Level crossing accident at Pickering (21/05)

[mike57]

Sadly it looks like there has been a serious incident at Pickering

Pickering: Car and train in level crossing collision

The driver of the car has sustained serious injuries, police say.

www.bbc.co.uk

"A car has been involved in a crash with a train at a level crossing in North Yorkshire.

Police said the collision on the cross at Yatt's Road, Newbridge, near Pickering, took place just after 14:00 BST"

 

[D6130]

What went through the gates....the train or the car?

 

[GardenRail]

Thought it was a gated level crossing manned by the signal box.....

 

[D6130]

Thought it was a gated level crossing manned by the signal box.....

It is.

 

[GardenRail]

It is.

Thought so, hope it wasn't the Signallers or Engine Driver's fault.

 

[zwk500]

Thought it was a gated level crossing manned by the signal box.....

Gates worked by Wheel and have a lever number, and the line across the crossing is track circuited. Wikipedia has the box diagram: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ire_Moors_Railway_(New_Bridge_Signal_Box).jpg

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Seems that the car driver has been badly injured and the area's air ambulance has had to be called out.

Air ambulance called to scene after train and car crash near town

EMERGENCY services including the air ambulance have been called to a crash between a train and a car.

www.yorkpress.co.uk

Extract...

"The collision was reported just after 2pm today (May 21).

"One person - the driver of the car - has sustained serious injuries.

"At the time of writing, no other injuries had been reported."

 

[Twingo37175]

Whilst being 2 hours late, looks like from Grosmont webcam the train involved has just arrived. Assuming given the reports and time, it was the 1400 moorlander service.

 

[KevL]

We can confirm that there was a collision at around 14:00 on Sunday 21st May. A moving vehicle struck a generator wagon on the rear of the train at a Power Operated Gate Opener Crossing (POGO crossing) at Newbridge.

The driver of the moving vehicle has been taken to hospital. No NYMR passengers or crew injuries have been reported.

The police and emergency services are in attendance and the heritage railway is doing everything it can to fully cooperate, taking every precaution to ensure the safety of both staff and passengers, which is always our priority.

As with all such accidents, it is currently being investigated by the RAIB (Rail Accident Investigation Board). Services will resume as of 4pm and for any further updates visit: www.nymr.co.ukA spokesperson from the North Yorkshire Moors Railway (NYMR) said:

We can confirm that there was a collision at around 14:00 on Sunday 21st May. A moving vehicle struck a generator wagon on the rear of the train at a Power Operated Gate Opener (POGO crossing) at Newbridge.

The driver of the moving vehicle has been taken to hospital. No NYMR passengers or crew injuries have been reported.

The police and emergency services are in attendance and the heritage railway is doing everything it can to fully cooperate, taking every precaution to ensure the safety of both staff and passengers, which is always our priority.

As with all such accidents, it is currently being investigated by the RAIB (Rail Accident Investigation Board). Services will resume as of 4pm and for any further updates visit: https://www.nymr.co.uk/news/collision-statement

 

[Deepgreen]

A "generator wagon"?

 

[zwk500]

I'm struck by the passive language 'a moving vehicle struck' sounds like the handbrake was left off, but then somebody is specifically identified as 'the driver'.

 

[Trestrol]

A "generator wagon"?

The new horse box generator vehicle used to provide electric power to the diner.

 

[Deepgreen]

I'm struck by the passive language 'a moving vehicle struck' sounds like the handbrake was left off, but then somebody is specifically identified as 'the driver'.

Yes, it's a very cautious and somewhat nebulous statement.

The new horse box generator vehicle used to provide electric power to the diner.

Ah, thanks.

 

[dmncf]

If the crossing was working correctly, would a road vehicle colliding with the rear of a train also have collided with a crossing gate first?

 

[30907]

Gates worked by Wheel and have a lever number, and the line across the crossing is track circuited. Wikipedia has the box diagram: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Pickering_MMB_08_North_Yorkshire_Moors_Railway_(New_Bridge_Signal_Box).jpg

If the crossing was working correctly, would a road vehicle colliding with the rear of a train also have collided with a crossing gate first?

The description of Yatts Rd as the location on the York Press site suggest it might be the occupation crossing north of New Bridge crossing, but there appear to be three user-worked crossings in the area. Clearly it was not the gated crossing by the box.

 

[Deepgreen]

The description of Yatts Rd as the location on the York Press site suggest it might be the occupation crossing north of New Bridge crossing, but there appear to be three user-worked crossings in the area. Clearly it was not the gated crossing by the box.

Indeed, although that was the one in the BBC picture. As an aside I was tickled by the large, expensive Mercedes sitting by the box - not a car owned by the average signalman in BR days!

 

[The Lad]

That may not be a picture from today. The POGO is just south of that and is user operated.

 

[edwin_m]

That may not be a picture from today. The POGO is just south of that and is user operated.

POGO is basically the same as a Miniature Stop Light (so a type of user-worked crossing) except that there is a button for the user to open and close the gates automatically. This wasn't originally interlocked with the lights, but following various RAIB investigations I believe they are now being interlocked.

 

[PetrosEbor]

Picture is Google Maps Street View of the LC over Yatt's Road.
N-Yorks’ Police report states:
www.northyorkshire.police.uk/news/north-yorkshire/news/news/2023/05-may/collision-near-pickering/
a collision on a level crossing on Yatt's Road.
75m South of the LC over Yatt's Road, there is an occupation LC, from Street View it is a POGO crossing; the gates open away from the railway.
BBC Look North (Yorkshire) Evening News 17:50 Sunday 21/05/2023, showed the occupation LC 75m South of New Bridge signal-box and LC.
BBC News website photo updated to show car being removed from the LC.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-65665628

 

[mpthomson]

I'm struck by the passive language 'a moving vehicle struck' sounds like the handbrake was left off, but then somebody is specifically identified as 'the driver'.

It's because they don't yet know how the moving vehicle came to hit the train. Could have been a medical episode, driver error, mechanical error etc but as yet they don't know. All that's certain is that someone was at the wheel.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's because they don't yet know how the moving vehicle came to hit the train. Could have been a medical episode, driver error, mechanical error etc but as yet they don't know. All that's certain is that someone was at the wheel.

If they're at the wheel it's fair to call them the driver, surely?

 

[43066]

It's because they don't yet know how the moving vehicle came to hit the train. Could have been a medical episode, driver error, mechanical error etc but as yet they don't know. All that's certain is that someone was at the wheel.

If they're at the wheel it's fair to call them the driver, surely?

Perhaps they didn’t want to exclude the possibility that the handbrake was left off and the car was a runaway with nobody at the wheel - albeit seems highly unlikely given the injuries to the driver.

 

[Spartacus]

Perhaps they didn’t want to exclude the possibility that the handbrake was left off and the car was a runaway with nobody at the wheel - albeit seems highly unlikely given the injuries to the driver.

I suspect so, could conceivably be the handbrake was left off/failed and someone jumped in attempting to stop it but was unable to. Until the facts are known it's normal not to put too many things down which can be interpreted as actual facts. People, as we often see on here, start accusing people of lying or trying to cover things up when the facts ARE established and the story subtly changes.

 

[zwk500]

I suspect so, could conceivably be the handbrake was left off/failed and someone jumped in attempting to stop it but was unable to.

The chances of somebody noticing that the car is rolling away soon enough to jump in but for the car to still get up to speed where it can do significant damage to itself or a person are suspiciously small.

Either the driver forgot to secure their vehicle, they failed to ensure their vehicle was in full working order, they failed to ensure that their health was proper for being in charge of a vehicle, or they panicked and failed to stop the vehicle by applying the brakes soon enough, or deliberate drove onto the crossing.

Cars do not move of their own volition. They are either driven, improperly maintained, or improperly secured. Drivers need to be held to their responsibilities to the road (and yes, I am a driver myself and I do not pretend to be a perfect driver).

 

[Spartacus]

The chances of somebody noticing that the car is rolling away soon enough to jump in but for the car to still get up to speed where it can do significant damage to itself or a person are suspiciously small.

Either the driver forgot to secure their vehicle, they failed to ensure their vehicle was in full working order, they failed to ensure that their health was proper for being in charge of a vehicle, or they panicked and failed to stop the vehicle by applying the brakes soon enough, or deliberate drove onto the crossing.

Cars do not move of their own volition. They are either driven, improperly maintained, or improperly secured. Drivers need to be held to their responsibilities to the road (and yes, I am a driver myself and I do not pretend to be a perfect driver).

There's still a chance, you admit that? Then it can't be ruled out. Given, as you say, there's multiple possibilities, being passive until the facts are known or are released is appropriate. Anything else can be put down as speculation.

 

[zwk500]

There's still a chance, you admit that? Then it can't be ruled out. Given, as you say, there's multiple possibilities, being passive until the facts are known or are released is appropriate. Anything else can be put down as speculation.

In the same way there's still a chance I'll win an Olympic gold medal.

 

[Iskra]

The chances of somebody noticing that the car is rolling away soon enough to jump in but for the car to still get up to speed where it can do significant damage to itself or a person are suspiciously small.

Either the driver forgot to secure their vehicle, they failed to ensure their vehicle was in full working order, they failed to ensure that their health was proper for being in charge of a vehicle, or they panicked and failed to stop the vehicle by applying the brakes soon enough, or deliberate drove onto the crossing.

Cars do not move of their own volition. They are either driven, improperly maintained, or improperly secured. Drivers need to be held to their responsibilities to the road (and yes, I am a driver myself and I do not pretend to be a perfect driver).

It’s possible that the car was shunted from behind by another vehicle.

 

[zwk500]

It’s possible that the car was shunted from behind by another vehicle.

possible but you'd have expected the report to mention such a fact, especially as the forces involved would likely have caused some injury to the first driver.

I will wait to see what a fuller report says - and for the record, I think unintentional (driver error or vehicle failure) is much more likely than a deliberate attempt to get across the crossing. However the car didn't move of it's own accord, and reporting should reflect the fact that people are responsible for how a car moves and stops.

 

[Chris M]

possible but you'd have expected the report to mention such a fact, especially as the forces involved would likely have caused some injury to the first driver.

I will wait to see what a fuller report says - and for the record, I think unintentional (driver error or vehicle failure) is much more likely than a deliberate attempt to get across the crossing. However the car didn't move of it's own accord, and reporting should reflect the fact that people are responsible for how a car moves and stops.

The point is that at the time the statement was released the railway did not know the reason the car moved. This could be acts by the driver (intentional or otherwise) or acts by a third party (intentional or otherwise). Underlying reasons might be one or more of errors by train crew, errors by signallers, a failure of the crossing infrastructure, mechanical failure of the car (and the driver may or may not be the one responsible for maintaining it), the driver having a medical episode, the driver misunderstanding the nature of crossing, or multiple other things.
It would be inappropriate for the railway to say anything that might lead to them ascribing responsibility to a party that is not responsible, and in certain circumstances could leave them open to a charge of libel. The only thing that can be said for certain is that one or more people, one of whom may or may not be the driver, were directly and or indirectly responsible for the car moving into a position where it could hit and/or be hit by the train, and saying that offers no more information than was provided in the far more succinct statement.
Remember that we don't even know whether the train or the car was the one that was in the wrong place.

 

[zwk500]

The point is that at the time the statement was released the railway did not know the reason the car moved. This could be acts by the driver (intentional or otherwise) or acts by a third party (intentional or otherwise). Underlying reasons might be one or more of errors by train crew, errors by signallers, a failure of the crossing infrastructure, mechanical failure of the car (and the driver may or may not be the one responsible for maintaining it), the driver having a medical episode, the driver misunderstanding the nature of crossing, or multiple other things.
It would be inappropriate for the railway to say anything that might lead to them ascribing responsibility to a party that is not responsible, and in certain circumstances could leave them open to a charge of libel. The only thing that can be said for certain is that one or more people, one of whom may or may not be the driver, were directly and or indirectly responsible for the car moving into a position where it could hit and/or be hit by the train, and saying that offers no more information than was provided in the far more succinct statement.
Remember that we don't even know whether the train or the car was the one that was in the wrong place.

I appreciate the legal risk to the railway. My point is a wider frustration at the general media coverage of road traffic incidents.