An interesting RAIB report re a Stobart truck knocking a bridge parapet onto the tracks and hit by train.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493315/R022016_160120_Froxfield.pdf
Interesting comment in the report
Pressure on councils to reduce signage in rural areas to protect the environment"
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 23 Jan 16 at 09:22
|
In summary the accident involved a lorry from Stoke to Andover. Left Stoke early afternoon but was not due at Andover until 06:00 following morning.
Intended route was presumably M6>M5>Cheltenham>Swindon>Marlborough>Andover. Driver missed a turn due to distraction and ended up going east on A4 towards Hungerford. Tried to regain his planned route via minor roads through Gt Bedwyn but a few hundred yards after leaving the main road he came to a bridge over Kennet and Avon canal which he judged too narrow to cross.
In course of reversing back to A4, over the adjacent West of England main line, he dislodged a complete bridge parapet onto the track below. The debris was hit by a IC125 train travelling at nearly 90mph and with over 700 passengers on board. Fortuitously it was brought to a halt without derailment or injury.
RAIB report is interesting for the lack of any commentary on the truck drivers thinking and the pressures bearing on him. On face he had plenty of time and would have had a night break to recover.
Like Z I'd be interested in a professional truckers take including likely pressures due (a) driving time regs and (b) employer sanctions for being off route and associated costs - fuel usage etc.
|
I was also interested with the lack of signage giving the driver any guidance as to suitability of that route. I know that bridge and road (parapet still not replaced - has temporary steel barrier) and its very very wide where the driver turned in, narrowing quickly round a bend. Its a real come on.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 23 Jan 16 at 12:27
|
>> I was also interested with the lack of signage giving the driver any guidance as
>> to suitability of that route.
It's got signs now, see RAIB report para 110.
The Council's policy. as described at paras 56-59, is to erect signs in response to requests and/or incidents. That seems reasonable and I suspect is consistent with much of rest of rural England.
We must have had at least one thread here in last six years on proliferation of 'unnecessary' signage .
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 23 Jan 16 at 14:24
|
|
The real hole in this entire tale is the delay between what was clearly a very able and on the ball witness providing all the required information in a timely manner, and the delay from then to stopping trains. 10 minutes. By which time it was too late.
|
|
And the fact that a whole chuffing parapet on the pw becomes a 'few bricks'.
|
Well, there but the grace of God goes every lorry driver who has missed a turn they should have taken.
Trying to get back on route is always hazardous and you can only go with a 'sense of direction' and what you can see.
Which is what he did by turning into a wide road with no signs to give any warning of a narrow canal bridge ahead.
It was the worst possible circumstances ever....low light, over railway bridge and then can go no further, no-one to watch you back and partly a blind side reverse.
It's what we all dread.
What he should have done of course, is phone the local police on the non emergency number and said 'I'm in a pickle can you come and help please' and they would have watched him back.
BUT, that would possibly have led to a reprimand for
a) being off route and..
b) getting the authorities involved when he shouldn't have been there
c) losing face and pride are a big factor.
More later
Pat
|
PAt,
How high is the sort of artic involved here? More than 4.7m/15'6" under the railway at Hungerford?
|
The trailer number of HT3553 denotes High Trailer Bromp which means it would be over 14' 6'' high.
I'm sure that's how Stobarts trailer numbers work, although all firms have their own system.
I'll look at this in more detail in the morning as we got the boiler working again yesterday and it has just packed in again today so we're a bit busy here at the mo.....and none too pleased either!
Pat
|
Cheers Pat. Was wondering what driver's options were. Certainly not looking for immediate answers.
Good luck with the boiler.
|
Finally had a chance for both of us to read the report in full last night and this has us both mystified.
His route from Stoke to Andover should have been M6/M40/A34/A343 or carry on A34 to A303.
We can't imagine what rout he was taking to have 'missed his turn' and resulted in him going EAST bound on the A4?
But, given that he did it still doesn't make sense because it states he travelled 7 miles on the A4 in an easterly direction before Froxfield. In that time he passed at least two layby's where he could have pulled in and done a U turn out of the other end. He passed a garage where it looks like there was room to turn round, but all of these would have been an opportunity to at least pull in and consult the map and decide to carry on the A4 to the A34. If he was familiar with the route or an experienced driver he would have known the A34 was ahead anyway and chosen that course of action.
Again, where he chose to turn right into the lane there was ample room to do a U turn in the road opening as it's very wide and go back, or even to have pulled over and reversed into the side road to turn round.
This makes me think this was a fairly inexperienced driver lacking in confidence of his reversing skills and not familiar with the turning circle of an artic which is extremely small if push comes to shove!
But why he was where he was will remain a mystery I suspect, to all but the inner sanctum of Eddie Stobart, who don't like bad publicity.
I still feel sorry for him, we've all been there when young and inexperienced and reversing skills are only learned by making cock ups.
Pat
|
|
Thanks Pat - interesting perspective on it. I suppose for the investigation they are less interested in the broader 'was that the best way to get from A to B' and more in the specifics of the roads near the accident site? I can't add anything,other than route-wise I *think* if you go Cirencester/Cheltenham/Swindon/Marlborough it's a straightish run from the Stoke area, and would give you the opportunity to end up going east bound on the A4 if you took the wrong turning in Marlborough. And it is *a* route to Wiltshire...though perhaps not the best? Though I also don't know where Froxfield is, so not sure if Ive added much!!
|
>> We can't imagine what rout he was taking to have 'missed his turn' and resulted
>> in him going EAST bound on the A4?
>> Pat
>>
>>
Could he have been blindly following satnav instructions?
|
|
I think he might have gone M6 M40 got off at bicester and gone down the a338 and instead of going south went east at hungerford.
|
>> Could he have been blindly following satnav instructions?
The accident report covers this possibility, with conclusions at para 60.
The lorry was not equipped with an HGV specific satnav but the driver had his own maps and personal satnav. It goes on to say The HGV driver reported to Eddie Stobart Ltd that he had his own personal satellite navigation system switched on for the journey but that he was not directed along Oak Hill Road by it.. There is no comment on the veracity of that statement.
Because there were no restrictions on the road at the time any HGV specific satnav would not have shown the road as impassable unless updated via driver feedback. RAIB tested market leading HGV systems and found none of them warned against using Oak Hill Road.
|
>> His route from Stoke to Andover should have been M6/M40/A34/A343 or carry on A34 to
>> A303.
>>
>> We can't imagine what rout he was taking to have 'missed his turn' and resulted
>> in him going EAST bound on the A4?
The M40>A34 would be my first thought and for cars Google states it to be fastest.
However M6>M5>Cirencester>Swindon>Marlborough is 11 miles shorter and the time difference is only 5mins, and that at car speeds.
|
|
Lucky nobody was killed.Stobart are big trucks,what I've seen on the Television the majority are good drivers.Accidents happen and with trucks it is usually bad.
|
>> What he should have done of course, is phone the local police on the non
>> emergency number and said 'I'm in a pickle can you come and help please' and
>> they would have watched him back.
Depending on which force and what time of day, that could take quite some time, especially nowadays.
Hours more than minutes.
What about getting the first local driver that turns up to do it?... depending on how 'with it' they seem.
|
What about getting the first local driver that turns up to do it?... depending on how 'with it' they seem.
Wouldn't be surprised if Stobart drivers had a standing instruction never to use a member of the public as a banksman.
|
>> Wouldn't be surprised if Stobart drivers had a standing instruction never to use a member
>> of the public as a banksman.
>>
Surely a m-o-p banksman is better than no banksman at all?
|
>> >> Wouldn't be surprised if Stobart drivers had a standing instruction never to use a
>> member
>> >> of the public as a banksman.
>> >>
>> Surely a m-o-p banksman is better than no banksman at all?
There is going to be a whole world of trouble for the driver if he runs over a banksman he picked up on the street! And what happens if the M-O-P banksman directs the driver to knock the parapet off the bridge onto the railway?
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 23 Jan 16 at 21:31
|
As an aside, banksman is an odd term. Anyone know where it originated and what has it to do with banks?
|
>> As an aside, banksman is an odd term. Anyone know where it originated and what
>> has it to do with banks?
>>
>>
>>
> en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksman
|
>> >> As an aside, banksman is an odd term. Anyone know where it originated and
>> what
>> >> has it to do with banks?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksman
>>
Not for the first time, I'm slightly grateful that i'm not Australian. ;-)
|
Yes that explains what a banksman was and is but is it doesn't explain the use of the word "bank".
Presumably it has something to do with cranes as that is the earlier use. Can anyone throw any light on it?
|
>> Yes that explains what a banksman was and is but is it doesn't explain the
>> use of the word "bank".
>>
>> Presumably it has something to do with cranes as that is the earlier use. Can
>> anyone throw any light on it?
>>
I took this line to explain the use of the word bank.
''the man stationed at the bank or top of a pit'' They then became known as a banksman. I assume bank was a word we would use now would be 'a banking' so would be higher up and easier to see what was happening.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 24 Jan 16 at 11:35
|
Banksman was used first for directing crane operations (my Grandfather was crane operator in the docks pre war, and then migrated to tower cranes, and back to lower cranes) long before it was used in directing lorry manoeuvres.
Banking has been used as a term for "loading" and there are references to a banksman at a pit head, standing on a bank directing bucket loading operations.
Its evolved I think is the answer.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 24 Jan 16 at 11:36
|
Yes looking into it a bit more its use seems to have gone from mining to crane driving to vehicles. A man responsibility for unloading the carts pulled up a slope or bank out of a drift mine seems a possibility.
|
>> There is going to be a whole world of trouble for the driver if he
>> runs over a banksman he picked up on the street!
Miss B's duties include acting as banksman when the works truck, a 7.5 tonner not and artic, is being manouvered. There's a detailed SOP about hand signals and where the banksman must stand so as to be in full view of driver.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 24 Jan 16 at 09:50
|
>> >> Wouldn't be surprised if Stobart drivers had a standing instruction never to use a
>> member
>> >> of the public as a banksman.
>> >>
>> Surely a m-o-p banksman is better than no banksman at all?
>>
Sometimes. As Pat will confirm, most "ordinary joe's" have very little idea of which way an artic's tractor unit needs to turn in order to make the trailer behave as you want it to. A banksman who's not wise to this can often be more a hindrance than a help; in these particular circumstances, where the driver too appears to be relatively inexperienced, it might even be that the assistance of the car driver actually contributed towards the bump. We'll never know, though.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Sun 24 Jan 16 at 10:59
|
>> BUT, that would possibly have led to a reprimand for
>> a) being off route and..
>> b) getting the authorities involved when he shouldn't have been there
>> c) losing face and pride are a big factor.
I am sure that is true.
And its a crass standard of management that winds me up more than I can tell you.
|
>> Fortuitously it was brought to a halt without derailment or injury.
>>
I don't think it stopped by chance. I imagine that the driver applied the brakes.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Sat 23 Jan 16 at 17:41
|
>> I don't think it stopped by chance. I imagine that the driver applied the brakes.
Chapeau to the duty pedant.
|
This is really a good news story. It could so easily have been a major disaster - 750 passengers on a train derailed at 75mph.
There are so many overbridges with brick parapets, most probably lacking reinforcement, it's amazing that there aren't accidents like this all the time. It's astonishingly easy to knock over a brick wall.
|
I found the report fascinating.
I was surprised that the train, with damaged bogie and missing and damaged deflector was allowed to proceed at up to 100mph to Bristol. There was only a reduction of 10mph from the normal maximum running speed.
The car driver who reported the incident was very calm, it was because procedures were not followed in the control room that the train driver wasn't warned in time.
|
>> I was surprised that the train, with damaged bogie and missing and damaged deflector was
>> allowed to proceed at up to 100mph to Bristol. There was only a reduction of
>> 10mph from the normal maximum running speed.
The RAIB was horrified. Not only did it not have effective lifeguards (the things that saved it in the first place), it also had no Automatic Train Protection (the aerial was gone) and the bogie was, on later inspection, cracked and twisted.
|
>> The car driver who reported the incident was very calm, it was because procedures were
>> not followed in the control room that the train driver wasn't warned in time.
>>
Calling BTP (British Transport Police) sharpish, is a reasonable call from a police control room as they have responsibility for railways.... and that would usually be your default.
The fact that there was a procedure for calling the appropriate rail number first wouldn't necessarily be known by the first handler in the control room (there are procedures for everything, there are procedures for procedures, it's very difficult to keep up with it all).
In this instance, the procedure was for the call handler to inform the Inspector in charge of the control room, so he/she could inform the rail authority...that didn't happen.
I sometimes think that when folk set these protocols they give no regard to how the people using them are actually going to know about them... and how they will be used in reality.
|
>> I sometimes think that when folk set these protocols they give no regard to how
>> the people using them are actually going to know about them... and how they will
>> be used in reality.
When they are entering details on the system, are there not links and prompts for the operator?
IE the act of entering "railway" should bring up a prompt or dialogue "OBSTRUCTION ON TRACK? INFORM DUTY INSPECTOR IMED"
|
>> When they are entering details on the system, are there not links and prompts for
>> the operator?
>>
>> IE the act of entering "railway" should bring up a prompt or dialogue "OBSTRUCTION ON
>> TRACK? INFORM DUTY INSPECTOR IMED"
>>
Yes ..... although it's been nearly 15 years since I've been in charge of a control room.
That sort of thing was becoming more of a norm when I moved away from that work. You'd get a prompt appear...trouble is you'd get a prompt for virtually everything and you soon learnt to sift through it quickly as it slowed you down, badly.
Don't forget the Duty Insp wouldn't necessarily be glued to their seat for a full 12 hour shift. Individual call handlers would be rotated, so if they were due or needed a break, they'd be replaced...the Insp wouldn't. He/she would be available and nearby, but might not be actually sat there at their desk (they were in the control room in this case though).
|
One aspect of this does rather surprise me; and that's the revelation that not every railway bridge bears one of those signs informing the public of what to do and who to contact in the event of an incident.
It seems to me, from reading the report, that the attitude of Network Rail (and of course by definition their predecessors) seems to be one of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, and in such a safety-conscious industry as railways, that's downright poor.
There cannot be an excuse for it; every bridge on the railway system, whether in use or on a closed line, has a unique identification number. All that would be needed is for the relevant phone number to offer a facility whereby that ID number could be keyed in which would automatically route the caller to the correct signal box for that stretch of track. Simple with modern phone systems.
|
Pat? Interesting Lorry/Bridge/Train Accident - Bromptonaut
