Accident at Welshpool (16 July 2013)

[Lockwood]

Hmm.
I wonder where that came from then, I've heard it from a few sources.
Perhaps it's that a local crossing attendant can authorise it but not a remote signaller? (Clutching at straws)

 

[Llanigraham]

Indeed not - we shouldn't ever authorise users to pass the wigwags at an AHB, only explain that it's failed and advise them to find an alternative route. It's widely stated that this is covered in legislation somewhere, but I'm not sure whether that's actually the case or whether it's just covered by the signalling regs. I'm equally unsure whether it also applies at an MCB crossing, or a CCTV crossing under local control, as the regs make no mention of it!

It applies to ALL crossings.
Covered by both Highway Regulations and Signalling Rules.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hmm.
I wonder where that came from then, I've heard it from a few sources.
Perhaps it's that a local crossing attendant can authorise it but not a remote signaller? (Clutching at straws)

See my reply above.

It probably is done, but legally you would be on very sticky ground if it went wrong.

Further; County or BTP cannot authorise it either!

 

[Tomnick]

It applies to ALL crossings.
Covered by both Highway Regulations and Signalling Rules.

I can only find one reference in the signalling regs (relating specifically to motorists phoning in from AHBs) and nothing at all in the handbook for level crossing attendants - so nothing stopping us waving motorists across an MCB with, say, one barrier failed down or a level crossing attendant doing likewise at an AHB under local control. I can't really see any great issues in either case anyway. What I'm not sure about is the Highways Regulations - any chance of a link to the relevant part please?

 

[John Webb]

There are two requirements - one in the Road Traffic Act is for the driver to obey signs and signals and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions - a Statutory Instrument - defines the signs and signals to be obeyed. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ to access these items.

 

[Lockwood]

https://www.btp.police.uk/advice_and_information/travelling_safely/level_crossing_safety.aspx

"Only cross when the barriers are fully raised and the lights go off, or when you are granted permission by an operator"


I'm having a look to find the relevant Act covering this, but found that.
I know that a police office cannot authorise passing wigwags, and that you cannot treat them as give way when under blue lights. Trying to find the edge case of when you can cross is a little tricky.


Edit:
Found this from the Level Crossing Attendant leaflet from Network Rail
"If the red road lights continue to operate whilst the barriers are raised and there are no trains approaching, the crossing attendant MUST NOT give road traffic permission to cross over the level crossing"

The plot thickens?

Edit 2:
John, traffic laws often have an "unless directed to do so by a constable in uniform" clause. That's the key point here - is there an "unless directed to do so by railway staff" clause out there anywhere

 

[Tomnick]

There are two requirements - one in the Road Traffic Act is for the driver to obey signs and signals and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions - a Statutory Instrument - defines the signs and signals to be obeyed. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ to access these items.

Thanks John - I've not had chance to find the relevant details, but from the general content I gather that this refers to the road user's obligation to obey the wigwags rather than any prohibition on signalmen or crossing attendants calling (or trying to) road users past flashing wigwags?

https://www.btp.police.uk/advice_and_information/travelling_safely/level_crossing_safety.aspx

"Only cross when the barriers are fully raised and the lights go off, or when you are granted permission by an operator"

Possibly an interesting contradiction - but equally possibly intended to refer to user worked crossings, perhaps?

I'm having a look to find the relevant Act covering this, but found that.
I know that a police office cannot authorise passing wigwags...

Correct - although I understand that they could, until relatively recently, do so under the signalman's instruction. I can't find anything to support that though, or anything that prevents them from doing so nowadays - other than the clause in the signalling regs that we must not authorise road users to cross until an attendant arrives.

...and that you cannot treat them as give way when under blue lights.

Definitely correct.

Edit:
Found this from the Level Crossing Attendant leaflet from Network Rail
"If the red road lights continue to operate whilst the barriers are raised and there are no trains approaching, the crossing attendant MUST NOT give road traffic permission to cross over the level crossing"

The plot thickens?

Interesting - where's that exactly? Can't find anything in the handbook for level crossing attendants, so presumably you're referring to something else.

Edit 2:
John, traffic laws often have an "unless directed to do so by a constable in uniform" clause. That's the key point here - is there an "unless directed to do so by railway staff" clause out there anywhere

That's what I'm slightly puzzled about - it seems well established that a police officer can't direct road traffic to pass the wigwags (but is that just at level crossings?), but it doesn't necessarily follow that the member of railway staff operating the crossing can't do it either - the latter is, of course, in a better position to do so safely.

 

[Lockwood]

http://www.safety.networkrail.co.uk...A73C-2AEE45154A9A}&name=LXA.pdf&extension=pdf

Given that normally if you cross wigwags, you'll be hit by a train, fire engine or ambulance, or end up getting wet, I can understand why there's no facility to let a police officer wave you through.

 

[Tomnick]

Interesting, thanks - a shame that the Rule Book (which the handbooks form part of) don't appear to support that! I've still not found anything to say that I, as a signalman, can't call road traffic past the wigwags if, again for example, one barrier can't be raised - other than a vague understanding that "not even a police officer can do that" .

 

[fsmr]

Just to add my tuppence , I have been over many LCs over the years around the country both AHBs and locally controlled including Oakham main and Brooke rd remote where the wigwams are on but NWR are present directing traffic over
I think that the recommendation in the AAIB report about speedily resetting a LC that has faulted down or is trapped in a sequence by a broken down or stopped train is a valid one. Although how one would restart the automatic operation in a controlled safe way bearing in mind the train is already inside the strike zone ensuring the train is kept stationary

Brooke rd when it was an AHB before conversion to full barriers was notorious for nuisance trips by the local wildlife from the flats who discovered tripping a treadle produced endless hours of annoyance to the local drivers :roll:

 

[Tomnick]

Indeed, I'm aware of various occasions when traffic has been directed past flashing wigwags, which seems a sensible course of action if done by the person controlling the crossing!

With reference to the section in the report about the adjacent AHB being stuck down - I'm not sure what could have been done, beyond what was already done. The Rule Book already requires an AHB to be taken on local control as soon as possible if a failed train is sitting within the crossing controls, but that can't be done until someone suitably qualified gets there. The Police, also getting a mention, might get there sooner - but I don't know what they'd add in this case, certainly to justify taking resources away from the main event in the next field! Incidentally, confirming that a failed train will make no further movement is one of the most important parts of the process in any case...taking an AHB onto local control is small fry in comparison to allowing an assisting train to enter from the box in advance!

 

[Zoidberg]

The RAIB has published its report which may be accessed from http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2014/report062014.cfm

...

The RAIB has today published Version 2 of this report.

It's available via the same link - http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2014/report062014.cfm with the Change History on Page 2, reproduced below:

Change control
Date ............ Paragraph no(s). ... Description of change
v2 02/05/14
.................. 29, 30 ..................... Correction - revised text related to the actions of the signaller
.................. 85, 89, 98 ................ Deleted
.................. 92, 96 ..................... Reworded to clarify intent of Learning point
.................. Various .................... Minor technical and typographical corrections

Summary:

At 11:44 hrs on Tuesday 16 July 2013 a collision occurred between a passenger train and a farm trailer at Buttington Hall farm crossing near Welshpool on the line between Shrewsbury and Machynlleth. The tractor driver and two other people nearby sustained minor injuries and two passengers on the train were injured and taken to hospital, but were discharged later that day.

The train involved was operated by Arriva Trains Wales and consisted of two 2-car units. It was travelling at 120 km/h (75 mph) at the time of the collision. The train was running from Birmingham International to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli and there were 140 passengers and two crew members on board. On the day of the accident, the farm crossing was being used by tractors bringing in a harvest from fields on the opposite side of the line to the farm. The farmer had appointed a contractor to carry out the harvesting operation, and an attendant had been provided at the crossing to phone the signaller and operate the gates.

The accident occurred because the system of work in use at the crossing was inherently unsafe, leading to ineffective control of road vehicle movements over the crossing and frequent use of the crossing without the signaller being contacted. This system broke down. There were also underlying management factors:

- the harvest contractor did not implement an effective safe system of work at the crossing;
- Network Rail’s process for risk assessment of these types of crossing did not adequately deal with periods of intensive use; and
- Network Rail’s instructions to users of these crossings did not cover periods of intensive use.

The RAIB has made three recommendations:

- main line infrastructure managers should improve the risk assessment process at these crossings to take into account the increased risk during periods of intensive use;
- main line infrastructure managers should define safe and practical methods of working to be adopted at these crossings during periods of intensive use; and
- RSSB should update the level crossing risk management toolkit to reflect the changes brought about by the second recommendation.

The RAIB has also noted a learning point from an observation made during the investigation concerning the prolonged closure of an adjacent level crossing on a main road after the accident.

 

[fsmr]

Just bear in mind this report findings is subject to a live Crown court case and there are legal implications to posting comments about people involved in active court cases. News stories published about the case can be referred to, but accusations, insinuations or personal opinions on the parties involved could involve risk to the poster and the forum

Mods maybe this should be locked till after the cases

 

[Zoidberg]

It's been reported that the charges against the tractor driver have been dropped and that he's formally been found not guilty.

From http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/06/03/train-crash-charge-dropped-against-tractor-driver/

A tractor driver has been cleared of endangering the safety of train passengers and crew after a crash in Mid Wales.

Ifan Gwyn Evans, 28, of Penyffordd, Llanfyllin, had pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing but appeared at Mold Crown Court to set a new trial date yesterday.

A trial was due to be held involving him and a co-defendant this week but it was taken out due to a lack of court time.

But the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence against Evans during yesterday’s hearing and Judge Niclas Parry recorded a formal not guilty verdict.

Co-defendant John Elwyn Roberts, 74, of Oldford Rise, Welshpool, denied the same charge and he will stand trial at a date to be set in December.

From what's in the RAIB report, that seems fair, to me.

 

[Zoidberg]

An update from http://www.newsnorthwales.co.uk/news/143342/train-crash-charges-case-adjourned.aspx for those with an interest in this case

A PENSIONER who is charged with endangering the safety of train passengers has seen his case adjourned.

...

... Roberts was taken out of the court list due to the defendant’s ill-health and he will now appear on July 13

A mention hearing will take place in March so that applications by the defence can be dealt with, together with final trial arrangements.

 

[Gareth Marston]

An update from http://www.newsnorthwales.co.uk/news/143342/train-crash-charges-case-adjourned.aspx for those with an interest in this case

The local farming fraternity are hoping to use the 4 extra trains a day as a reason to extract money out of NR as compensation to build livestock holding pens near the user operated crossings near Welshpool. The local conservative MP and AM are very supportive of this.

Of course they appear oblivious to the fact that more train movements than in the public tt can and do occur especially since etcs was introduced in 2011. One of them got rather upset when it was pointed out how did his parents cope when the line was double track and there were up to 70 movements a day between Welshpool and Buttington Junction on a summer Saturday rather than just 16!

 

[merlodlliw]

The local farming fraternity are hoping to use the 4 extra trains a day as a reason to extract money out of NR as compensation to build livestock holding pens near the user operated crossings near Welshpool. The local conservative MP and AM are very supportive of this.

Of course they appear oblivious to the fact that more train movements than in the public tt can and do occur especially since etcs was introduced in 2011. One of them got rather upset when it was pointed out how did his parents cope when the line was double track and there were up to 70 movements a day between Welshpool and Buttington Junction on a summer Saturday rather than just 16!

I would imagine all political parties would be in favour,always a down side in extreme rural areas like Powys when extra trains will be in use, is the new service eight trains a day? Up & Down. The May timetable is just in time for silage/Hayledge & small bails to cross the line.
I am sure the NFU & FUW will advise members of the new services, but the Farmers are a big lobby group.

 

[TDK]

There's generally no need to get the user to call back, or provide signal protection, unless it's a 'large, low or slow moving vehicle' (or animals, or anything with small wheels) - so, whilst there might not quite be a million possibilities, it's perhaps a little unrealistic to try to guess with any expectation of accuracy what's happened. It's surely true that crossing misuse is the cause of most such collisions though?

I always thought that any vehicle using a crossing that calls the box for permission MUST call back that they are clear or trains will be cautioned over the crossing! If this isn't the case it should be!

 

[40129]

I always thought that any vehicle using a crossing that calls the box for permission MUST call back that they are clear or trains will be cautioned over the crossing! If this isn't the case it should be!

Am pretty sure that's what the Highway Code says

 

[The Informer]

I always thought that any vehicle using a crossing that calls the box for permission MUST call back that they are clear or trains will be cautioned over the crossing! If this isn't the case it should be!

That used to be the case but apparently its no longer a requirment. I'm sure a signaller on here can back me up on this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The local farming fraternity are hoping to use the 4 extra trains a day as a reason to extract money out of NR as compensation to build livestock holding pens near the user operated crossings near Welshpool. The local conservative MP and AM are very supportive of this.

Of course they appear oblivious to the fact that more train movements than in the public tt can and do occur especially since etcs was introduced in 2011. One of them got rather upset when it was pointed out how did his parents cope when the line was double track and there were up to 70 movements a day between Welshpool and Buttington Junction on a summer Saturday rather than just 16!

I dont like farmers, come to think of it i bloody cant stand em!!!

 

[Llanigraham]

That used to be the case but apparently its no longer a requirment. I'm sure a signaller on here can back me up on this.

Correct.
Was removed from the Rule Book a little while ago. We now only require notification that the crossing is clear for large or slow moving vehicles and animals.

 

[Townsend Hook]

That used to be the case but apparently its no longer a requirment. I'm sure a signaller on here can back me up on this.

Just asked my father (NR signaller), he tells me there is still a call-back requirement.

 

[Llanigraham]

Just asked my father (NR signaller), he tells me there is still a call-back requirement.

See my reply above!

 

[33056]

That used to be the case but apparently its no longer a requirment. I'm sure a signaller on here can back me up on this.

No, still need to caution trains if they don't phone back see reg 2.1.2

 

[Tomnick]

We only need to apply Reg 2.1.2, ask for a call-back and caution if not received, for large or slow vehicles or anyone crossing with animals. Quite a hoohah locally, and I suspect elsewhere, for quite a while now - there's no formal definition of large or slow, and the higher powers are keen to see fewer vehicles treated as such to minimise delays due to users failing to call back. I tend to agree with those who suggest that it should be a requirement to call back for any vehicle though. The only time that I don't ask for a call-back is when it's a small vehicle (no more than a car) and there's an insufficient margin to provide signal protection (but plenty of time for them to cross safely, of course) and lots of trains around - where the risk of the crossing user getting impatient and making their own decision on when to cross is, I'd suggest, worthy of consideration. Some proper, consistent guidance from the RSSB would be helpful though, I think.

 

[dtaylor84]

We only need to apply Reg 2.1.2, ask for a call-back and caution if not received, for large or slow vehicles or anyone crossing with animals. Quite a hoohah locally, and I suspect elsewhere, for quite a while now - there's no formal definition of large or slow, and the higher powers are keen to see fewer vehicles treated as such to minimise delays due to users failing to call back.

There appear to be definitions of large and slow in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (at the bottom): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/16/made

large: over 18.75m long, 2.9m wide or 44T MGW
slow: up to 5mph

Those definitions agree with the signage I can find on Google (and my somewhat hazy recollection of the signage at a local AHB crossing): https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=level+crossing+large+or+slow+vehicle

 

[Gareth Marston]

I would imagine all political parties would be in favour,always a down side in extreme rural areas like Powys when extra trains will be in use, is the new service eight trains a day? Up & Down. The May timetable is just in time for silage/Hayledge & small bails to cross the line.
I am sure the NFU & FUW will advise members of the new services, but the Farmers are a big lobby group.

You couldn't predict when anything would pass with certainty between Oct 01 & Dec 08 when the Cambrian timekeeping was down the pan and the farmers of Welshpool coped then.
Let NR state that they'll do all the work themselves and pay for it you'll soon see how important to the Farmers it is once they realise no £ will be heading there way.

 

[Llanigraham]

No, still need to caution trains if they don't phone back see reg 2.1.2

TS9 ERTMS from your link
This is not an ERTMS line!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We only need to apply Reg 2.1.2, ask for a call-back and caution if not received, for large or slow vehicles or anyone crossing with animals. Quite a hoohah locally, and I suspect elsewhere, for quite a while now - there's no formal definition of large or slow, and the higher powers are keen to see fewer vehicles treated as such to minimise delays due to users failing to call back. I tend to agree with those who suggest that it should be a requirement to call back for any vehicle though. The only time that I don't ask for a call-back is when it's a small vehicle (no more than a car) and there's an insufficient margin to provide signal protection (but plenty of time for them to cross safely, of course) and lots of trains around - where the risk of the crossing user getting impatient and making their own decision on when to cross is, I'd suggest, worthy of consideration. Some proper, consistent guidance from the RSSB would be helpful though, I think.

Quite.
Even different signallers in the same Box have different criteria.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There appear to be definitions of large and slow in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (at the bottom): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/16/made

large: over 18.75m long, 2.9m wide or 44T MGW
slow: up to 5mph

Those definitions agree with the signage I can find on Google (and my somewhat hazy recollection of the signage at a local AHB crossing): https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=level+crossing+large+or+slow+vehicle

But there is NO definition in our Rule Books!

 

[Tomnick]

There appear to be definitions of large and slow in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (at the bottom): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/16/made

large: over 18.75m long, 2.9m wide or 44T MGW
slow: up to 5mph

Those definitions agree with the signage I can find on Google (and my somewhat hazy recollection of the signage at a local AHB crossing): https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=level+crossing+large+or+slow+vehicle

That signage only appears in connection with AHBs though, and the definitions are presumably based on the fact that they'd otherwise only have a guaranteed minimum of 27 seconds to get across. User worker crossings are, perhaps obviously, very much different in that respect - it's the signalman's job to establish how long it's going to take for the user to get across (including the performance of opening and closing both gates) and determining whether there's a suitable margin to give them permission to cross. My best guess is that the additional requirements for "large and slow" vehicles (and animals of any size!) in this case are based on the greater probability of something going wrong and the potentially far more severe consequences if it does, set against the risk of an impatient resident in a small-ish car nipping across after being refused permission because there wasn't sufficient time to provide signal protection (but possibly still time to cross safely without signal protection). On that basis, I think the line is far more blurred than at an AHB with a precise minimum warning time to work back from.

 

[Llanigraham]

Exactly, Tomnick.
It strikes me that there are many here who do not understand the job of a signalman dealing with UWC's, and the problems and abuse we get from them and the stress they cause us.
The signallers who work the length of the Cambrian and the number of UWC's they deal with, they deserve a medal! They have something over 100!!

 

[Zoidberg]

The case against John Elwyn Roberts is not being proceeded with due to his ill health.

From:


http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/...ty-of-passengers-after-welshpool-train-crash/

A man has been cleared of a charge of endangering the safety of passengers following a Mid Wales train crash

...

At Mold Crown Court yesterday the prosecution announced that it would offer no evidence against him.

...

Prosecutor Emmalyne Downing said that they had received a lengthy medical report on the defendant.

It was clear that he had a number of health issues and had decided not to proceed any further because of his ill-health.

...