• 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!

Rail crash driver died after telling signalman train had passed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Saperstein

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
517
Location
Chester
Rail crash driver died after telling signalman train had passed

A man died when his vehicle was hit by an express train on a level crossing after he gave "incorrect information" to a signalman, an inquest heard.

Colin Cameron's Land Rover was struck by the London Paddington to Cheltenham Spa service at Frampton Mansell, near Stroud, in February 2017.

A verdict of accidental death was recorded by the jury.

Mr Cameron, 60, received permission to cross on the basis he had said, wrongly, he had already seen the train.

"Permission to cross was given whilst the train was known to be somewhere in the track section, based on Colin Cameron's confirmation," the inquest jury said in its verdict.

"This was based on industry practice... [but] the information given [by Mr Cameron] was incorrect."

In a statement, his family said: "Colin used the Frampton Mansell crossing regularly and treated it with respect... he never crossed without seeking permission.

"On 7 February 2017 Colin died in a collision with a train, in circumstances we believe were avoidable.

"We struggle to understand how in this day and age the public are relied upon to give information on the location of trains when seeking permission to cross railway tracks."


The jury previously heard Mr Cameron had a key to unlock the crossing gate at Frampton Mansell, which he used regularly to access land where he ran a camping business.

He stopped his vehicle and used the phone to contact signallers and was told it was safe because he reported a train had recently gone by.

The signalman told the inquest he had no reason to believe what Mr Cameron said was wrong.

Network Rail said its "thoughts and condolences remain with Colin Cameron's family and friends".

"Safety of the public, passengers and our staff remains our priority and we will continue to do all we can to improve safety at level crossings."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-48597939

Looks like the road vehicle driver thought the train had gone.

Any thoughts ?
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,825
Difficult to say how it went wrong, without more detailed information. I used to do it routinely at various boxes and I’ve done it as a crossing user too - if there was a train in the section to the box next door, and the crossing user confirmed that it had just gone past them, then all’s well. One farmer had it sorted - “hello it’s Mr X at Y crossing with a tractor, one’s just gone by on the Up, is it safe to cross?”. The biggest risk was when there was a train in section each way! I’m not sure what can reasonably done about it though, short of an instruction that the section must be clear throughout before permission may be granted (which would make some crossings virtually unusable at times).
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,073
Location
Powys
Having had the same types of crossings, termed UWCs (user worked crossings) in my sections and having read the excellent report from the Gloucester paper above, it certainly looks like the signalled did nothing wrong.
These crossings were the bane of our lives and invariably caused the most problems, even when you did have a good relationship with the user.

For example: I had a UWC between me and the next Box. The section was in general 8 minutes long, including a 1 minute station stop, so we wouldn't authorise anyone to cross once we had received "Is line clear", but would ask them to ring back after the train had passed them. We had to accept their word. The only alternative was for us to wait until we could see the train before we authorised.

People seem to think that every bit of track has a sensor that tells the signalled EXACTLY where a train is at any given moment. I know I got one of my users up in the Box one day to show him everything we did, how we did it, and explained why we did it. I got a much better relationship with him after that, and far fewer problems than others got.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
In this day and age you would think that all locos, EMUs and DMUs were fitted with GPS tracker though. Many buses do, and it's not expensive equipment.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,825
In this day and age you would think that all locos, EMUs and DMUs were fitted with GPS tracker though. Many buses do, and it's not expensive equipment.
Used for this purpose, though, it’d have to have next to no likelihood of giving any false indication of position, e.g. showing a last reported position any length of time after losing contact with the satellites and/or the monitoring system, which is more likely to happen with trains and the tunnels that they led through.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,530
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
In this day and age you would think that all locos, EMUs and DMUs were fitted with GPS tracker though. Many buses do, and it's not expensive equipment.

Some TOCs are indeed fitting units with GPS, though the main reason is so that the PIS shows more accurate information. To use an example, I was waiting at Perth for an Aberdeen bound HST which had failed a fair way back - but it hadn't passed a reporting point since being reported on time, so was showing on time. Only when it passed the next reporting point did a 45 minute delay come up on the boards.

Trouble is that GPS is not guaranteed to be accurate, so while using it for PIS is one thing (it can only improve that), using it for safety critical stuff isn't really workable. One can see why it would be worse to have GPS falsely claiming the train had passed than simply not knowing (and knowing you don't know) where it is in a 10 mile section.
 

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,360
In this day and age you would think that all locos, EMUs and DMUs were fitted with GPS tracker though. Many buses do, and it's not expensive equipment.

Technology - unfortunately there's a big difference between what should be possible and what actually happens.
For example, the trains I drive are fitted with GPS but can't announce the station stops in anywhere near reliable enough fashion to stake a life on - which is what you're doing at a user worked crossing.
 

notverydeep

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2014
Messages
872
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-48597939

Looks like the road vehicle driver thought the train had gone.

Any thoughts ?

It is interesting that this fatality did not prompt any RAIB report (either full investigation or safety digest) although an FOI request confirms that they were notified https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/raib_notification_of_fatal_accid
This absence means that they decided that no new safety learning would be possible. While I understand that it is not yet possible to provide crossing users or signallers with real time information on train's exact position within a long signal section, I can sympathise with the family members who find this somewhat surprising in 2019, given the plethora of data on location apparently available in other situations. I presume for example that several hundred mobile phones were being passed from one cell to the next along the Golden Valley as the train and its passengers progressed and that for many this data was being logged in their Google Timeline location history. Clearly this data can't be turned into a system to warn users of these crossings overnight, but its existence does indicate that there might be some ways to improve the safety of UWCs in long signal sections...

There is a RAIB report into a previous fatality at this User Worked Crossing https://assets.publishing.service.g...f0b63d11000004/R052015_150528_Frampton_LC.pdf but the circumstances were different in that the user of the crossing who was hit by a train and killed on that occasion had not telephoned the signaller. The report is an interesting read and was critical of the signage at the crossing at that time and made several recommendations to improve the way risks at UWC were managed across the rail network.
 
Last edited:

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
Trouble is that GPS is not guaranteed to be accurate, so while using it for PIS is one thing (it can only improve that), using it for safety critical stuff isn't really workable.

Several other countries use GPS-based systems for so-called "Positive Train Control" (effectively signaling and speed monitoring) systems. The US in particular uses a system called "Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS)" for train control ("differential" GPS means using fixed base-stations with precisely known positions to enhance the accuracy of GPS positioning). So I'm not sure we can simply accept that "using [GPS] for safety critical stuff isn't really workable".

I suppose this is yet another case of the UK railways "not invented here" syndrome...
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,035
I think probably what is meant, rather than not possible at all, is that it is not possible for a reasonable cost. A lot of other stuff is needed too to make it work, not just GPS on every train (expensive enough). The expense is huge, just for little used crossings. It would be cheaper to replace them all with a bridge!
 

GodAtum

On Moderation
Joined
11 Dec 2009
Messages
2,633
I dont understand, why would the signaller rely on the word on an untrained member of public? That's an accident waiting to happen.
 

aleggatta

Member
Joined
28 Sep 2015
Messages
537
Just a thought, but not having any knowledge of the location in question quite happy to have my theory adjusted. This is more of a warning system than a fail safe system

If working in an area where signalling is AB or Axle counter, could a track circuit block be installed around the crossing, linked to a local power supply, that whenever the train enters section with gates open sirens and beacons go off to warn the person that the train is near? I understand a lot of these locations are countryside, but for something that would get so little use, a solar/battery type set up would be possible, and being interlocked with the gates it would not go off unnecessarily? I guess the only real risk would be that it could make users of this type of crossing complacent and not get permission to cross.
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,778
I dont understand, why would the signaller rely on the word on an untrained member of public?
Because that’s how telephone equipped User Worked Crossings the length and bredth of the country are operated every single day and have been for decades.
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,271
Location
N Yorks
I think probably what is meant, rather than not possible at all, is that it is not possible for a reasonable cost. A lot of other stuff is needed too to make it work, not just GPS on every train (expensive enough). The expense is huge, just for little used crossings. It would be cheaper to replace them all with a bridge!
And GPS wont work in cuttings, in trainsheds, or in places where you cant see much sky, like deep cuttings or where there are tall buildings close to the railway each side
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,778
If working in an area where signalling is AB or Axle counter, could a track circuit block be installed around the crossing, linked to a local power supply, that whenever the train enters section with gates open sirens and beacons go off to warn the person that the train is near? I understand a lot of these locations are countryside, but for something that would get so little use, a solar/battery type set up would be possible, and being interlocked with the gates it would not go off unnecessarily? I guess the only real risk would be that it could make users of this type of crossing complacent and not get permission to cross.
You have just more or less described the various overlay warning systems approved for use on Network Rail infrastructure - Bombardier’s EBI Gate 200, Schweizer’s VAMOS and Covtec’s Supplementary Audible Warning Device (SAWD).
 

Greg Read

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2019
Messages
53
I dont understand, why would the signaller rely on the word on an untrained member of public? That's an accident waiting to happen.

The Signaller would know how many trains are in the section, either one or two, so assuming there was only one train in the section, and the person crossing said that he had seen it pass, there is no reason not to let him cross.
 

Greg Read

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2019
Messages
53
You have just more or less described the various overlay warning systems approved for use on Network Rail infrastructure - Bombardier’s EBI Gate 200, Schweizer’s VAMOS and Covtec’s Supplementary Audible Warning Device (SAWD).

and of course when all that fails, which it could well do, then your resort to 'call the signalman', and the question and answer would have been the same.
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,778
When an overlay warning system fails the signaller will caution trains until a member of staff can attend to supervise thenuse of the crossing.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
Used for this purpose, though, it’d have to have next to no likelihood of giving any false indication of position, e.g. showing a last reported position any length of time after losing contact with the satellites and/or the monitoring system, which is more likely to happen with trains and the tunnels that they led through.
But you'd still have the same user driven manual system, but with an additional GPS-led check. In the instance above, it would only misinform in so far as the person taking the phone call wouldn't be able to confirm the train had passed and would have to seek other secondary confirmation.

It's a potential layer of confirmation, and better than only having someone's word to go off.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
And GPS wont work in cuttings, in trainsheds, or in places where you cant see much sky, like deep cuttings or where there are tall buildings close to the railway each side
Perhaps I should have said "location services" rather than GPS. Location technology is even built into your phone, and uses various data to accurately triangulate a position. If there is a crossing, then it is going to be out in the open so the chances are that one or more of GPS, mobile mast or wifi locations would be able to reach the receiver.

And if there were any places where this wouldn't be possible, those few and far between could have different manual processes put in place to mitigate.

It just seems so very strange to me that an industry that often goes massively overkill on "safety" doesn't use the light touch, widely useful, readily available and relatively inexpensive technology to mitigate such an obvious risk. Given the use that such technology could be put to on the consumer front, this additional safety benefit would surely make the spend a no-brainer.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
Of course, with aircraft, far more complex to handle in 3 dimensions than a train, and many smaller ones of which are single pilot operated, the controller would just call the pilot and get an immediate response on where they were. Not all are shown on radar.

Although fitted with radio, the railway finds various reasons not to do that.
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,073
Location
Powys
In this day and age you would think that all locos, EMUs and DMUs were fitted with GPS tracker though. Many buses do, and it's not expensive equipment.

And what use would that be?
That would mean that every signalbox in the country would have to have a detailed display screen to receive the signal from that unit.
Can you imagine how much that would cost? And guess who will be paying, you the passenger!
And I won't go into the problems with GPS reception and the interference that electrical systems can cause.
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,073
Location
Powys
I dont understand, why would the signaller rely on the word on an untrained member of public? That's an accident waiting to happen.

Because the system works and there are very few accidents compared to the number of uses.
Read my reply at post #4 above.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,825
Of course, with aircraft, far more complex to handle in 3 dimensions than a train, and many smaller ones of which are single pilot operated, the controller would just call the pilot and get an immediate response on where they were. Not all are shown on radar.

Although fitted with radio, the railway finds various reasons not to do that.
The most obvious reason is that it’s wholly unnecessary. The person best placed to confirm when a train has passed a particular crossing is the person standing at that crossing, which isn’t an onerous task, and it’s in their best interests to do so correctly. Clearly something went wrong with that process here, but I’m certain that something is more likely to go wrong if complex procedures involving multiple phone calls to train drivers or a GPS system that may or may not tell you where the train is are introduced. Yes, you can call the driver on the GSM-R, and he might mistakenly tell you that he’s passed a different crossing because he’s only human and there are hundreds of user worked crossings on some route cards. Keep it simple.
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,073
Location
Powys
Perhaps I should have said "location services" rather than GPS. Location technology is even built into your phone, and uses various data to accurately triangulate a position. If there is a crossing, then it is going to be out in the open so the chances are that one or more of GPS, mobile mast or wifi locations would be able to reach the receiver.

And if there were any places where this wouldn't be possible, those few and far between could have different manual processes put in place to mitigate.

It just seems so very strange to me that an industry that often goes massively overkill on "safety" doesn't use the light touch, widely useful, readily available and relatively inexpensive technology to mitigate such an obvious risk. Given the use that such technology could be put to on the consumer front, this additional safety benefit would surely make the spend a no-brainer.

I don't think you realise how many of these crossings are in areas that don't have mobile phone reception or wi-fi!
And sorry but none of the "solutions" that you have proposed are inexpensive due to the numbers required.
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,778
Of course, with aircraft, far more complex to handle in 3 dimensions than a train, and many smaller ones of which are single pilot operated, the controller would just call the pilot and get an immediate response on where they were. Not all are shown on radar.

Although fitted with radio, the railway finds various reasons not to do that.
On RETB signalled lines that’s exactly how user worked level crossing requests are handled; through direct signaller/driver communications on an open radio channel.
 

Nippy

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2013
Messages
645
We do use the GSMR radio on the Marlow Branch for the UWC. We send a contact signaller to the driver to find out where they are in relation to the crossing, Then give permission to the user once the driver has confirmed they're clear.
 

alxndr

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2015
Messages
1,467
I find it surprising that allowing the public to pass after reporting seeing a train is permitted, and yet the rules have changed to require trains to be clear of the limits to obtain a line blockage rather than it being granted after the train has passed. Unless the rules have changed for the general public too.

When an overlay warning system fails the signaller will caution trains until a member of staff can attend to supervise thenuse of the crossing.

I'm not familiar with all the systems you mentioned but this isn't always the case. EBIgate 200 doesn't report to the signaller at all as far as I'm aware, and trains certainly aren't cautioned during failures. Failure information is sent via SMS to reliability monitoring guys and tends not to be instantaneous.
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,778
I'm not familiar with all the systems you mentioned but this isn't always the case. EBIgate 200 doesn't report to the signaller at all as far as I'm aware, and trains certainly aren't cautioned during failures. Failure information is sent via SMS to reliability monitoring guys and tends not to be instantaneous.
Regional differences strike again then. It was the case when the EBI Gate crossings were first introduced (in Scotland at least) no caution was imposed when they went into dark mode because the crossing was deemed to have ‘reverted’ back to a simple UWC and the expectation was that a member of the public coming across one in dark mode would understand this and contact the signaller as per the signage.

However when VAMOS arrived the instruction that came with them was, for whatever reason, that if one of those went into dark mode then a caution was to be imposed. Obviously this was inconsistent and confusing given they are just two different proprietary ways of solving the same problem so the instruction became - in Scotland at least - that a caution must be imposed for any crossing with overlay equipment in dark mode and new Signalbox Special Instructions were issued.

Dark mode monitoring information is currently sent by text message to either the Flight Engineer or the Signal Section Manager (there’s a bunfight ongoing at the moment about who gets it) and there can indeed be a delay of several hours before this information arrives after a failure. All in all its a rather strange situation we’ve found ourselves in with these installations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top