Accident at Welshpool (16 July 2013)

[Tomnick]

Hmm, I'm not sure. The purpose of the sign is to tell the user whether they need to phone for permission or, if not, how to cross safely (which might involve phoning anyway if there's insufficient sighting of approaching trains). The signalman's job is to then gather enough information to make a decision on whether there's enough time for them to cross safely, and to provide signal protection if necessary - and that's done by asking the right questions on the phone. Perhaps the signs could be more site-specific - some crossings seem to have gained additional "pedestrians MUST phone" signs, for example, presumably where there's insufficient sighting distance for them to be able to make a decision themselves on whether they've time to cross safely.

 

[richw]

The requirements for vehicles is that if they are large, long or slow, or any combination of those three.

What are the definitions of Large, long or slow?

Are these advertised on the signs what large, long or slow is?

 

[IanD]

What would be the repair timescale normally expected for the required repairs that would need to be effected and where would be the most likely place to effect such works.

I'm not sure about the answer to that. But what I was wondering was where it would be repaired and how long it would take.

 

[headshot119]

All calls on this line and any other are now recorded.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


A tractor and trailer is considered a "slow moving or large vehicle" therefore they are told to ring back when they are clear. If they fail to do so then the next train to cross that crossing will be cautioned to check that the crossing is clear and all gates closed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There is no TRB on the Cambrian, and all calls are recorded, just the same as in all 'boxes now.

I'm sure there will be a Crossing Occurrence book at Mach.

 

[tsr]

What are the definitions of Large, long or slow?

Are these advertised on the signs what large, long or slow is?

I think there should be signage provided to define this, yes. It's usually a separate sign or part of the sign. I can't say whether it was present at this particular crossing.

 

[Tomnick]

The signage on the (road, obviously) approach to an AHB defines what a large or slow vehicle is. There's no such definition presented to users at a UWC, and nor should there be (it's a requirement to phone if crossing with any vehicle). I'm struggling to think whether the Rule Book actually defines the term (for the benefit of the signalman who needs to decide whether to provide signal protection or not!) though.

 

[edwin_m]

Report into Fairfield crossing fatality, 2009 (http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2010/report082010.cfm)

The causal factors which led to the accident were: that (although there is no direct evidence) as she approached the crossing, she may have been distracted when making her decision to cross the line by the presence of her dogs; ...

 

[tsr]

The signage on the (road, obviously) approach to an AHB defines what a large or slow vehicle is. There's no such definition presented to users at a UWC, and nor should there be (it's a requirement to phone if crossing with any vehicle). I'm struggling to think whether the Rule Book actually defines the term (for the benefit of the signalman who needs to decide whether to provide signal protection or not!) though.

Oops, yes, sorry, I was in "AHBC brain autopilot"! Silly me... :roll:

Could the Rule Book definition in theory be made the same as that provided on AHBC signage, if it isn't already (I haven't looked it up)? Or is that a silly idea?

 

[Tomnick]

Personally (and I'm not alone here), I think it's wise to apply the 'large or slow vehicle' instructions to anything bigger than a car or van at (some?) UWCs - the risk of them getting stuck, or the farmer's cows escaping onto the line once he's opened the gates, is too great for me.

 

[The Informer]

Yawn - No evidence as yet
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I have always been cautioned (as a driver) when a member of the public has used a phone to gain permission to cross and has not called back to confirm the movement has been completed.

Please note i used the word " probably "!!!!!

 

[the-gog]

He may already have been granted permission before his tractor failed. As I said, there may be a million possibilities.

We could use this lovely weather and the time we clearly have on our hands to list most of them...

From my understanding of where the tractor and trailer ended up, and that 52823's gangway and second-man's side of the cab hit the rear of the trailer (which is from an eye-witness report), the tractor was already clear of the crossing and the trailer was more than halfway across. Even if the tractor stalled, he'd have the benefit of gravity to coast downhill to get the trailer clear. If the brakes or a bearing seized, then that would be a different scenario, but the tractor was a good 20ft from the crossing after the collision, so I doubt that that would be possible with a brake or bearing seizure.

As it's highly unlikely that a mechanical failure of the tractor or trailer contributed to them fouling the crossing (with or without permission), and that the press report that it's believed to be the tractor driver who was arrested for endangering rail safety, I would suggest it's beyond reasonable doubt *at the moment* that he failed to obtain permission to cross. I doubt the BTP would've done that if they ascertained from the phone logs at Mach that he *did* obtain permission to cross.

 

[broadgage]

Although common sense is now less common than in years gone by, hopefully a little common sense can still be applied to level crossings.

I would define "large, heavy, or slow vehicles" not by exact dimensions or weights, but by being of such dimensions or weights that they might reasonably either get stuck on the crossing, or being so very slow that a train might strike them, despite the crossing being clear when the very slow vehicle started crossing.
"Slow" in this context could reasonably mean not able to maintain a normal walking speed, remembering that crossings are intended to be safe for pedestrians.
Very few vehicles are unable to maintain walking speeds, but there are exceptions, some very exceptional loads move at 1MPH or less.

Many years ago there was a fatal and destructive accident at Hixon level crossing. An exceeding heavy transformer on a special transporter was being moved at much less than walking speed. WITHOUT anyone useing the telephone, this vast load moved onto the crossing, and was about half way when a train approached at line speed with fatal consequences.
The exceptional load had a police escort, and both the police officers, and the driver of the exceptional load were criticised for not using the telephone.

"Animals" would reasonably be defined as one or more large animals that are not contained or leashed.

Pet dog on lead, or animals confined in a vehicle, no need to phone.
A single well behaved horse under good control, no need to phone.
A herd of livestock, phone.
A single large animal such as a cow or imperfectly controlled horse, I would be inclined to phone in case it took fright, despite the pedanic argument that it is an animal and not animalS.

I would also use the phone if crossing on foot, but encumbered with anything beyond light luggage, shopping etc.
I recently used the single post phone when crossing on foot carrying a bed.

 

[Tomnick]

Bear in mind, again, the distinction between AHBs (as at Hixon) where only large or slow vehicles are required to phone, and UWCs where anyone crossing with a vehicle is required to phone. The 'large or slow' only comes into it when the signalman's deciding whether signal protection needs to be provided and the user instructed to phone back when clear - which I think is worth doing for relatively small loads.

Such crossings are also not always deemed safe for pedestrians - at some, they're instructed to phone for permission too.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This thread reminds me on an incident on Tuesday, 8th September 1998, when we were on holiday in North Wales and had decided to visit Caernarfon to ride on the new service that had just started on the Welsh Highland Railway when it only went as far as Dinas. The outward journey was uneventful, but on the return journey, a 19 year old employee of the Fron Goch garden centre, a third-year student at Coleg Glynllifon, ignored all the warnings at the crossing to the garden centre and drove his open Massey Ferguson tractor in front of the train that was just about to pass through the crossing and the tractor was hit and such was the force of the collision that the tractor engine sheared off its mountings and was thrown 20 yards away from the main tractor body. The boy was fortunate that he was driving an open version of the tractor, which enabled him to leap clear at the last moment.

All we felt as passengers was a severe jolt.

 

[Lockwood]

I'm ignoring the singular/plural thing here as that is being quite silly.
I saw a video on Youtube which was part of a level crossing education thing and the information given there was for horse riders to dismount and contact the signaller on both sides.
I would, as a person outside of the industry and not knowing what the rulebook says about anything, take "animal" to mean an animal that can move of its own accord:
Herd of sheep can move as they wish
Dog on a lead can move as they wish (or dig in so much as to prevent you moving)
Cat in a box cannot move as they wish (*)
Goldfish in a bag cannot move as they wish (*)

(*) Well, they can, since we're being pedantic - just not enough for us to care about

Let's take this the other way. A library has a sign saying "No animals". Would you, Transmanche, walk a dog on a lead through the library?
Or, are we going to accept that "animals" will have a different meaning depending upon where you see that message, thus potentially requiring clarification?

 

[transmanche]

I'm ignoring the singular/plural thing here as that is being quite silly.

Like I said, that was a humorous aside to highlight the daftness of the question you asked.

Let's take this the other way. A library has a sign saying "No animals". Would you, Transmanche, walk a dog on a lead through the library?

Of course not, unless it was an assistance dog. Of course a library would not have such a sign, it would have a 'No dogs, except assistance dogs' sign. It doesn't need to lists every single type of animal as people are not generally in the habit of herding sheep or cattle through libraries.

Or, are we going to accept that "animals" will have a different meaning depending upon where you see that message,

Yes, surely that much is clear.

thus potentially requiring clarification?

No. As I said to you earlier "Seriously, is it not obvious that the requirement is for when herding a group of animals across? Not when one person is controlling one domestic animal on a lead."

To expect a list defining exactly which animals and/or how many animals there are that require you to contact the signaller is, quite frankly, ridiculous. If you can't work out the difference in risk between crossing a railway with a dog on a lead or a herd of sheep, you really shouldn't be controlling animals in a public place. Even if crossing with just one one animal, say a trained dog on a lead or a bull, is it not blindingly obvious for when it would be sensible to call the signaller and for when it would not be required?

Are you really unable to make that decision without an incredibly detailed list?

 

[Michael.Y]

I believe the undamaged half of the 158 involved is sat folornly without its sister coach at LNWR Brizzle.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I believe the undamaged half of the 158 involved is sat folornly without its sister coach at LNWR Brizzle.

Anyone any idea how Long out of action?

 

[krus_aragon]

Of course a library would not have such a sign, it would have a 'No dogs, except assistance dogs' sign. It doesn't need to lists every single type of animal as people are not generally in the habit of herding sheep or cattle through libraries.

Although you might spot a bull going through a china shop sometimes.

 

[BestWestern]

I believe the undamaged half of the 158 involved is sat folornly without its sister coach at LNWR Brizzle.

Indeed...

Presumably the other half is indoors somewhere?

Sorry, cr*p pic I know!

 

[PHILIPE]

I saw the 57 vehicle of 158823 not apparently damaged outside Barton Hill Depot today
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Informed that the damaged vehicle (52 car) is inside the Depot at Barton Hill. This is an LNWR Depot and can carry out heavy work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Informed that the damaged vehicle (52 car) is inside the Depot at Barton Hill. This is an LNWR Depot and can carry out heavy work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Informed that the damaged vehicle (52 car) is inside the Depot at Barton Hill. This is an LNWR Depot and can carry out heavy work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Informed that the damaged vehicle (52 car) is inside the Depot at Barton Hill. This is an LNWR Depot and can carry out heavy work.

 

[Zoidberg]

The RAIB has announced that it's investigating.

From http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/current_investigations_register/130716_buttington_hall.cfm where there are a couple of photographs:

At approximately 11:45 hrs on Tuesday 16 July 2013, train 1J11, the 10:08 hrs Arriva Trains Wales service from Birmingham International to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli, comprising two two-car class 158 units, collided with a tractor and trailer that was crossing the railway in front of it. There were 140 passengers and three crew members on the train. Two passengers were taken to hospital for treatment of minor injuries. Two agricultural workers who were standing close to the collision, and the tractor driver, were slightly injured by flying debris.

...

At the time of the accident a number of tractors and trailers were involved in transporting silage across the railway to the farm.

...

The RAIB’s preliminary examination found that the system of work that had been established for the crossing had broken down such that two tractors started to cross the line without the signaller’s permission. The first had crossed and the second was crossing when the train arrived and collided with its trailer.

 

[1e10]

This is still at Barton Hill, any idea when it will be completed?

 

[PHILIPE]

Nobody on the Forum seemed unable to answer the question when asked before, so it would appear there is nobody in the know accessing the Forum.

 

[Zoidberg]

Now reported that a man has been charged. From http://www.shropshirelive.com/2013/11/08/man-charged-following-train-collision-near-welshpool/

A man was today charged with endangering the safety of persons using the railway following an incident near Welshpool earlier this year.


The 28-year-old was arrested following a collision between a train and tractor pulling a trailer at Buttington, near Welshpool on 16 July.

A British Transport Police spokesman said:

“I can confirm that Ifan Gwyn Evans, aged 28, of Llanfihangel, Llanfyllin, Powys, has today been charged with endangering the safety of persons using the railway.

 

[thelongestroad]

It would seem a useful time to additionally point out that the "half" 158 at Barton Hill is no longer on display next to the running lines.

 

[1e10]

It would seem a useful time to additionally point out that the "half" 158 at Barton Hill is no longer on display next to the running lines.

This was pointed out somewhere else on the forum a few days ago. Who knows, could have you been yourself that posted it

Can't find any obvious movements on RTT.

 

[ryan125hst]

I recently used the single post phone when crossing on foot carrying a bed.

I know railways have sleepers between the rails, but that's ridiculous!

(Did no one get the joke? )

 

[Gareth Marston]

Now reported that a man has been charged. From http://www.shropshirelive.com/2013/11/08/man-charged-following-train-collision-near-welshpool/

Regular rail users on the bench at Welshpool not that they would let this affect their impartiality!

 

[Crossover]

Can't find any obvious movements on RTT.

If the half was just shunted from a sidings into the depot, I doubt it will have a booked movement. I may be wrong though