amazed that UPS can't be made to improve the fencing. Maybe NR should put up Armco on their side of the fence?

 

The Broken Cross problems are really annoying. That bridge is on my route into Salisbury and NR/Wiltshire Council have done a really shite job of sorting it out. The road runs parallel to the line, makes a 90 degrees turn, another 90 degrees turn and continues parallel to the road. There are 2 small sideroads coming onto the main road too, on each corner. There were 4 way lights on it for weeks. They broke, and it went from a 10 minute wait to running perfectly smoothly...

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Ultimately, it won't make them money adding some sort of barrier, and it probably isn't a liability to them as such, so they'll just take the risk.

Maybe not this time, but if a customers car could end up on the track so could one of their own vehicles, they have a responsibility to their employees. Imagine how different it would havve been if it was one of their vans and the driver hadn't been able to get out in time?

 

Though as Martin says its the 12month lack of ANY action that is scandalous, there would be cheap measures, both better road marking in terms of parking and the pile of rubble ideas as already suggested could have been done quickly and at relatively low cost, even if a better physical barrier could not be afforded/justified?

[Edwin_m]

If we are talking risk assessment then what do we make of a train hurtling through the darkness at 125 mph, needing 1 km or more to stop and the driver relying on a signaller several miles away to tell him his path is clear when neither of them can see if it is?

 

Doesn't this sound like a mad form of transportation which would not be allowed if it were to be invented today?(not to mention having live high voltage supply rails all over the place !)

 

And what do we make of a transport system where the person in charge of a vehicle has unrestricted control over its speed and direction, most vehicles are easily capable of at least 50% more than the maximum speed permitted on the transport system, there are no restrictions on the working hours of most vehicle drivers and enforcement of the rules on mechanical safety and driver behaviour is patchy to say the least? Give me a train any time, and the casualty figures prove it.

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Ed,

 

Did you misread the date? It's 12 months since the accident.

 

It's understandable that the original risk might have gone unnoticed. But after having it demonstrated, to do nothing at all for 12 months to prevent a repeat is reckless negligence. A few lorry loads of rubble could have been dumped along the base of the fence within 24 hours as a temporary fix. Let's hope that those responsible don't have to face another such accident which leads to loss of life.

 

Martin.

 

But what would happen if they did risk assess it? The likelihood - based on historical data - of a vehicle going through the fence is very low, the consequential hazard would clearly rank quite seriously and there would be a clear risk of injury or death. But all the way through would be that question of 'a very rare likelihood of something going through the fence' and that is what is going to drive their decision.

 

Even if they erected Armco barriers there remains the risk of a vehicle going over that, or through palisade fencing - in simplistic terms whatever they do there is unlikely to stop the worst case scenario of a heavy road vehicle moving at some speed due to a skid or whatever. So they do nothing, or they 'keep the situation under review pending a longer term solution' (which usually keeps them off the hook of an Improvement Notice or worse).

 

Immensely frustrating I know but that is the way an RA can be presented should they wish and it would be difficult to argue against.

[martin_wynne]

But all the way through would be that question of 'a very rare likelihood of something going through the fence' and that is what is going to drive their decision.

Hi Mike,

 

You don't need a risk assessment to know that if something has happened once, it might happen again. After all, it's a fairly common human failing to omit to apply a handbrake firmly when parking. It needs only a kerb or a pile of rubble or a few concrete blocks to prevent against that circumstance having tragic consequences.

 

Protecting against a vehicle driving under power and at speed through the fence is an entirely different risk, and an entirely different likelihood. Probably rare enough not to justify the expense of a full crash barrier in that situation. It's doing nothing at all after a serious preventable accident which is unacceptable.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[beast66606]

Hi Mike,

 

You don't need a risk assessment to know that if something has happened once, it might happen again. After all, it's a fairly common human failing to omit to apply a handbrake firmly when parking. It needs only a kerb or a pile of rubble or a few concrete blocks to prevent against that circumstance having tragic consequences.

 

Protecting against a vehicle driving under power and at speed through the fence is an entirely different risk, and an entirely different likelihood. Probably rare enough not to justify the expense of a full crash barrier in that situation. It's doing nothing at all after a serious preventable accident which is unacceptable.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 

Have you communicated your concerns to UPS Martin ?

[martin_wynne]

Have you communicated your concerns to UPS Martin?

Not yet, because the RAIB report was published only today and there is no email address provided on the UK contact information for UPS:

 

http://www.ups.com/c...ed_kingdom.html

 

(The email link given leads to a page headed "Unites States".)

 

I believe the site address is:

 

UPS

The Tileries

North Rode

Congleton

Cheshire

CW12 2PH

 

and I shall be writing to the manager there, and to Jim Barber at the Feltham address, tomorrow. You too?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

because the RAIB report was published only today

I suspect that at this stage waiting to see what happens when the media gets hold of this should be enough, and in any case private correspondance would be better aimed at either:

a) MP

b ) Transport Secretary

c) whoever is in charge of the the regulatory bodies for the Railway and the HSE?

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Mike,

 

You don't need a risk assessment to know that if something has happened once, it might happen again. After all, it's a fairly common human failing to omit to apply a handbrake firmly when parking. It needs only a kerb or a pile of rubble or a few concrete blocks to prevent against that circumstance having tragic consequences.

 

Protecting against a vehicle driving under power and at speed through the fence is an entirely different risk, and an entirely different likelihood. Probably rare enough not to justify the expense of a full crash barrier in that situation. It's doing nothing at all after a serious preventable accident which is unacceptable.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

But, common sense or not, that is often the way it tends to work. At one of my past employers a risk assessment was produced estimating (most likely guessing ) that we would have a pantograph collison (with infrastructure) in one location once in ten years. In reality we had one in that vicinioty on more or less an annual basis for 3 consecutive years - duly hitting a signal gantry, a footbridge (which I believe still bears the scars), and a tunnel, in the process. But apart from reminding folk of procedures no other changes were made and nothing was done to 'catch' an incorrectly raised pan before it had time to self-lower.

 

At another location the RA came up with the same result, one in 10 years. 3 years later we had one - but we didn't have another in the rest of the 10 year period, so the RA was 'right' .

 

In the case of this vehicle running down an embankment the assessment will have to include 'rate' (at which the incident might occur) and it is clearly very low from historical evidence. The consequences will - unfortunately - not always rest with the organisation which would erect the barrier so for them the financial risk is also potentially low and unless legislation forces them to do something they will probably not, because they might face greater direct risks which need attention elsewhere.

 

Now think about this one. How often do you see tower cranes, or other large cranes, working close to the railway boundary on building sites or whatever? Simple answer is quite frequently but what precautions are taken to protect the railway from an error by the crane operator - none. Now back in the mid/late 1950s a crane on a building site swung a load foul of a railway line with the result that a train was hit and people were seriously injured. A recommendation from the Inspecting Officer drew attention to the serious hazard such cranes presented and suggested they should be treated as would be a crane working on the railway - nothing came of it and I am still anxiously awaiting something similar (hopefully without injury etc of course) to happen again to see what the outcome might be.

 

Simple, regrettable, situation is that those working alongside the railway are usually totally disinterested on what could occur on the other side of the fence.

[Ohmisterporter]

As is usually the case with RAIB reports, I found this very interesting. I wonder in the car driver's insurance paid out? Leaving your car on an incline with the handbrake off surely invalidates the insurance. The trains involved behaved very well too, a commendation to their design and builders. Where I felt uncomfortable with the RAIB report is where it starts suggesting that if the first train had behaved differently, by jack-knifing or or hitting an overbridge, then the collision with the second train could have been a lot worse. However it doesn't add that if the car had not rolled onto the track in the first place things would have been better.

 

Geoff.

[edcayton]

I would have thought tha car insurance should have paid. The driver made a mistake by not applying the parking brake (either at all or fully) and not leaving it in gear, but all accidents/crashes are the result of a mistake by one or more persons.

Some interesting thoughts on this topic.

 

Ed

[Edwin_m]

As is usually the case with RAIB reports, I found this very interesting. I wonder in the car driver's insurance paid out? Leaving your car on an incline with the handbrake off surely invalidates the insurance. The trains involved behaved very well too, a commendation to their design and builders. Where I felt uncomfortable with the RAIB report is where it starts suggesting that if the first train had behaved differently, by jack-knifing or or hitting an overbridge, then the collision with the second train could have been a lot worse. However it doesn't add that if the car had not rolled onto the track in the first place things would have been better.

 

This is actually a very important part of their reports. Serious accidents are so rare that it is necessary also to examine the near misses, so as to learn any lessons and also understand the trends. After all if there hadn't been a set of points to push the derailed train onto the other track, and a coal train approaching at that exact moment, then Great Heck would probably have been much lower on the scale than 10 killed.

 

I recall from Great Heck that the driver's insurers had to pay about about ??10m, so I guess they would go after them here too.

[Glorious NSE]

Where I felt uncomfortable with the RAIB report is where it starts suggesting that if the first train had behaved differently, by jack-knifing or or hitting an overbridge, then the collision with the second train could have been a lot worse. However it doesn't add that if the car had not rolled onto the track in the first place things would have been better.

 

They have a remit to look into accidents which could have resulted in fatalities had the situation been slightly different, they also have to bring it home to non-rail readers who might be thinking "whew, that all turned out all right then" the potential for this kind of thing.

 

The 323 being diverted just a couple of feet further to the left than it was and striking the bridge abutment squarely rather than just a glancing blow could easily have done that, even without factoring the second train.

 

However it doesn't add that if the car had not rolled onto the track in the first place things would have been better.

 

Surely there's an entire report giving that message!