Level crossing accident on Arun Valley Line 17/02/18

Surreytraveller · 18 Jan 2019

alxndr said:
There may have been local data loggers to record the state of key relays, and they may have asked for eye witness accounts (e.g. from the driver). I highly doubt anyone would state that there was "strong evidence" without having reviewed any, or the crossing was returned to service without full testing.

Presumably, the 'strong evidence' that the crossing was working correctly, was the fact there was no evidence that it had failed.

RailUK Forums

pompeyfan · 18 Jan 2019

Surreytraveller said:
Bear in mind, these units were built nearly 20 years ago, before forward-facing CCTV became mandatory, and before the technology existed. The reason 313s have FFCCTV is because they have been retro-fitted when units have been overhauled, and the 377s will be retro-fitted when they get overhauled.

Sorry, but I Personally find that a bit of a cop-out. SWR Desiros have had FFCCTV for quite a while, long before this current round of refreshing the units. The trains are nearly of a similar vintage.

Muzer · 18 Jan 2019

Surreytraveller said:
No. I believe the only communication sent by an AHB crossing to a supervising 'box is if a failure is logged. The crossings are fully automatic.

I don't believe that is true. SimSig which generally tries to be quite true to life (and is worked on by people who are/were signallers) has lowered indications for AHBs. Now admittedly that isn't the best source, and I'd be happy to be corrected if you have a better one!

Tomnick · 18 Jan 2019

Muzer said:
I don't believe that is true. SimSig which generally tries to be quite true to life (and is worked on by people who are/were signallers) has lowered indications for AHBs. Now admittedly that isn't the best source, and I'd be happy to be corrected if you have a better one!

“Working” rather than “lowered”, usually? It doesn’t indicate that the barriers have lowered, only that the crossing equipment has started operating. I don’t know whether you’d subsequently get a failed indication if the barriers didn’t lower though.

Taunton · 18 Jan 2019

I can't quite understand the situation that two trains had previously passed and the barriers remained down for a third one. AHBs typically come down about 30 seconds before a train passes, remaining down a bit more with a second train situation. The Arun Valley line is by no means signalled for high intensity service. Even if two trains had passed previously, the signalling here and barrier times seem unlikely to have allowed a third train at such a close headway that the barriers remained down. Even if it was so close, it would be running on yellows, not at full speed as here.

The one thing I do get is yet again the combination of AHBs with abnormal working. In this case the line was handling double or more its normal traffic as the Hove line was closed for works. Third Train Coming would be unknown to regular road users here. At Athelney the barrier controls had been disrupted by an engineering vehicle running wrong line prior to the accident train approaching.

Lucan · 18 Jan 2019

Spartacus said:
I thought shortly after the incident; two trains had passed shortly before and with the barriers not raising after them, and another train being visible some distance away the driver decided not to wait and calculated they had enough time to cross before the train they could see

Earlier in this thread (9-10 months ago) it was noted that the Down train divided at the previous main station (Horsham) but nevertheless both portions continued along the same route with a fairly close headway until diverging further down the line. At the same time an Up train happens to pass around this point. Therefore a driver waiting at the crossing might see a train pass in each direction but the gates remain down for a minute or so afterwards because the second Down portion would be appoaching. A driver might assume that the gates had stuck and that on this quiet rural line it would be some time before another train came.

It was the second portion of the Down train that struck the car. Whether it was visible or not might not have entered into it - I would have thought that the train was so close it would be hard to miss it if one did look. There are many videos on YouTube of people ignoring level crossing lights and barriers, and with pedestrians and motor/cyclists where you can see their heads, they very often (incredibly) do not even turn their heads to look.

Spartacus said:
A report ... suggests the car was on the crossing for approx 3 seconds, which is longer than I'd think normal if one was driving straight across.

But if the half-barriers were down it would not have been straight across. It has been said that "Mr Hearnshaw ...... was familiar with the roads". I wonder how familiar he was with railway operation though. I also wonder when the boy's football match was due to kick off.

Surreytraveller · 18 Jan 2019

Muzer said:
I don't believe that is true. SimSig which generally tries to be quite true to life (and is worked on by people who are/were signallers) has lowered indications for AHBs. Now admittedly that isn't the best source, and I'd be happy to be corrected if you have a better one!

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...WMAN6BAgJEAE&usg=AOvVaw3evWqEtFZMCiBfwXEjszJ9

2.87 To ensure that the crossing operates safely when the railway line is open to traffic, indicators at the
control point should confirm that the equipment is powered and functioning correctly.

Page 22. So although the indications in the 'box could well confirm the barriers are lowered the requirements do not require them to do so.

Spartacus · 18 Jan 2019

If I remember right they'd passed in opposite directions about a minute apart (don't forget I'm trying to remember from a year ago!)

Lucan said:
Earlier in this thread (9-10 months ago) it was noted that the Down train divided at the previous main station (Horsham) but nevertheless both portions continued along the same route with a fairly close headway until diverging further down the line. At the same time an Up train happens to pass around this point. Therefore a driver waiting at the crossing might see a train pass in each direction but the gates remain down for a minute or so afterwards because the second Down portion would be approaching. A driver might assume that the gates had stuck and that on this quiet rural line it would be some time before another train came.

It was the second portion of the Down train that struck the car. Whether it was visible or not might not have entered into it - I would have thought that the train was so close it would be hard to miss it if one did look. There are many videos on YouTube of people ignoring level crossing lights and barriers, and with pedestrians and motor/cyclists where you can see their heads, they very often (incredibly) do not even turn their heads to look.

But if the half-barriers were down it would not have been straight across. It has been said that "Mr Hearnshaw ...... was familiar with the roads". I wonder how familiar he was with railway operation though. I also wonder when the boy's football match was due to kick off.

I've been looking back for the same details as you by the sound of it! The chance of the driver seeing the last train is one we'll probably never know, it was just based on the strong possibility of the driver already having been stood for the second train, if they were, they might have had time to have a quick glance. It's something in animal nature, let alone human, that if someone sees a possible danger on one direction they will focus on that and may be oblivious to a greater, and sometimes more obvious threat, in another.

It was also originally reported that there was no damage to the entry barrier which, together with the vehicle being slow to traverse the crossing, lends more weight to the idea that the driver drove around the barrier, for whatever reason.

swt_passenger · 18 Jan 2019

Is it possible people read the notice about ‘another train is coming’ too literally, ie think that the second train must be the only next train, and it must be a defect if the barriers stay down?

Apologies if this has already been mentioned in the thread earlier...

Muzer · 18 Jan 2019

Tomnick said:
“Working” rather than “lowered”, usually? It doesn’t indicate that the barriers have lowered, only that the crossing equipment has started operating. I don’t know whether you’d subsequently get a failed indication if the barriers didn’t lower though.

Apologies, you're absolutely right, I had misremembered. But yes, I'd certainly expect you'd get a "failed" indication if the barriers don't lower in a timely manner, so there must be some data or other getting through to the box that would allow the state of the barriers to be inferred - if nothing else, the "working" signal followed by the lack of a "failed" signal would be pretty strong evidence that the crossing and its barriers are working as usual.

Robsignals · 18 Jan 2019

Spartacus said:
The unit didn't have a camera.

My personal theory is still as I thought shortly after the incident; two trains had passed shortly before and with the barriers not raising after them, and another train being visible some distance away the driver decided not to wait and calculated they had enough time to cross before the train they could see, but didn't consider the direction that they couldn't see. A report in the Daily Mail suggests the car was on the crossing for approx 3 seconds, which is longer than I'd think normal if one was driving straight across. There's been quite a few allegations made against the crossing since the incident, but with loggers and now CCTV they're all quite easy to disprove, but it seems there's still quite a popular local idea that the crossing doesn't work correctly and the barriers don't always lower, despite visual evidence that it does.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-grandfather-killed-train-level-crossing.html

No it's not possible for the crossing to remain closed for a third train, closed time for 2 trains max 45 sec minimum headway probably 3 minutes. I observed the crossing some months ago, no excess wait time each of 4 trains passing separately within a couple of minutes. There's no visibility of approaching down trains and the train driver said the car came out of nowhere so couldn't see it negating the 3s claim attributed to him.

Even locals will rarely see the crossing operating which may cause a belief they don't work at all.

Tomnick said:
“Working” rather than “lowered”, usually? It doesn’t indicate that the barriers have lowered, only that the crossing equipment has started operating. I don’t know whether you’d subsequently get a failed indication if the barriers didn’t lower though.

From my experience now 30 years ago AHB remotely monitored has 'Power On' and 'Barriers Lowered' indications with alarms for power lost and barriers down too long. VDU systems could give a failed to lower alarm but probably don't as it will be very rare and there's nothing the signaller can realistically do to avert a collison.

Taunton said:
I can't quite understand the situation that two trains had previously passed and the barriers remained down for a third one. AHBs typically come down about 30 seconds before a train passes, remaining down a bit more with a second train situation. The Arun Valley line is by no means signalled for high intensity service. Even if two trains had passed previously, the signalling here and barrier times seem unlikely to have allowed a third train at such a close headway that the barriers remained down. Even if it was so close, it would be running on yellows, not at full speed as here.

The one thing I do get is yet again the combination of AHBs with abnormal working. In this case the line was handling double or more its normal traffic as the Hove line was closed for works. Third Train Coming would be unknown to regular road users here. At Athelney the barrier controls had been disrupted by an engineering vehicle running wrong line prior to the accident train approaching.

Design times 27s and 37s, pretty much part of the design philosophy that a 3rd train isn't possible unless 2nd is very slow or stopped.

It was the normal 4 tph each way service with no Brighton diversions and now days when there are the Arun Valley trains don't divide until Barnham so still 4 tph.

Lucan said:
Earlier in this thread (9-10 months ago) it was noted that the Down train divided at the previous main station (Horsham) but nevertheless both portions continued along the same route with a fairly close headway until diverging further down the line. At the same time an Up train happens to pass around this point. Therefore a driver waiting at the crossing might see a train pass in each direction but the gates remain down for a minute or so afterwards because the second Down portion would be appoaching. A driver might assume that the gates had stuck and that on this quiet rural line it would be some time before another train came.

It was the second portion of the Down train that struck the car. Whether it was visible or not might not have entered into it - I would have thought that the train was so close it would be hard to miss it if one did look.

Not possible and little or no view of approaching trains. A risk factor may be that AHBs are so quick even regular road users rarely see them in operation and understandi how soon the train arrives.

Muzer said:
Apologies, you're absolutely right, I had misremembered. But yes, I'd certainly expect you'd get a "failed" indication if the barriers don't lower in a timely manner, so there must be some data or other getting through to the box that would allow the state of the barriers to be inferred - if nothing else, the "working" signal followed by the lack of a "failed" signal would be pretty strong evidence that the crossing and its barriers are working as usual.

RAIB stated an investigation provided "strong evidence" the barriers were fully lowered for 14 seconds before the car entered the track, that could be from signal box logging.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46905919

Mr Ford said an investigation provided "strong evidence" that when the car entered the track the barriers had been fully lowered around 14 seconds before, with the red lights flashing.

2HAP · 18 Jan 2019

For clarity, when I said there was no RAIB investigation, I meant that there was no RAIB formal investigation opened. No report or safety digest was published, almost certainly because railway equipment worked as designed and there was no failure by the railway.

Taunton · 18 Jan 2019

2HAP said:
For clarity, when I said there was no RAIB investigation, I meant that there was no RAIB formal investigation opened. No report or safety digest was published, almost certainly because railway equipment worked as designed and there was no failure by the railway.

There without a doubt will be a report into a fatal railway accident. But where there is an Inquest they wait until that is finished before publishing anything. Some legal nicety I don't quite get. It's unusual it's taken nearly a year for the inquest to happen.

Robsignals · 18 Jan 2019

2HAP said:
For clarity, when I said there was no RAIB investigation, I meant that there was no RAIB formal investigation opened. No report or safety digest was published, almost certainly because railway equipment worked as designed and there was no failure by the railway.

I'd think they always gather technical evidence and witnesses statements to establish the immediate cause before deciding if a full investigation is required. In this case with no CCTV or on site data record and equipment destroyed there's not much technical evidence and they can only say that there's no reason to suspect the crossing was faulty.

Matt Taylor · 18 Jan 2019

The driver's death was accidental and the lad was unlawfully killed, that's the verdict from the coroner. Gauge marks on the crossing and the position of the wreckage indicated that the vehicle had been driven around the barriers.

Robsignals · 18 Jan 2019

Matt Taylor said:
The driver's death was accidental and the lad was unlawfully killed, that's the verdict from the coroner. Gauge marks on the crossing and the position of the wreckage indicated that the vehicle had been driven around the barriers.

Effectively the RAIB conclusion based on the physical evidence, no other explanation is possible. Don't know why the drivers death wasn't given as 'misadventure' but suppose they don't think he intended to place them both in danger, he seems to have thought there was time to cross and staked both their lives on it. Terrible bad timing - a few seconds earlier and they would've got away with it, a few seconds later and the train would've been on the crossing in front of them and they would've been able to stop.

4069 · 18 Jan 2019

Taunton said:
There without a doubt will be a report into a fatal railway accident. But where there is an Inquest they wait until that is finished before publishing anything. Some legal nicety I don't quite get. It's unusual it's taken nearly a year for the inquest to happen.

No. If RAIB were going to publish an investigation report, it would have been announced on their website.

Investigation reports are frequently published before the inquest takes place. There is no legal reason not to do so, where safety learning needs to be be disseminated.

In this case, as others have deduced, there is no learning for the railway.

Robsignals · 18 Jan 2019

4069 said:
No. If RAIB were going to publish an investigation report, it would have been announced on their website.

Investigation reports are frequently published before the inquest takes place. There is no legal reason not to do so, where safety learning needs to be be disseminated.

In this case, as others have deduced, there is no learning for the railway.

The industry might consider changing signage to emphasise how quickly the train arrives though the likelihood of a repeat is probably considered very small.

LAX54 · 19 Jan 2019

Robsignals said:
Effectively the RAIB conclusion based on the physical evidence, no other explanation is possible. Don't know why the drivers death wasn't given as 'misadventure' but suppose they don't think he intended to place them both in danger, he seems to have thought there was time to cross and staked both their lives on it. Terrible bad timing - a few seconds earlier and they would've got away with it, a few seconds later and the train would've been on the crossing in front of them and they would've been able to stop.

I would have said for one of them, manslaughter. the driver knew what he was doing.

HowardGWR · 19 Jan 2019

swills said:
I would have said for one of them, manslaughter. the driver knew what he was doing.

Manslaughter is a crime. The coroner concluded 'unlawful killing' which is only what they can conclude as the cause of death (the purpose of an inquest). If the grandfather had lived, there may have been a subsequent trial, but that is conjecture.

al78 · 20 Jan 2019

HowardGWR said:
Manslaughter is a crime. The coroner concluded 'unlawful killing' which is only what they can conclude as the cause of death (the purpose of an inquest). If the grandfather had lived, there may have been a subsequent trial, but that is conjecture.

Manslaugher - the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or in circumstances not amounting to murder.

Not a million miles away from deciding to chance it by zig-zagging around level crossing barriers and it resulting in someones death from a collision with a train. Death by careless or even dangerous driving might be more appropriate. Whatever, if the perpetrator had survived, they should have had the book, bookcase and library, brick by brick thrown at them.

carriageline · 20 Jan 2019

Robsignals said:
From my experience now 30 years ago AHB remotely monitored has 'Power On' and 'Barriers Lowered' indications with alarms for power lost and barriers down too long. VDU systems could give a failed to lower alarm but probably don't as it will be very rare and there's nothing the signaller can realistically do to avert a collison.

AHBs I have seen have “barriers raised” or “barriers working”.

Bikeman78 · 20 Jan 2019

Lucan said:
Earlier in this thread (9-10 months ago) it was noted that the Down train divided at the previous main station (Horsham) but nevertheless both portions continued along the same route with a fairly close headway until diverging further down the line. At the same time an Up train happens to pass around this point. Therefore a driver waiting at the crossing might see a train pass in each direction but the gates remain down for a minute or so afterwards because the second Down portion would be appoaching. A driver might assume that the gates had stuck and that on this quiet rural line it would be some time before another train came.

It was the second portion of the Down train that struck the car. Whether it was visible or not might not have entered into it - I would have thought that the train was so close it would be hard to miss it if one did look. There are many videos on YouTube of people ignoring level crossing lights and barriers, and with pedestrians and motor/cyclists where you can see their heads, they very often (incredibly) do not even turn their heads to look.

Yes the trains from Victoria split at Horsham. The front bit departs at XX01 or XX31 non stop to Barnham whilst the rear departs at XX04 or XX34 and follows the front portion to Barnham calling at various stations en route. If the front portion is late then the rear might be closer behind, if the signalling permits. An up train does indeed pass Barns Green around the same time as the two down trains so it's possible that someone waiting could see three trains. The only problem with this theory is that the XX34 from Horsham stops at Christ's Hospital (the XX04 doesn't) so it's unlikely to be close enough behind the xx31 for this to happen.

Robsignals · 21 Jan 2019

al78 said:
Manslaugher - the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or in circumstances not amounting to murder.

Not a million miles away from deciding to chance it by zig-zagging around level crossing barriers and it resulting in someones death from a collision with a train. Death by careless or even dangerous driving might be more appropriate. Whatever, if the perpetrator had survived, they should have had the book, bookcase and library, brick by brick thrown at them.

Initially the verdicts don't make sense, if the drivers death was accidental then surely so must be that of his passenger. Perhaps the Jury wanted to be kind to the family but accidental doesn't seem right for a deliberate act with a clearly fatal possible result, I suppose they wanted to say they didn't believe he understood the danger of his action but it was his choice to make for himself but not for his grandson, a narrative verdict or comments would've been helpful.

Off topic my opinion is manslaughter should be treated at least as seriously as murder - an outburst of violence or total disregard for the safety of others resulting in the death of random law abiding citizens (could be you or me). I also consider the behaviour of many motorists as 'driving with murderous intent neither knowing or caring who they might kill'.

LAX54 · 21 Jan 2019

carriageline said:
AHBs I have seen have “barriers raised” or “barriers working”.

All the AHB's within Colchester ASC show either: working / raised / failed. there is also an alarm for Power Off.

working will turn to failed after approx. 4 mins, but of course this does not always mean the crossing has failed, it might well be just a slow train.

Muzer · 21 Jan 2019

Robsignals said:
Initially the verdicts don't make sense, if the drivers death was accidental then surely so must be that of his passenger. Perhaps the Jury wanted to be kind to the family but accidental doesn't seem right for a deliberate act with a clearly fatal possible result, I suppose they wanted to say they didn't believe he understood the danger of his action but it was his choice to make for himself but not for his grandson, a narrative verdict or comments would've been helpful.

Off topic my opinion is manslaughter should be treated at least as seriously as murder - an outburst of violence or total disregard for the safety of others resulting in the death of random law abiding citizens (could be you or me). I also consider the behaviour of many motorists as 'driving with murderous intent neither knowing or caring who they might kill'.

Accidental deaths can still be unlawful, but I'm pretty sure accidentally killing yourself is not unlawful.

HowardGWR · 21 Jan 2019

https://www.saunders.co.uk/news/what-verdicts-can-the-inquest-return.html

In deciding ‘how’ the person has died, the Coroner or jury may reach one of the following conclusions

Accident / Misadventure

This conclusion can be reached in two situations:

(i) where someone dies as an unintended result of actions that were themselves deliberate. For example, taking prescription medication but this had an unintended outcome of causing the death of the deceased.

(ii) where deaths are truly ‘accidental’ in the sense that neither the acts causing death nor the consequences of those acts were intended.

Unlawful killing

It is extremely rare for a jury or Coroner to reach a conclusion of unlawful killing. A conclusion of unlawful killing can essentially be returned in two circumstances:

(i) as a result of an unlawful act, such as an assault or murder; or

(ii) through gross negligence manslaughter.

So it didn't really matter a lot whether the grandad was killed 'accidentally' or by 'misadventure' as the two seem to be lumped together, but, as I wrote, had he lived, a trial for manslaughter would have almost certainly resulted, due to the verdict about the grandson, so perhaps not so conjectural after all.

Robsignals · 21 Jan 2019

swills said:
All the AHB's within Colchester ASC show either: working / raised / failed. there is also an alarm for Power Off.

working will turn to failed after approx. 4 mins, but of course this does not always mean the crossing has failed, it might well be just a slow train.

The Stainforth accident report says AHB time out after 3 minutes and reopen so signallers must place protecting signals to danger. Isn't there a general rule that trains restarting from an out of course stop must proceed at caution to the next signal in case this has happened among other things.

Tomnick · 21 Jan 2019

Robsignals said:
The Stainforth accident report says AHB time out after 3 minutes and reopen so signallers must place protecting signals to danger. Isn't there a general rule that trains restarting from an out of course stop must proceed at caution to the next signal in case this has happened among other things.

They only time out in that manner in certain circumstances (when a train doesn’t ‘strike out’ correctly for whatever reason?), and not with a train - or failed track circuit - still on the approach. The risk, and reason for cautioning, is that motorists are likely to become impatient and weave around the barriers once they’ve been down for a few minutes.

Robsignals · 21 Jan 2019

Tomnick said:
They only time out in that manner in certain circumstances (when a train doesn’t ‘strike out’ correctly for whatever reason?), and not with a train - or failed track circuit - still on the approach. The risk, and reason for cautioning, is that motorists are likely to become impatient and weave around the barriers once they’ve been down for a few minutes.

Your right, I read it to quickly! RAIB expect that all track circuits from strike-in to beyond the crossing must be clear for a timed reset so must be very rare, only if a faulty TC goes occupied and then clears again.

Level crossing accident on Arun Valley Line 17/02/18

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member