The one aspect that is niggling me as that when the train started to move after the SPAD it is clear (and this is stated in the report) that it went through a set of points set against it. Obviously they were trailing points otherwise the train would have followed the set route, and in doing so damaged the point. The driver should have been able to clearly see they were adversely set against him yet it appears he carried on regardless. I find the whole issue of the: SPAD, continuing after the SAPD and then passing through adverse set points as bizarre quite frankly.