www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-15886610
Whilst not wanting to denigrate the tragic deaths of these two young girls, would the motorist have been to blame if the accident had happened on a road?
They chose to ignore a red light and warning sounds telling them not to cross.
|
|
I don't see how this in the public interest. I also wonder if anyone currently at Network Rail could be in trouble on a personal level - or will they bring into the case the previous management?
|
It's not the same scenario, it's H&S charges against Network Rail. Wouldn't apply to a private motorist driving along, totally different situation.
|
The 64,000 dollar question is presumably why the risk assessment for the crossing was markedly higher when scored after the accident:-
groups.google.com/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/85ff9a1375370749#
|
While we don't know the full facts it does seem like a "Somebody must be made to pay" prosecution.
I know that crossing quite well having used it many times over the years and pedestrians are left in no doubt as to when a train is approaching.
|
Agree with Robin.
Absolute tragedy for the families of course. The girls were the same age as my daughter and I remember thinking at the time it could have been her and a mate.
But if they'd made a similar mistake crossing a road, perhaps red man on a Pelican and looked wrong way, it would have been just another road accident.
If the crossing gates lock there's a danger of people being trapped railside. Even if they behave rationally and get as clear of the train as they can air currents could drag a pushchair around.
|
>> If the crossing gates lock there's a danger of people being trapped rail side
The gates now lock... so another tragedy could happen with someone locked in. In theory at least.
|
|
There should be sufficient clearance between the track running gauge width and the crossing gate to shelter a person.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 25 Nov 11 at 22:55
|
|
The next thing will be to prevent people being on a platform when non-stopping faast trains pass through! The yellow line must be less than a metre from the edge.
|
>> The next thing will be to prevent people being on a platform
>>The yellow line must be less than a metre from the edge.
The platforms at Milton Keynes can get very crowded, particularly number 4 which is the up fast. The PA announcer uses the CCTV to single out customers over the line and tell them to stand back 'lady in the red coat etc....'
The danger is real. Not MK but somewhere similar one of my fellow folder riders put his bike down while taking his coat off. As he did so an express went through and when he looked round bike was gone. His first thought was theft so he ran on to the overbridge to see if he could see the scarpering scroat. From that vantage point he could see the mangled remains of his Brompton in the 'four foot'. Air current had dragged it off the platform and under the train.
The wheels on the rack that make the folded bike easy to push meant it offered little resistance.
|
>> There should be sufficient clearance between the track running gauge width and the crossing gate
>> to shelter a person.
>
But that relies on the trapped person behaving rationally and staying in the 'refuge' area. You and I are both sufficiently with the railway that we'd probably do that. But two young girls, a Mum with a pushchair?
Risk can be managed and reduced; never eliminated.
|
>>They chose to ignore a red light and warning sounds telling them not to cross.
The way I interperted the report is that it appears that they waited at the crossing whilst the train they wanted came through and stopped at the station. Thinking the crossings were now clear, they ran across not realising that there was a second train.The fact that they may miss the train they wanted could have clouded thier concentration whilst crossing.
|
The platforms at Elsenham are staggered with a gated road level crossing and a pedestrian foot crossing between their ends. The vehicular level crossing was operated by an attendant and interlocked with the signalling. The attendant was not responsible for the foot crossing which had lights and a yodel alarm triggered by treadles operated by approaching trains. Locks were not fitted or required.
The girls had bought their tickets and needed to cross the foot crossing to acces the platform from which their Cambridge bound train would depart. They waited at the gate while the train pulled in to the platform on the other side of the road. As soon as it cleared hte platform, and although the lights were still red and the alarm operating they crossed stepping into into the path of approaching fast Stansted train.
The RAIB report can be downloaded from the link below - 2MB pdf.
www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/061211_R232006_Elsenham.pdf
|
It's quite chilling to think that I could easily see myself making exactly the same mistake were I distracted by the need to catch the waiting train.
I do know you should expect another train if the lights continue to flash and the buzzer is going, but both of those warnings could easily fade from your mind as they'd been on anyway for the first train.
It's a bit like taking no notice of the lights on warning sound in your car if you are continually getting in and out at short intervals, the noise just becomes another background one after a while.
|
Nightmare situation.
Suppose they are trying to say that they should have built a pedestrian bridge, but then these solutions do not always work as I recall in Spain, within the last few years, a train stopped at a beach resort and many people got off to go to the beach. The underpass under the line got too busy and many were killed crossing the line as a high speed train passed through.
So no matter how much you try to prevent accidents, events will always get in the way. Of course one could claim that the train operators should have foreseen the potential for congestion and made a bigger underpass!
|
With the facts as we know them, two young girls for whatever reason failed to properly understand/heed the warning system.
That warning system was inadequate because of the anomaly of the situation when two trains are about at roughly the same time i.e. you incorrectly assume the warning lights were only for the first train.
I think it's madness that we have so many crossings that are unmanned/uncontrolled in this country...and we sometimes leave the judgement to the young, confused or plain stupid.....so therefore it's right to prosecute when two kids unneccessarily die.
...now if some scrote was being chased by Police and wilfully ignored a warning and ended up brown bread...then so be it.
|
>>
>> I think it's madness that we have so many crossings that are unmanned/uncontrolled in this
>> country...and we sometimes leave the judgement to the young, confused or plain stupid.....so therefore it's right to prosecute when two kids unneccessarily die.
>>
Something you could say about every traffic light and pedestrian crossing in the country where there are many more deaths than on the railway.
The system in place at Elsenham had been like that for decades - in fact as far as I can remember about that particular crossing the getes were manually operated. It may not be ideal and ways should certainly be looked at to see if improvements can be made, but unless any employee of BR or whoever is in charge of such things can be proved to have acted negligently in this case I don't see the point of a prosecution.
Sometimes we just have to accept that life can't be risk free.
|
>> I think it's madness that we have so many crossings that are unmanned/uncontrolled in this
>> country...and we sometimes leave the judgement to the young, confused or plain stupid.....so therefore it's
>> right to prosecute when two kids unneccessarily die.
Westie, you speak as someone with no understanding of the situation in the east of the country. There are literally HUNDREDS of unmanned user operated crossings (both vehicular, farm track (drove) and foot) in the fens. The place is as flat as a pancake - as are the railways, Bridges simply dont exist.
To block them off would seriously disrupt farming and getting around the place. To do "something" about them would cost a complete fortune. Given the number, the accident rate is minute, so clearly it works.
The gate CLEARLY stated that if the red light was shwoing another train could be coming.
There is plenty to prosecute Network Rail for, but this aint one of them, The parents should take a lot of the responsibility, but clearly its a concept that escapes them, given the fact they wish to blame everyone else.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 27 Nov 11 at 13:23
|
I so wish I didn't always agree with you these days Z, it makes life so boring!
Can you get back to being mean and nasty again after the season of goodwill please?
Pat
|
>> Bridges simply dont exist.
>>
>> To block them off would seriously disrupt farming and getting around the place. To do
>> "something" about them would cost a complete fortune. Given the number, the accident rate is
>> minute, so clearly it works.
>>
I think that the amount of unregulated crossings is a red herring, it doesn't matter if there's one or a thousand.
We're talking kids here. Is it right that a system designed when trains made big chuffing noises and travelled at 30mph...is still the only thing in place when the trains do 90mph plus?
I think not. There should be bridges, under passes or gates that lock until the danger has passed...and if that costs a load of money, then so be it.
I've long been an advocate of less regulation when it comes to motoring i.e. allow a driver to make their own decision and learn by it, not rely on a state official to make their decision for them...but.. that applies to an adult, who has to have some degree of intelligence/responsibility/maturity to pass a test...with the railway crossing arguement, all sorts of people inc the vulnerable use them...and in those circs I think it reasonable to take proper steps to protect them...
...and so it would seem do the prosecutors in this particular case.
|
Why not prosecute the parents then? They know the kids use this crossing, they know how it works, they should instil into them the safety required.
Sorry i think you and the prosecutors are way out of kilter here. Did you read the RAIB report?
Frankly the roads are FAR FAR more dangerous to kids, as the figures bear out. What you gonna do about that?
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 28 Nov 11 at 12:03
|
Z is right, partly for a reason that hasn't been mentioned. Trying to make things foolproof only works up to a point.
If you go down the route of systems replacing individual responsibility, then two things happen.
1. People stop thinking for themselves, so when they encounter an unfamiliar situation they are more likely to come a cropper.
2. The same people also come to believe that if the system lets you do something, it must be OK - so they will use the systems in ways that were not intended, finding any holes in it.
Level crossings are dangerous. You have to be careful. Period.
|
The other point with locking gates is that they should be interlocked with the signalling. The signals only clear when the gate is electrically confirmed as locked. So that the train is not slowed unnacceptably the interlocked signal will be some way before the crossing. The gates lock 3+ minutes before even a fast train arrives, longer if it's slow.
The AAIB report considers this option but makes the point that frustration my lead to greater abuse as passengers might climb gates or fences.
As an example of how crossing can jam things up the former Banbury Lane level crossing on the Euston line was linked with signals approx 3 miles away, for fast trains running at 110mph. In the event of a slow freight, or a temporary speed restriction the gates could be down for 7-10 minutes ahead of a train.
The crossing was abolished as part of the line upgrade - at 125 and possibly later 140 and a service interval of 3 minutes it would never be opened. After brief proposal to close the road it was replaced with a bridge which also spans the Grand Union Canal. However, so the road did not become a 'rat run' the bridge, wide enough for 2way traffic, is signalled with traffic lights to make it alternate one way working.
Barmy!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 28 Nov 11 at 12:38
|
> although the lights were still red and the alarm operating
Wouldn't have happened here in NL. Everyone here knows that if you cross when the lights and alarms are going, you'll be needing a pine box.
You get about 30 seconds warning, the train arrives promptly and if the barriers don't go up as soon as its passed, you know there's another one coming PDQ. Nobody even considers trying it on, unless they have a death wish.
The problem with the UK system is everyone knows that they can *probably* get away with it, so they try. Sometimes the laws of probability have to balance the books.
|
"Wouldn't have happened here in NL. Everyone here knows that if you cross when the lights and alarms are going, you'll be needing a pine box."
Actually they appear not to TeeCee. According to this hugely detailed report NL has one of the worst level crossing accident records in Europe, with about the same number of accidents as France with a sixth of the crossings. Around 39% of the crossing accidents are caused by road users zig zagging around barriers or deliberately trying to cross when one train has passed but another is coming.
So it seems the Dutch have the same problem as us.
www.unescap.org/ttdw/Publications/TIS_pubs/pub_2088/level-crossing-chap-3.pdf
|
???
I see FR with around 2/3 the number of crossings and rather more accidents. e.g. for 1996, FR has 1,777 crossings to NLs 2,983 and 166 accidents to 120.
What on earth were you looking at?
Of course, they go on to dwell extensively on the downward trend elsewhere not seen in NL, but that's the "elf 'n safety" types for you. Never see a good thing when it's in front of 'em, only "lack of improvement".
The only thing of note is that, while the accident rates are lower, fatality rates appear to be higher in NL. Note here that, while they make a song and dance about this, the fatality numbers are so low when compared to overall accident numbers that the sample numbers are too low to make the stats meaningful.
|
A dangerous precedent? - rtj70
