• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Croydon Tram Crash

Status
Not open for further replies.

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
I do think First (As a bus operator) were never that great. Certainly here they have been known to stop running perfectly viable routes, not to mention the invisible timetable they never stick to or the ancient buses they use. They are better as a railway operator even though the DMUs in the west have a tendency to not run due to a train fault (Often a 158)

First as a bus operator were, frankly, appalling, and did nothing but run things into the ground for a decade at almost every location. They got their nose into the railway trough, sniffed the money, and immediately decided that buses were beneath them. They were, essentially, an organisation failed by its own arrogance and suffering from abysmal leadership. With the departure of Lockhead, and a downturn in their railway fortunes (losing Scotrail and Capital Connect, and having their award of West Coast withdrawn), they suddenly were forced to return to the buses as their primary income, and only then was it decided to make some sort of an effort with it. Rebranding and recasting of route networks came with mixed success, meanwhile the First name was deemed 'toxic' and made less prominent on the rebranded GWR/FGW.

I rather suspect that Tramlink has been somewhat insulated from all the turmoil, being a rather unique part of the First portfolio, perhaps for the better or perhaps for the worse.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,711
Location
Leeds
RAIB update:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fatal-tram-accident-in-croydon

The RAIB investigation into the fatal accident that occurred near Sandilands Junction on the London Tramlink system is continuing.

At around 06:10 hrs on Wednesday 9 November 2016, a tram overturned on a bend. Seven people suffered fatal injuries in the accident. A further 51 people were taken to hospital.

Further details of the accident and our ongoing investigation were included in two interim reports which were published on 16 November 2016 and 20 February 2017.

While the basic explanation of events that day remains as described in the second interim report, we have gathered and analysed considerably more evidence since it was published in February. This has allowed us to formulate draft recommendations.

In recent weeks, we have discussed the draft safety recommendations, and our justifications for making them, with the families of the people who died in the accident, with the organisations involved and with the safety authority (Office of Rail and Road).

We have recently written to Transport for London which owns the tramway, Tram Operations Limited which operates the tramway and UKTram which is the trade organisation covering all UK tram operators, to formally confirm the areas that a number of our key recommendations are expected to cover. We did this so they can start to consider what action to take in response, prior to the publication of our final report. The letter has been copied to other UK tram operators and the safety authority.

Key recommendation areas addressed to UK tram operators, are likely to be:

provision of active tram protection to prevent serious accidents due to excessive speed at high risk locations
research into active means of detecting the attention state of drivers and intervening in the event of inattention
improved containment of passengers by tram windows and doors
setting up of an industry body to facilitate more effective cooperation between UK tramway owners and operators on matters related to safety performance and the development of common standards

In addition, the RAIB’s investigation into how Tram Operations Ltd manage fatigue risk may result in a recommendation.

Our final report will also highlight the importance of ensuring the availability of in-tram CCTV systems and any actions already taken to address the issue. If necessary, the RAIB will also make a recommendation for further improvement in this area.

This list is not exhaustive, but includes some of the important safety issues that are likely to take time to implement, making early consideration vital. Other areas within the scope of our investigation, such as consideration of underlying safety management and regulatory factors, may also give rise to recommendations. We are encouraged to learn that some tramway organisations have already started work in a number of these areas.

We are now writing the final report. Once it is complete, it will be subject to formal, written consultation with those involved, prior to publication. We are aiming to publish the report in under a year from the date of the accident. However, the publication date remains subject to a number of factors, some of which are outside our direct control.

Our investigation is independent of any investigation by the tramway industry, the British Transport Police or by the Office of Rail and Road.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,067
That's very disappointing, that after 9 months and doubtless huge cost all they can do is generalist waffle and statements of the blindingly obvious that quite frankly could have been written up on the first morning.

There are far more practical points and issues raised in this thread than the RAIB have managed to identify.
 
Last edited:

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
That's very disappointing, that after 9 months and doubtless huge cost all they can do is generalist waffle and statements of the blindingly obvious that quite frankly could have been written up on the first morning.

There are far more practical points and issues raised in this thread than the RAIB have managed to identify.

On the contrary, I feel that the update just confirms that a lot of issues warrant serious consideration - not some knee-jerk reaction that might not uncover the root causes.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,378
The article about this in the Times (paywalled) says this will affect tram systems across the country including the obvious systems but he's also included Newcastle. Good bit of research there then...
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,876
Location
Nottingham
Tyne and Wear Metro has trainstops on its signals and on the approach to the underground terminus at St James, but does it have anything for the other termini or for speed restrictions like where it diverts off the old railway into Jesmond?
 

ModernRailways

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2011
Messages
2,049
Tyne and Wear Metro has trainstops on its signals and on the approach to the underground terminus at St James, but does it have anything for the other termini or for speed restrictions like where it diverts off the old railway into Jesmond?

Yes. In some locations we have overspeed magnets.

We use an Indusi derived system. If you want to look into it then there's site http://www.sh1.org/eisenbahn/rindusi4.htm
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,078
I find it interesting (might almost use the word concerning, but perhaps too early to do so yet) that only 'recommendations' are being mentioned by the RAIB, rather than 'insistence'.
 
Last edited:

ModernRailways

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2011
Messages
2,049
I find it interesting (might almost use the word concerning, but perhaps too early to do so yet) that only 'recommendations' are being mentioned by the RAIB, rather than 'insistance'.

IIRC, The RAIB can only make recommendations - they can strongly word those recommendations but that is all. Only the Government could insist on the recommendations being implemented.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
IIRC, The RAIB can only make recommendations - they can strongly word those recommendations but that is all. Only the Government could insist on the recommendations being implemented.

Presumably the RAIB make their recommendations and then the ORR/RSSB etc would bring in new rules if it was deemed necessary.
 

daikilo

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2010
Messages
1,623
IIRC, The RAIB can only make recommendations - they can strongly word those recommendations but that is all. Only the Government could insist on the recommendations being implemented.

The following is extracted from the footnotes on the first page of the recommendations aft the Barrow-on-Soar bridge incident:
- Those identified in the recommendations have a general and ongoing obligation to comply with health and safety legislation, and need to take these recommendations into account in ensuring the safety of their employees and others.
Additionally, for the purposes of regulation 12(1) of the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005, these recommendations are addressed to the Office of Rail and Road to enable it to carry out its duties under regulation 12(2) to:
(a) ensure that recommendations are duly considered and where appropriate acted upon; and
(b) report back to RAIB details of any implementation measures, or the reasons why no implementation measures are being taken.
Copies of both the regulations and the accompanying guidance notes (paragraphs 200 to 203) can be found on RAIB’s website www.gov.uk/raib.

I understand this as meaning 'these may be recommendations but, by law, certain of you must act on them'. In addition, 'compliance with health and safety obligations require that RAIB recommendations must be taken into account'.
 
Last edited:

jswagger

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2012
Messages
23
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41141563

Croydon crash: Tram drivers voting on industrial action

Tram drivers are voting on whether to take industrial action over plans to introduce a device to detect if a driver has fallen asleep.

The Aslef union said its members had not been consulted over the introduction of a camera which would be focussed on drivers' faces.

Transport for London said the device would improve safety following on from last November's fatal crash in Croydon....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

185143

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2013
Messages
4,506
Croydon crash: Tram drivers voting on industrial action

Tram drivers are voting on whether to take industrial action over plans to introduce a device to detect if a driver has fallen asleep.

I'm usually extremely pro-ASLEF+RMT but I'm seriously failing to understand this. The unions are so concerned about public safety on the Heavy Rail network that there are frequently strikes by the guard members who are against percieved negative changes to passenger safety-yet on the light rail side of things they are balloting for a strike over a POSITIVE change to passenger safety!

Madness!
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Croydon crash: Tram drivers voting on industrial action

Tram drivers are voting on whether to take industrial action over plans to introduce a device to detect if a driver has fallen asleep.

Will that device likely be the same or at least work on the same principle as the vigilance device on heavy rail trains?
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,649
Location
Another planet...
I'm usually extremely pro-ASLEF+RMT but I'm seriously failing to understand this. The unions are so concerned about public safety on the Heavy Rail network that there are frequently strikes by the guard members who are against percieved negative changes to passenger safety-yet on the light rail side of things they are balloting for a strike over a POSITIVE change to passenger safety!

Madness!

I'm much like you on unions by default, but agree that at face-value this seems counter-productive... I do hope the union's objections are about the implementation of any new system, rather than the very presence of a vigilance device.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
I'm much like you on unions by default, but agree that at face-value this seems counter-productive... I do hope the union's objections are about the implementation of any new system, rather than the very presence of a vigilance device.

I rather suspect that the unions might object more to the notion of bollocking Drivers for falling asleep without doing anything about the root cause, which it has been suggested is a problem at Tramlink.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,649
Location
Another planet...
BBC News seemed to imply that it was based around a camera in the cab, pointing at the driver.

It's been on the news.

That doesn't sound like a system designed to prevent drivers falling asleep, just to find out if they did fall asleep after the fact. On that basis I fully understand the Union stance.
 

hounddog

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
276
That doesn't sound like a system designed to prevent drivers falling asleep, just to find out if they did fall asleep after the fact. On that basis I fully understand the Union stance.

So you're saying that a driver who falls asleep and causes an accident should be able to cover it up?
 

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
9,591
So you're saying that a driver who falls asleep and causes an accident should be able to cover it up?

You're missing the point. If you want to prevent another serious indecent what is a camera going to do to stop it? Whilst it may make fact finding after the fact easier, it hasn't stopped or even lessened the impact of the incident. A vigilance device, however, would
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
9,641
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
I said at the time that the underlying issue appears to be a problem with the way of working at Tramlink and as a mear passenger Id be keen to see this fixed rather than seeing money flung at blame devices which is what this seams to be.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,045
Location
UK
I said at the time that the underlying issue appears to be a problem with the way of working at Tramlink and as a mear passenger Id be keen to see this fixed rather than seeing money flung at blame devices which is what this seams to be.

Indeed. Sounds as pointless as a hidden speed camera that merely records the excess speed that causes a later accident, rather than plays a part in preventing such speeding (i.e. being highly visible).

There are some satnavs and dashcams that claim to be able to detect a driver getting tired, so I'm sure there must be a more robust system that could be fitted in a tram. But, I guess it would use a camera and maybe that's where there could be some confusion.

Perhaps the system monitors the face and alerts and ALSO records?
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
9,641
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
Id love you to be right John but I fear that what is happening here is a way of dismissing or other violating drivers rights is being railroaded in, please someboddy tell me if I have picked this up wrong but to my way of thinking a device requiring some kind of action or response from the driver is a far more effective way of tackling this situation rather than what sounds like a classic post horse stable door approach.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,649
Location
Another planet...
So you're saying that a driver who falls asleep and causes an accident should be able to cover it up?

No, I'm saying a vigilance device should intervene IF a driver dozes off or becomes unresponsive, either by stopping the tram or sounding an alarm to stir the driver awake again- preferably both. Another poster said it more succinctly than I did: what's been described won't prevent a driver falling asleep, it just proves that he did. Blame not prevention.

It isn't even the proverbial "Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff" - it's a lawyer at the bottom of the cliff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top