PHILIPE
Veteran Member
The Siding it was parked in is part of the Depot so would have been an internal move.
The Siding it was parked in is part of the Depot so would have been an internal move.
Read the RAIB initial report for this occurence.
Two men from Mid Wales today pleaded not guilty to endangering the safety of passengers and crew, following a crash between a train and a tractor/trailer last summer.
Tractor driver Ifan Gwyn Evans,28, of Llanfihangel, Llanfyllin and John Elwyn Roberts, of Welshpool, both denied a charge of endangering the safety of persons using the railway and were placed on unconditional bail at Welshpool Magistrates' Court.
The last half was being loaded onto a low loader at Barton Hill today..
The last half was being loaded onto a low loader at Barton Hill today..
Forgive me; is this some sort of road vehicle?
... and the court case started today.
An extract from http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/two-men-appear-court-following-6342930
What, the 'last half' or the 'low loader'?
The low loader?
Yes, its a flat bed lorry.
So would this have travelled across either of the Severn Bridges or would weight rule this out?
At 11:44 hrs on Tuesday 16 July 2013 a collision occurred between a passenger train and a farm trailer at Buttington Hall farm crossing near Welshpool on the line between Shrewsbury and Machynlleth. The tractor driver and two other people nearby sustained minor injuries and two passengers on the train were injured and taken to hospital, but were discharged later that day.
The train involved was operated by Arriva Trains Wales and consisted of two 2-car units. It was travelling at 120 km/h (75 mph) at the time of the collision. The train was running from Birmingham International to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli and there were 140 passengers and two crew members on board. On the day of the accident, the farm crossing was being used by tractors bringing in a harvest from fields on the opposite side of the line to the farm. The farmer had appointed a contractor to carry out the harvesting operation, and an attendant had been provided at the crossing to phone the signaller and operate the gates.
The accident occurred because the system of work in use at the crossing was inherently unsafe, leading to ineffective control of road vehicle movements over the crossing and frequent use of the crossing without the signaller being contacted. This system broke down. There were also underlying management factors:
- the harvest contractor did not implement an effective safe system of work at the crossing;
- Network Rail’s process for risk assessment of these types of crossing did not adequately deal with periods of intensive use; and
- Network Rail’s instructions to users of these crossings did not cover periods of intensive use.
The RAIB has made three recommendations:
- main line infrastructure managers should improve the risk assessment process at these crossings to take into account the increased risk during periods of intensive use;
- main line infrastructure managers should define safe and practical methods of working to be adopted at these crossings during periods of intensive use; and
- RSSB should update the level crossing risk management toolkit to reflect the changes brought about by the second recommendation.
The RAIB has also noted a learning point from an observation made during the investigation concerning the prolonged closure of an adjacent level crossing on a main road after the accident.
I don't really understand why any formal competence would be required, or indeed what it'd cover, referring to the Egleton example rather than the Welshpool report, which I'm yet to read. After all, the 'attendant' is only following the instructions provided for any other member of the public wishing to use the crossing - the only difference being that the attendant is doing it rather than the vehicle driver (no different to a passenger hopping out to speak to the signalman and operate the gates?), which provides an element of coordination. I'd certainly prefer to deal with a single attendant (of sorts) rather than a multitude of individual drivers who are more likely to leave gates open, keep letting each other across, fail to call back and so on.
The crossing attendant was employed by DM Roberts for this contract and had done this job for them two or three times a year for the previous five years. He stated that his task was to phone the signaller when a tractor needed to cross the line so that the tractor drivers did not have to stop and get out of their tractors. The RAIB found no documentary evidence of an assessment of his competence.
54 There were five tractors and trailers employed in carrying the silage from the fields to the farm. Each tractor had to cross the line in each direction on every trip and DM Roberts estimated that the work required a total of approximately 150 trips in each direction over the two day harvest period. This frequency of usage meant that there was limited time between tractors crossing for the gates to be closed and opened.
55 The crossing attendant stated that he found it difficult to operate the gates as he was recovering from a recent hip operation, so left them in the open position and stood in the road to stop tractors crossing when it was unsafe. The latches which held the gates open were not effective and the attendant had used an old tyre to hold the gate open on the field side. The need to move this tyre to operate the gate increased the work needed for the task.
56 The tractor drivers were aware that the attendant was making phone calls to the signaller to get permission to cross, but witness evidence was unclear as to how the outcome of the call was to be communicated to the tractor driver. Some witnesses stated that the gates were closed to show that it was not safe to cross, and some stated that the attendant would stand in the road to signal that it was not safe to cross. All agreed that if there was no attendant at the crossing they would stop and phone for permission to cross, and a phone call made at 15:56 hrs the day before suggests that they did this (paragraph 61).
57 The method of stopping tractors whereby the attendant stood in the road was prone to failure if the attendant was using the crossing phone or was otherwise distracted.