• 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!

Margam rail deaths: 'No safe system' when workers killed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Edders23

Member
Joined
22 Sep 2018
Messages
549
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49892460
A Network Rail and Great Western Railway probe said six staff were working on the line and separated of their own accord into groups of three.

This meant there was no official lookout.

A person was appointed unofficial lookout, but they became involved in the rail work before the train struck Mr Delbridge, from Kenfig Hill, Bridgend and Mr Lewis, from North Cornelly, Bridgend.

The report said it was "generally accepted" groups can be about 20 yards apart during work, but the workers split and worked 150 yards apart....
So despite the railways being the most safety conscious organisation I know it appears basics were not followed :(

very sad this was definitely preventable
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,914
Highly misleading headline as there was a safe system in place, it just wasn't followed though.

I've read the Network Rail report and I can't say there's anything that I didn't really think could have been in there after the initial investigation, although I was surprised, almost shocked, just how much of what could have possibly happened actually had.

No matter how good your precautions are, they mean nothing if they're not followed.
 
Last edited:

AndyPJG

Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
422
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49892460

So despite the railways being the most safety conscious organisation I know it appears basics were not followed :(

very sad this was definitely preventable

Quote from above link:-
Margam rail deaths: 'No safe system' when workers killed
There was "no safe system in place" when two rail workers were hit and killed by a train in July, an initial report has found.
Gareth Delbridge, 64, and Michael "Spike" Lewis, 58, died on 3 July after being struck near Margam, Port Talbot.
A Network Rail and Great Western Railway probe said six staff were working on the line and separated of their own accord into groups of three.
This meant there was no official lookout.
A person was appointed unofficial lookout, but they became involved in the rail work before the train struck Mr Delbridge, from Kenfig Hill, Bridgend and Mr Lewis, from North Cornelly, Bridgend.
The report said it was "generally accepted" groups can be about 20 yards apart during work, but the workers split and worked 150 yards apart.
The group was working with the line open to trains, with the lookout expected to give 30 seconds' warning time if a train was approaching, the report said.
But their distance apart compromised the number of lookouts available and a safe system of working.
Swansea to London Paddington train approached the group at about 70mph, hitting and killing the two workers. A third technician suffered severe shock.

Horn sounded
The men had been instructed to work on freeing, oiling and retightening bolts by the unofficial person in charge, who was also to act as a lookout.
There was a problem with a bolt, meaning the lookout became involved in the rail work and suggested putting further oil on the bolt, despite being instructed to remain in a position of safety.
Soon afterwards, Mr Lewis and Mr Delbridge were struck.
The report added the team believed they were working in the "most effective way" with an experienced team and no evidence of near-misses or accidents.
This "potentially led to overconfidence and a culture that delivered work 'their way'," the report said, adding that the work they were undertaking should have required more than three members of staff.
The workers were, according to witness statements, all wearing ear defenders, and despite the train driver sounding the horn a number of times, they did not hear it.
The report said the driver used a high-low tone of train horn, before two long, continuous blasts in the low tone.
........
 
Joined
9 Nov 2017
Messages
260
For further reading, there’s strong similarities between this and the near-miss at Egmanton in 2017.

Both resulted from a break down in the safe system of work with critical safety roles being allocated ad-hoc; no clear understanding of responsibilities between staff; working at an unplanned location not (or at least poorly) accounted for in the paperwork.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,871
Location
Nottingham

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,338
This report from Rail Engineer has a bit more detail. As far as I know the NR report isn't online.

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2019...ls-there-was-no-safe-system-of-work-in-place/

Network Rail has released an interim report into the fatalities that occurred at Margam, near Port Talbot in South Wales, on 3 July 2019.

It looks into what happened on the day and why and how the accident occurred. The full report, which will be released in a couple of months, will explore the underlying causes and will make relevant recommendations.

On the day in question, thirteen permanent way staff left Port Talbot depot to work at Margam (20 mins away). They arrived just after 08:00, whereupon the team split into two, with one team of seven working in a planned line blockage at Margam Moor while the other group of six deployed to Margam East Junction.

Some time later, three of the six were using a petrol-engine impact driver to tighten bolts in a crossing. They were all wearing ear defenders due to the high noise levels. When a bolt seized, they all became focussed on the task with no-one looking out.

Unnoticed, a GWR train approached the site at approximately 70mph. Two men, Gareth Delbridge, 64, and Michael (Spike) Lewis, 58, were struck and fatally injured while the third escaped impact with just inches to spare.

How did it happen?

Work had been planned to take place at the Margam East Junction site during the afternoon in a line blockage. But the safe work pack contained a second option, to work with unassisted lookouts that afternoon.

One of the six team members was asked to be the Person in Charge (PIC). He appointed another team member as the COSS (Controller of Site Safety).

The COSS was told to use the second system in the safe work pack and appointed distant and site lookouts.

The team of six on site at Margam East Junction decided to do extra work that wasn’t in the plan, some of which involved noisy plant to maintain bolts in a crossing.

A group of three, including the COSS, site lookout and another, moved about 150 yards away, leaving their colleagues to wait for their return.

However, the three left at the points started to work on the crossing bolts. There was no appointed COSS with them, no safe system of work and no distant lookout in place.

The Person in Charge said he would look out then became involved in the work, focussing on the bolts. None of them saw the train coming.

Port-Talbot-1024x331.jpg

Tracl layout at Margam East Junction. The technicians were split intio two groups and the three working on the Up Main didn’t hear the train approaching.
The train driver initially gave warning to the track workers using the high and low tone of the train horn but thereafter used the low tone for two long, continuous blasts as the train approached the work group. The investigation team note the requirement in the Rule Book for the high tone to be used to give an urgent warning to anyone on or dangerously near to the line. The Rule Book specifies: “Give a series of short, urgent danger warnings to anyone…who does not…appear to move clear out of the way of the train.”

It is uncertain whether a series of short high tone warnings, rather than continuous sounding of the low tone, could have resulted in the track workers becoming aware of the train earlier.

Various other anomalies are included in the report. These include:

  • The Safe Work Pack did not specify all of the work and how it was to be safely undertaken;
  • The COSS was only appointed that morning;
  • The COSS had his authority undermined – the PIC didn’t believe a distant lookout was needed;
  • The work was started in the morning, not the afternoon as planned;
  • There was no safe system of work in place;
  • The COSS was not with the group involved when the accident occurred;
  • The group all became focussed on the task and were unaware of an approaching train;
  • The wide experience of the closely-knit group and familiarity with each other potentially affected their perception of risk.
There are still facts to be determined, and questions to be answered, which will hopefully be included in the full report when it is published. In addition, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) is conducting its own report into the accident, though these typically take around 10 months to be issued.

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has also stated that it is undertaking an investigation.

Reaction

On the release of the interim report, Martin Frobisher, Network Rail’s safety director, said: “The whole railway family shares the loss of Gareth and Spike. Nothing will lessen the pain but understanding what went wrong and learning from that will, I hope, go some way to reassure all those affected that we will do all we can to stop it ever happening again.

“Today is the first step in that journey as we share an initial investigation into what happened. We will continue for several months to look deeper into the root causes before we make recommendations for our organisation and all of our people for the future.”
 

Tomos y Tanc

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2019
Messages
645
Highly misleading headline as there was a safe system in place, it just wasn't followed though.

It's not a highly misleading headline. It's an actual quote from the report. Railway Engineer uses the same quote as its headline.
 

Chris M

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
1,057
Location
London E14
The RAIB have released their interim report today: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/interim-report-012019-track-workers-struck-by-a-train-at-margam
An extract from the summary:
The RAIB’s preliminary conclusion is that the accident occurred because the three track workers were working on a line that was open to traffic, without the presence of formally appointed lookouts to warn them of approaching trains. All three workers were almost certainly wearing ear defenders, because one of them was using a noisy power tool, and all had become focused with the task they were undertaking. None of them was aware that a train was approaching them until it was too late to move to a position of safety.

Working on an open line without a formally appointed lookout meant that no single individual stood apart from the work activity at the points with the sole responsibility of providing a warning when trains approached. The absence of a lookout with no involvement in the work activity removed a vital safety barrier.

The planning paperwork for the work on 9577B points indicated that the work was to start at 12:30 hrs, to coincide with the planned blockage of the up main line. However, witness evidence suggests that there was a widespread belief at the local maintenance depot that there was no need to wait for the planned line blockage in the afternoon, and a general lack of understanding as to how the planning paperwork should be interpreted.

The system of work that the COSS had proposed to implement before the work began was not adopted, and the alternative arrangements became progressively less safe as the work proceeded that morning.

These factors had created conditions that made an accident much more likely.
 

alxndr

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2015
Messages
1,471
I read the RAIB interim report this afternoon when it came out, still trying to digest it to be honest. Very hard to read, especially alongside the images from the train CCTV, trying to imagine what would have been going through the minds of the other half of the group and the driver at that moment...
 

IslandDweller

Member
Joined
5 Dec 2011
Messages
95
"Highly misleading headline as there was a safe system in place, it just wasn't followed though."
Nothing misleading about the headline. If you have an operating environment where day-to-day operating practice bears little relation to the written safety procedures / method of work then you emphatically do not have a safe system. Procedures are worthless without a management culture that ensures the operating practice actually matches what the written procedures/rules require.
The circumstances outlined in the report are just jaw dropping.
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,914
Quite, although there’s not really anything there that I didn’t expect, I didn’t expect pretty well everything I expected it could have been to have happened, it’s like watching a safety video where everything’s done wrong. I’m expecting it either to be used in a similar fashion in the future, either officially or through word of mouth.
 

PG

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,842
Location
at the end of the high and low roads
Four months after this tragic incident and three track workers narrowly escaped the same fate going by this news item on the RAIB website.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/near-miss-with-track-workers-near-kirtlebridge
RAIB said:
At around 09:02 hrs on 14 November 2019, a group of track workers undertaking a track inspection narrowly avoided being struck by a train travelling at around 125 mph (200 km/h), south of Kirtlebridge, on the West Coast main line. There were no injuries.
The photo is shocking especially considering the reported speed of the train.
s300_Kirtlebridge.jpg

I'm thankful that although undoubtedly shocked they got to go home alive.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,255
"Highly misleading headline as there was a safe system in place, it just wasn't followed though."
Nothing misleading about the headline. If you have an operating environment where day-to-day operating practice bears little relation to the written safety procedures / method of work then you emphatically do not have a safe system. Procedures are worthless without a management culture that ensures the operating practice actually matches what the written procedures/rules require.
The circumstances outlined in the report are just jaw dropping.
But it’s not really much of a surprise. RAIB reports have been on about track workers for some considerable time yet we keep seeing more similar incidents. This is not just about NR management and culture, the staff keep doing the same things and never seem to learn. I do not believe NR are not briefing the lessons from previous incidents out, so there seems to be a basic lack of comprehension from the staff.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,871
Location
Nottingham
But it’s not really much of a surprise. RAIB reports have been on about track workers for some considerable time yet we keep seeing more similar incidents. This is not just about NR management and culture, the staff keep doing the same things and never seem to learn. I do not believe NR are not briefing the lessons from previous incidents out, so there seems to be a basic lack of comprehension from the staff.
From the outside looking in, it seems to me that the root cause is not enough people to do the work that needs doing, so people take shortcuts both with the paperwork and with actual safety on site. The response to an accident is often to introduce more paperwork, which may just make things worse.
 

PG

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,842
Location
at the end of the high and low roads
From the outside looking in, it seems to me that the root cause is not enough people to do the work that needs doing, so people take shortcuts both with the paperwork and with actual safety on site. The response to an accident is often to introduce more paperwork, which may just make things worse.
As an outsider I'd concur - time for a complete overhaul of how work is undertaken rather than yet another layer of forms to be produced, verified, checked and signed.

I have seen, in another industry, how the introduction of theoretically good ideas has led to an increased workload for foot-soldiers. This then spawned preprinted forms (in order to save time) which effectively turned the same good ideas into a form selection process. Instead of actually improving safety it became a paperwork exercise which changed nothing on the ground but fulfilled a tick box higher up in the organisation.
I fear that NR has done the same.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,255
From the outside looking in, it seems to me that the root cause is not enough people to do the work that needs doing, so people take shortcuts both with the paperwork and with actual safety on site. The response to an accident is often to introduce more paperwork, which may just make things worse.
It is that latter point that is key. Too much paperwork means it become a box-ticking exercise rather than making any real contribution to safety.

I just find it utterly astonishing that three people could stand on an open line, likely wearing ear defenders whilst concentrating on a task, with no lookout and none of them think that might, actually, be rather risky.
 

Hellzapoppin

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
225
I worked a night shift on the day this happened and had a Safety stand down with the 2 gangs I was supervising and although I only had quite sketchy info at that time to work with I got the safety message across that we should all work safe, act safe and think safe. I picked out a few stupid things which I see all too often, one of them being people wandering along trackside whilst texting, checking their social media and watching U tube videos. For that shift it stopped but the following night guess what, the same thing happened with the same people on their phones. As said above you can put into place as many Safe systems and processes as you want but people have to buy in to it. There's no easy answer.
 

PG

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,842
Location
at the end of the high and low roads
I know it's easy for me to say but with respect to mobile phones could there be a way to have them left at base or in the van ie not trackside?
As you say unless people buy in to it things won't change - I'm unsure how anyone can get all involved to buy in to it?
 

Hellzapoppin

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
225
The rules are quite clear regarding phones and that's unless you need a phone to carry out your duties it gets switched off and not used. How anyone can think they'll be safe walking in the 4ft at night whilst texting is beyond me but people do believe they'll be safe no matter what they're doing and sometimes it ends in tragedy. I can assure you it's hard work supervising people nowadays.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,338
The rules are quite clear regarding phones and that's unless you need a phone to carry out your duties it gets switched off and not used. How anyone can think they'll be safe walking in the 4ft at night whilst texting is beyond me but people do believe they'll be safe no matter what they're doing and sometimes it ends in tragedy. I can assure you it's hard work supervising people nowadays.

If it's against the rules, do staff get disciplined for it? Do contractors / agency / casual workers lose any future work?
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,499
If it's against the rules, do staff get disciplined for it? Do contractors / agency / casual workers lose any future work?

Problem with that is the managers are pressured to get the work done.
The individuals need to be directly held to account by the regulator.
I worked in finance so dodgy stuff only cost money not lives but being individually regulated made a big difference. Management would want corners cut but individuals would be concerned that their own head would be on the block and they would be blacklisted out the industry.
“I am not sure we should do that, can you send me an email instruction” ie ‘you put your name and reputation on that decision’
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Problem with that is the managers are pressured to get the work done.
The individuals need to be directly held to account by the regulator.
I worked in finance so dodgy stuff only cost money not lives but being individually regulated made a big difference. Management would want corners cut but individuals would be concerned that their own head would be on the block and they would be blacklisted out the industry.
“I am not sure we should do that, can you send me an email instruction” ie ‘you put your name and reputation on that decision’

Not sure I agree with that. Performance and discipline is down to the immediate manager, but it sounds like they are trying to avoid responsibility.
For a safety critical job I can't believe that staff flouting the rules aren't disciplibed.
 

Hellzapoppin

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
225
Staff do get disciplined, the usual start is a rebrief of the rules which should be enough.
Safety always comes before performance, usually the most productive way to do a job is also the safest.
Unfortunately you can't just deny people work as it could be classed as discrimination.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,932
I worked a night shift on the day this happened and had a Safety stand down with the 2 gangs I was supervising and although I only had quite sketchy info at that time to work with I got the safety message across that we should all work safe, act safe and think safe. I picked out a few stupid things which I see all too often, one of them being people wandering along trackside whilst texting, checking their social media and watching U tube videos. For that shift it stopped but the following night guess what, the same thing happened with the same people on their phones. As said above you can put into place as many Safe systems and processes as you want but people have to buy in to it. There's no easy answer.

As an industry is it also not helping with the casualisation of labour? One week on a railway worksite(s), the next on a house construction site, the next building a tower block?

How long is it going to be before red zone working is banned nationwide simply because the labour force isn't capable in being trained to be railway safe so the only way to solve the issue is to remove the trains and resort to green zone working even for the most basic tasks?

In addition however as an industry are we not helping ourselves by conducting certain tasks using manual methods when frankly it would be better to take the people away and use trains and non manual methods to carry out such tasks?
 

Tom B

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2005
Messages
4,602
Exactly this, thank you for saying it better than I did.

And because everyone then associates the paperwork and processes with arse covering and wasting time, they become blasé to it when it actually needs to be followed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top