Great heck (selby) train crash

[Zoe]

Should the driver of the train at Southall have been convicted for manslaughter then? Should GWT have been charged for allowing a train to run in service without working AWS? Should Railtrack have been charged for giving priority to a freight train over a train known to not have working AWS?

Should the driver of the Thames Turbo have been charged with manslaughter then if he had survived the Ladbroke Grove crash? Should Railtack have been charged for having the points set by default to route a train onto the up main line rather than the down relief in the event of a SPAD?

 

[Greenback]

That is a different scenarion entirely. There is no evidence that lack of sleep, excessive speed was involved. Ther eis evidence that the track layout was not good, the signal sighting was problematic, and that the training of new drivers was not managed effectively.

 

[Jonny]

This is how I put it to people. At 0613 that morning a GNER train is trundling along at its permitted speed of 125mph. Coming the other way, my Dads train (running 20 minutes early) is trundling along at its permitted speed of 60mph. There is a set of trailing points leading into some sidings on the 'up' line, the GNER passes these with no problems then a few seconds later passes my Dads train. The two trains carry on to their destinations without incident.

Tragic tough it is, James, you're relying on one assumption and that is the word permitted. That's the trap that the government wants people to fall into, so that they depend on the rules and nothing else. The problem is that you think about what might have been, it is quite possible that something else might have happened. That people break the rules, break the law and cause damage is something I have learned the hard way.

My advice would be to let the past be the past, if you hate on someone no matter how much they deserve it then that hate will eat you up - probably before it touches him. That's something else I've learned the hard way.

 

[Zoe]

That is a different scenarion entirely. There is no evidence that lack of sleep, excessive speed was involved. Ther eis evidence that the track layout was not good, the signal sighting was problematic, and that the training of new drivers was not managed effectively.

It is not a completely different scenario. Southall was if I remember correctly caused by a driver not concentrating on the signals and ignoring both a double yellow and a single yellow. You could also argue that Railtrack should have never given priority to the freight train when it was known that there was no working AWS but that doesn't take away the fact that the driver was not concentrating on the signals.

 

[66526]

Great Heck was caused by an individual. The other crashes you described were caused by a combination of industry failings. If Gary Hart hadn't fallen asleep at the wheel, there would have been absolutely no risk at all to the railway or anyone on the road.

 

[Zoe]

If the driver of the train at Southall had been concentrating on the signals there would have been no risk to anyone unless you say that Railtrack shouldn't have given priority to the freight train.

 

[66526]

Tragic tough it is, James, you're relying on one assumption and that is the word permitted. That's the trap that the government wants people to fall into, so that they depend on the rules and nothing else. The problem is that you think about what might have been, it is quite possible that something else might have happened. That people break the rules, break the law and cause damage is something I have learned the hard way.

My advice would be to let the past be the past, if you hate on someone no matter how much they deserve it then that hate will eat you up - probably before it touches him. That's something else I've learned the hard way.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the first part of your comment? I wasn't assuming they were running at their permitted speeds, it was proved in a court of law and by the black box on my Dads locomotive.

 

[Greenback]

I think that Larry Harrison should have been charged, Southall was different to Ladbroke Grove, where there were far more mitigating circumstances.

The railway chaplain at Paddington told me that Harrison was a brpken man after Southall. I never heard him giving interviews and trying to claim it wasn't his fault. Doesn;t mean he shouldn't have been held to account for his part in the tragedy, but it does back up what I was saying about responsibility. Harrison knew he was responsible and felt the weight of that, it seems Hart doesn't accept responsibility and feels hard done by.

 

[66526]

If the driver of the train at Southall had been concentrating on the signals there would have been no risk to anyone unless you say that Railtrack shouldn't have given priority to the freight train.

And you think it's acceptable to allow a 125mph train to set off without working AWS with one man in the cab? Why are you making a big thing about the freight train? Freight trains pass through junctions hundreds of times a day, they sometimes crossover mainlines with adequate signal protection. The problem at Southall was that there just happened to be a freight train for the HST to collide with.
I don't know why Southall has been bought up anyway? The difference is Gary Hart was in total charge of his own destiny that morning, he chose to stay up all night, he chose to carry on driving erratically after clipping a curb, he chose to not stop for a break. All of those choices were his to make and his only. And like I have said (bearing in mind I think I am the one here who really has got a lot more knowledge about what happened at Great Heck than most) the reason Gary Hart is hated by so many (and not just railwaymen as someone made a petty swipe at previously) is by how he has acted since the crash that he caused. I can forgive him for causing the crash, I can't forgive him for the cold, self centred, unremorseful and arrogant way he has conducted himself since and I dare anyone in full possession ofthe facts to try tell me I should think otherwise.

 

[Zoe]

I think that Larry Harrison should have been charged, Southall was different to Ladbroke Grove, where there were far more mitigating circumstances.

Good point, we will never know the exact reason for the SPAD at Ladbroke Grove. It could be argued though that the driver should have made absolutely sure that the signal was showing a proceed aspect and not assume it was.

 

[Greenback]

And you think it's acceptable to allow a 125mph train to set off without working AWS with one man in the cab? Why are you making a big thing about the freight train? Freight trains pass through junctions hundreds of times a day, they sometimes crossover mainlines with adequate signal protection. The problem at Southall was that there just happened to be a freight train for the HST to collide with.
I don't know why Southall has been bought up anyway? The difference is Gary Hart was in total charge of his own destiny that morning, he chose to stay up all night, he chose to carry on driving erratically after clipping a curb, he chose to not stop for a break. All of those choices were his to make and his only. And like I have said (bearing in mind I think I am the one here who really has got a lot more knowledge about what happened at Great Heck than most) the reason Gary Hart is hated by so many (and not just railwaymen as someone made a petty swipe at previously) is by how he has acted since the crash that he caused. I can forgive him for causing the crash, I can't forgive him for the cold, self centred, unremorseful and arrogant way he has conducted himself since and I dare anyone in full possession ofthe facts to try tell me I should think otherwise.

I agree to an extent about the AWS. FGW do have tot ake part of the responibility in my book. However, Harrison agreed to take the train out and knowing the AWS wasn't working menat it was even more importnat that he remain vigilant. I agree completely about Hart.

Good point, we will never know the exact reason for the SPAD at Ladbroke Grove. It could be argued though that the driver should have made absolutely sure that the signal was showing a proceed aspect and not assume it was.

He should have done. But how much of a factor were the inadequacies in the training?

 

[GB]

If the driver of the train at Southall had been concentrating on the signals there would have been no risk to anyone unless you say that Railtrack shouldn't have given priority to the freight train.

This was at a time before the current rules regarding isolated AWS were introduced so the signaller would not have known it was isolated on the train. Even in todays railways it is not the signallers concern other than the fact now is if the AWS is isolated the train has a maximum permitted speed of 40mph. (Linespeed if a second driver is in the cab)

The signalling move was also perfectly legitimate (and still is). If you held every train that needed to cross lines the network will grind to a halt very fast.

The railway runs on the assumption that trains will stop at red signals.

While signal observation is a big part of train driving there other things that take the drivers attention so it is understandable how one might miss them without the failsafe to back them up.

 

[66526]

Zoe. Are you a train driver or have you ever been one?

 

[Zoe]

Zoe. Are you a train driver or have you ever been one?

I am not but to quote the exact words from the author of the report "There was no reason why he should have missed the signals." This was from a Professor.

 

[66526]

I was referring to your comment about the turbo driver at Paddington. Unfortunately until you have driven a train through a complex area with multiple signals or encountered a sunlight affected signal you will not understand what it looks like from the drivers perspective.

 

[Zoe]

I was referring to your comment about the turbo driver at Paddington. Unfortunately until you have driven a train through a complex area with multiple signals or encountered a sunlight affected signal you will not understand what it looks like from the drivers perspective.

Indeed but my point was that he should have made absolutely sure if the aspect if the signal was known to be affected by sunlight. As Greenback says though this may well have been down to the training.

 

[66526]

What if you have made absolutely sure uet it is still wrong. Thereis only so much you can do and as mentioned before, the inadequate training would have played a big part.

 

[Zoe]

What if you have made absolutely sure uet it is still wrong.

I don't know the exact circamstances, no-one ever will. If I remember correctly the signal was of an L shape design. I would have thought that you would have to check if the red lamp is illuminated, regardless of what you see on the other lamps?

 

[GB]

But if there is sun shining on the signal you would not know if the red lamp was illuminated of if it was the sun. The sun either bleaches it out or makes it look like its illuminated when it is not.

The only way to be sure is to stop and report it to the signaller, he should then confirm if it is a proceed aspect or not and will caution the next trains. But this all goes back to training.

 

[Zoe]

The only way to be sure is to stop and report it to the signaller, he should then confirm if it is a proceed aspect or not and will caution the next trains.

That's exactly the point though, if you are not certain of the aspect I would have thought you would have to assume it was danger. Were the issues with this signal known about?

 

[66526]

And if the sunlight makes the signal appear to be a displaying a proceed aspect...

 

[Zoe]

And if the sunlight makes the signal appear to be a displaying a proceed aspect...

See my question above. If it was known that sunlight could make the signal seem to be displaying a proceed aspect, why wasn't this taken into account?

 

[GB]

Yeah sorry should have said that in my previous post. If the sun is making it look like there is a proceed aspect shown (and the driver may well not be aware its the sun) then he would have little reason to question it.

 

[66526]

See my question above. If it was known that sunlight could make the signal seem to be displaying a proceed aspect, why wasn't this taken into account?

So every signal displaying a proceed aspect at every known sunlight affected signal you should stop and report? What if we're not sure if it is a known sunlight affected signal, should you stop at every proceed aspect on every signal you encounter just to make sure it really is a proceed aspect?

 

[Zoe]

So every signal displaying a proceed aspect at every known sunlight affected signal you should stop and report? What if we're not sure if it is a known sunlight affected signal, should you stop at every proceed aspect on every signal you encounter just to make sure it really is a proceed aspect?

If it was that common then why were there not many more serious incidents before the installation of TPWS? By your argument then it wouldn't matter how much training the driver had, the accident would still have occured.

 

[66526]

I am merely replying to what you had said regarding sunlight affected signals. I am not stating it is a regular occurance and I don't see how I can be in a position to tell you why they weren't a certain ammount of railway incidents. This is just one tiny possible factor that may or may not have contributed to the Paddington train crash. We will never be 100% certain as to why the turbo went through a red signal.

 

[Zoe]

To link that back to the original topic, can we be entirely certain of why Gary Hart's landrover left the road?

 

[66526]

Have you been to the site where it left the M62 across the field and onto the railway line? Have you sat through 2 weeks of a court case and shown massive ammounts of evidence? Have you had a senior police officer involved in the investigation explain the exact path the land rover took from the motorway to the railway? Have you driven that section of the M62 and discovered that there is a slight righthand bend and if you were in the 3rd lane and let the steering go (ie, fell asleep) you will follow the exact same path that land rover took? Have you actually had a tyre blowout on a car you've been driving at motorway speeds and realised that how a car reacts after a wheel blowout is the complete and utter opposite to what happened to Gary Harts land rover (he maintained he'd had a blowout). Have you heard evidence from the police officials who pieced together Gary Harts land rover from over a thousand pieces and systematically proved without doubt that the only safety related defect on it before the collision with the GNER train was a stake of wood in one of the tyres which occured a split second before it came to rest on the line because it had crashed through a fence?
BTW, don't try to wind me up with these sorts of things, I take the death of my Dad and any other person killed on the railway very seriously.

 

[notadriver]

Are you a driver James 66526?

 

[Zoe]

BTW, don't try to wind me up with these sorts of things, I take the death of my Dad and any other person killed on the railway very seriously.

Sorry, I was not trying to wind you up and I did not read the full thread so did not realize your loss. I believe my point about Southall still stands though.