Croydon Tram Crash

[bramling]

Its to monitor fatigue and catch a driver falling asleep or on the verge of falling asleep.

That’s the thing, it responds to a particularly limited situation, and doesn’t actually offer much line of defence. I can understand it being fitted as a, perhaps, cheap and easy interim measure, *if* that’s what it is, but it’s hardly seems the be all and end all.

 

[matt_world2004]

Have a quick look into a microwave, no problem, now try looking in it for ten mins as it cooks and see how your eyes feel.

A microwave should almost completely shield you from microwave radiation while its cooking, if it doesnt there is something wrong with your microwave

If you dont believe me turn it off , place your mobile phone inside and try ringing it,

 

[WatcherZero]

ASLEF have cancelled the first strike date after Tfl and Tramlink agreed to order an independent expert to review the system, they will remain in operation while the review is conducted. Aslef have not currently cancelled the second strike date.

It is an interim system and always has been described as thus by the operator, all it does is sound a noise and vibrate the drivers chair if it perceives they have fallen asleep. A signalling based safety system that should detect speeding or passing signals is planned but will take time to procure and install, they haven't decided whether to remove the interim system or not when that happens but installing this system so quickly is quite impressive compared to usual rail industry procurement patterns.

 

[Class455]

Visited the new memorial at Sandilands this afternoon.
Was just wondering, has 2551 been officially written off yet?

 

[Chris M]

Has it been released by all of the RAIB, police and courts yet?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

BBC are reporting that the RAIB Report (don't know if it's the final report) will be published tomorrow

 

[AndyPJG]

BBC are reporting that the RAIB Report (don't know if it's the final report) will be published tomorrow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42253786

Croydon tram crash could have been prevented, says widow
The widow of a Croydon tram crash victim says she is angry a similar speeding incident days before was not acted upon quickly enough.
Seven people died when the tram derailed at Sandilands last November.
Marilyn Logan, whose husband Phil died in the crash, says it may have been prevented had action been taken after a similar incident on 31 October.
The Rail Accident Investigation Branch's (RAIB) crash report is to be published on Thursday.
Mrs Logan, who has seen a copy, believes if there hadn't been a "culture of fear" among staff the disaster could have been prevented.
'Urgent attention'
On 31 October a passenger raised concerns about a tram which went "too fast" round a bend near Sandilands.
"From what I've read, the driver went round so fast that when the tram got to Sandilands the lady got off the tram because she really thought it was going over," Mrs Logan told the BBC.
"Now, had that incident been investigated, the one a week later might never have happened."
An interim report by the RAIB found the tram was travelling at three-and-a-half times the speed limit when it came off the tracks. on 9 November, 2016.
Mrs Logan said it was "crazy" there were plenty of warning signs of previous speeding incidents - none of which she believes were being reported properly.
A TfL spokesperson said: "Prior to November 2016, First Group, as operators of the tram network, automatically received and managed all customer complaints in the first instance.
"We have since enhanced the customer complaints process so that all reports are now received in the first instance by a dedicated TfL team. They are then categorised, with those that are safety related being prioritised for urgent attention and action where required.
"We welcome the report from the Rail Accident Investigation Branch and will continue to work alongside them, the Office of Rail and Road and First Group, to ensure all of the recommendations outlined are met."

 

[nlogax]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-caused-by-driver-falling-asleep-and-speeding

"Croydon tram crash 'caused by driver falling asleep and speeding'
Investigators conclude operators failed to understand risk of vehicle overturning and to take enough safety measures

Investigators believe the Croydon tram crash was caused by the driver briefly falling asleep before speeding through a sharp bend, but said that tram operators had failed to properly understand the risks and put enough safety measures in place.

Inspectors said new measures were needed across Britain’s tram networks, including technology in trams to monitor drivers’ alertness and to automatically reduce speeds before dangerous junctions."

RAIB has published a video explanation of what happened.

 

[WatcherZero]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ata/file/665491/R182017_171207_Sandilands.pdf

Reports saying Driver likely fell asleep due to the ease of this section (no control inputs required for 49 seconds)

The RAIB has concluded that the most likely cause was a temporary loss of awareness of the driving task during a period of low workload, which possibly caused him to microsleep.

Saying shift patterns not to blame other than it being early morning and a culture of not encouraging drivers to report their own fatigue, no evidence driver was distracted by phone/external event.

Interesting things, safety lighting was cut off because the electrical isolation button on the side was knocked after the tram overturned. RAIB wants a statutory safety body like ORR rather than the voluntary one UKTRAM. Says windows are weak to impacts because the safety glass is designed to shatter to protect from thrown objects, same issue with road vehicles. Wants end emergency egress doors or removable windscreens, wants driver fatigue monitoring equipment (like that being trialled on Croydon) installed on all trams and briefly mentions a similar system could be installed on trains.

 

[Clip]

interesting to read about it highlighting his sleeping pattern too

He had gone to bed the night before the crash between 9.30 and 10pm, slept well and was woken by his mobile phone alarm at about 3.30am.

He said on the two previous nights he had followed a similar pattern. But an examination of the driver’s mobile phone showed that at about 11pm on the night before the crash, a work-related document was manually downloaded.

The driver said he could “not recall” downloading the document, but the RAIB concluded there was no evidence suggesting someone else did.


The RAIB said it is not possible to know whether the driver remained awake until 11pm or woke up to check his phone, but added it is possible that he had less than his reported normal five-and-a-half to six hours sleep the night before the tragedy.

“He stated that he felt fine on the day of the accident and that, when starting work on that day, he felt normally rested,” the report said. The RAIB points out this sleep pattern is less than the seven to eight hours of sleep that most people need each night.

“There are individual differences in sleep requirements and it is possible the driver was one of those people who needed less than the average amount of sleep,” the report added. “Alternatively, it is possible that his reported normal sleeping pattern of five-and-a-half hours to six hours sleep when starting work at around 5am resulted in him incurring a sleep debt, which occurs if people have less than the required amount of sleep.”

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/news/croydon-news/croydon-tram-crash-driver-briefly-889794

 

[pdeaves]

I notice that RAIB say, "Of the 69 passengers involved in this tragic accident, seven died and 61 were injured, 19 seriously" (my emphasis). It's unlike RAIB to use this sort of emotive language, it's usually (by necessity) facts only, very sterile.

As a side issue, there were 69 passengers and 68 injuries of varying severity. I haven't seen anywhere anything about the sole uninjured passenger. Where were they? Does it have any bearing on their safety? Does this imply that the tram structure gives better protection in certain places?

 

[WatcherZero]

There is a breakdown in the report, all the fatalities were sitting on the right hand side and facing the direction of travel (side of toppling), the next notable element is the majority of serious injuries were in the second vehicle. There were no serious injuries caused by internal structures and the expected number of minor injuries when being thrown around inside. 27 people were fully or partially ejected and windows smashed meant 33% of tram side was open after the collision, all the serious injuries were caused by exposure to the ground outside the vehicle. The energy of the tram falling on its side would be outside the range of the windows maximum tolerance, the door wasnt strong enough to resist deforming if a passenger was thrown against it even if glass didnt smash as it did, the shell performed well, did not deform and resisted penetration. Internal structures (bars, handles ad seats) all performed well, only one seat was broken free.

I could speculate the uninjured person was in the articulation. The bellows are a soft cushion and there was no chance of being ejected.

 

[johnkingeu]

Perhaps the most notable thing is how damning the report is about the whole U.K. tram industry. There is even a sideways swipe against another regulator, which must be unusual. Perhaps the beginning of the end for thinking about trams as if they were road vehicles rather than specialised trains?

 

[snowball]

I notice that RAIB say, "Of the 69 passengers involved in this tragic accident, seven died and 61 were injured, 19 seriously" (my emphasis). It's unlike RAIB to use this sort of emotive language, it's usually (by necessity) facts only, very sterile.

Also the first paragraph reads more like a piece of journalism: "For the people of New Addington and the surrounding areas, the tramway which links them to the centre of Croydon has become part of the landscape of their lives since its opening in 2000. It has an important role, taking residents to and from their work, shopping and leisure activities."

 

[507 001]

Perhaps the most notable thing is how damning the report is about the whole U.K. tram industry. There is even a sideways swipe against another regulator, which must be unusual. Perhaps the beginning of the end for thinking about trams as if they were road vehicles rather than specialised trains?

I really, really hope you’re correct.

 

[Busaholic]

Perhaps the most notable thing is how damning the report is about the whole U.K. tram industry. There is even a sideways swipe against another regulator, which must be unusual. Perhaps the beginning of the end for thinking about trams as if they were road vehicles rather than specialised trains?

Yes, perhaps, but if there is to be a future for trams, in the sense that their introduction in towns/cities that don't currently have them is not precluded, then it would be best that they get their own bespoke regulations and regulatory body, using knowledge gleaned from previous experience which should include those countries that have successfully run trams for decades. At the moment, trams fall between two stools : as an aside, this is imo why tram-trains get nowhere fast (or, rather, slow) and will probably ensure that any 'experimental' scheme will be deemed to have failed within a year or two of its implementation, not least because of the vast expenditure thereon.

Personally, I would like to see drivers retained on Tramlink, but that the trams become automatically controlled like on DLR on the sections where there is no inter-action with road traffic i.e. most of the Wimbledon branch and from where the Addington/Beckenham branches spilt, save the last bit into Addington/New Addington, would normally be out of the hands of the drivers. This would of course mean that the trams became more like trains, in British eyes anyway, but might save more unnecessary deaths.

 

[littlerock]

what I said all along. victims killed when non laminated windows shattered and they fell out. No Words.

 

[WatcherZero]

Seemed more like an attempted power grab to me, it gives the case of an incident in 2011 prompting reccomendation for collective action and that action occurring since 2015, they are also already sharing best practise advice and complying with the rail legislation as well as being overseen by RAIB who have a rather stop bothering us with all the small incidents attitude to light rail, deciding many things wouldnt be investigated that they would if it was heavy rail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I really, really hope you’re correct.

I'm not sure I do. There do need to be some design changes - primarily relating to retaining passengers within the vehicle in the event of an accident (something which is done using seat belts on most road vehicles, but needs to be done some other way with a tram or bus, e.g. by moving to laminated rather than toughened glass), and perhaps some level of automatic speed control on segregated sections, and perhaps anti-collision features like new cars are provided with. But I think treating them as full-on trains is overkill and will reduce expansion, which would be a bad thing when they're way safer than road vehicles.

As for fatigue...is this a problem with bus drivers? If it isn't, they need to look at the bus industry's rostering practices.

 

[507 001]

Yes, perhaps, but if there is to be a future for trams, in the sense that their introduction in towns/cities that don't currently have them is not precluded, then it would be best that they get their own bespoke regulations and regulatory body, using knowledge gleaned from previous experience which should include those countries that have successfully run trams for decades. At the moment, trams fall between two stools : as an aside, this is imo why tram-trains get nowhere fast (or, rather, slow) and will probably ensure that any 'experimental' scheme will be deemed to have failed within a year or two of its implementation, not least because of the vast expenditure thereon.

Personally, I would like to see drivers retained on Tramlink, but that the trams become automatically controlled like on DLR on the sections where there is no inter-action with road traffic i.e. most of the Wimbledon branch and from where the Addington/Beckenham branches spilt, save the last bit into Addington/New Addington, would normally be out of the hands of the drivers. This would of course mean that the trams became more like trains, in British eyes anyway, but might save more unnecessary deaths.

To be honest, I think ATO would be overkill, and actually, the way you’ve worded your post is quite insulting to us drivers. You know, because we clearly can’t be trusted to prevent unnecessary deaths.
Any Requirement for ATO would be the nail in the coffin for any potential future tramways as it would make them far more expensive.

I'm not sure I do. There do need to be some design changes - primarily relating to retaining passengers within the vehicle in the event of an accident (something which is done using seat belts on most road vehicles, but needs to be done some other way with a tram or bus, e.g. by moving to laminated rather than toughened glass), and perhaps some level of automatic speed control on segregated sections, and perhaps anti-collision features like new cars are provided with. But I think treating them as full-on trains is overkill and will reduce expansion, which would be a bad thing when they're way safer than road vehicles.

As for fatigue...is this a problem with bus drivers? If it isn't, they need to look at the bus industry's rostering practices.

I don’t think they should be treated as full on Trains, but they shouldn’t be treated as busses either. Ask any ex bus driver who now drives for Metrolink and they’ll tell you, the actual driving is much easier but coping with everything else (signalling systems etc) is much, much more difficult.
And let’s not forget that, apart from some very basic guidelines, there is no legislation regarding driving hours. For example at Metrolink we can drive for 5hr 30min stints with a maximum shift length of 9hr 30mins, other companies are different. There is no standard. This absolutely needs addressing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t think they should be treated as full on Trains, but they shouldn’t be treated as busses either. Ask any ex bus driver who now drives for Metrolink and they’ll tell you, the actual driving is much easier but coping with everything else (signalling systems etc) is much, much more difficult.

Yes, they're sort of their own thing. Maybe their own regulation would help - as I do see potential in converting more lines (particularly rural branches) to that style of operation as a means of improving service at low cost while retaining a higher level of safety than the roads.

And let’s not forget that, apart from some very basic guidelines, there is no legislation regarding driving hours. For example at Metrolink we can drive for 5hr 30min stints with a maximum shift length of 9hr 30mins, other companies are different. There is no standard. This absolutely needs addressing.

I would say that the tachograph rules for coach driving would be a very good place to start. (FWIW I also think taxi drivers should be bound by the same rules - they do seem to be a good "bare minimum" to start with for professional transport drivers generally, and do provide a good guideline for what it's sensible to do when driving your car too).

 

[507 001]

Yes, they're sort of their own thing. Maybe their own regulation would help - as I do see potential in converting more lines (particularly rural branches) to that style of operation as a means of improving service at low cost while retaining a higher level of safety than the roads.



I would say that the tachograph rules for coach driving would be a very good place to start. (FWIW I also think taxi drivers should be bound by the same rules - they do seem to be a good "bare minimum" to start with for professional transport drivers generally, and do provide a good guideline for what it's sensible to do when driving your car too).

I would agree with both points entirely.
Regulation is needed, at the moment we’re at the whim of commercial requirements, they want more and more for less and less.

 

[matt_world2004]

Personally, I would like to see drivers retained on Tramlink, but that the trams become automatically controlled like on DLR on the sections where there is no inter-action with road traffic i.e. most of the Wimbledon branch and from where the Addington/Beckenham branches spilt, save the last bit into Addington/New Addington, would normally be out of the hands of the drivers. This would of course mean that the trams became more like trains, in British eyes anyway, but might save more unnecessary deaths.

This wouldnt work. If the drivers are doing nothing on segregated sections because of automation and are then required to concentrate on road sections this would be highly dangerous as the drivers will zone out on quiet bits and be required to concentrate on road bits. Constantly changing attention requirements is more dangerous than being required to maintain concentration for long periods or low concentration on its own.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps the most notable thing is how damning the report is about the whole U.K. tram industry. There is even a sideways swipe against another regulator, which must be unusual. Perhaps the beginning of the end for thinking about trams as if they were road vehicles rather than specialised trains?

Yes, I thought that came across as well.

The RAIB are of course a laser-sharp accident investigator. If it had been a bus that overturned and killed seven people, there would be far fewer questions asked. I’ve always found the difference in treatment between road and rail transport to be quite striking. Just an observation, not a criticism at all.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

This wouldnt work. If the drivers are doing nothing on segregated sections because of automation and are then required to concentrate on road sections this would be highly dangerous as the drivers will zone out on quiet bits and be required to concentrate on road bits. Constantly changing attention requirements is more dangerous than being required to maintain concentration for long periods or low concentration on its own.

The segregated bits also do have a large number of foot crossings and some conventional level crossings.

 

[Clip]

The segregated bits also do have a large number of foot crossings and some conventional level crossings.

Was just about to say the same. Every tram stop has a crossing at each end from memory and when you go through south norwood country park there are about 3 foot crossings and a road to contend with too and whilst detection technology is with us now it would cost far too much to install it everywhere it would be needed.

 

[johnkingeu]

If it had been a bus that overturned and killed seven people, there would be far fewer questions asked. I’ve always found the difference in treatment between road and rail transport to be quite striking.

The difference is that the road industry accepts that there will be many thousands of deaths per year, including children, and the cost of any work to reduce this must be kept at a minimum. Whereas the rail industry starts from the belief that there should be zero deaths (including suicides) and then works out how to get there. I know which approach I prefer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The difference is that the road industry accepts that there will be many thousands of deaths per year, including children, and the cost of any work to reduce this must be kept at a minimum. Whereas the rail industry starts from the belief that there should be zero deaths (including suicides) and then works out how to get there. I know which approach I prefer.

I prefer somewhere in the middle. It would make a lot of sense to transfer money spent on saving the very occasional minor injury or life on the railway to road safety where it could save many more lives. The transport system needs considering as a whole.

If, for example, trams are cheaper to build than trains, which they are, and they are safer than cars, which they are, then surely it is better to build more tram networks than heavy railways, as the number of lives saved overall and other benefits gained are greater?

I don't think there shouldn't be changes, but I think the heavy-rail "zero accidents" safety culture, while beneficial, is probably not a good use of money these days compared with other places it could be spent.

With infinite money you'd be right - and who wouldn't want infinite money? But there isn't.

The life of a rail passenger is not worth more than the life of someone in the car, nor the life of a cyclist, nor the life of someone who's been denied medical treatment because the NHS can't afford it.

 

[johnkingeu]

I prefer somewhere in the middle. It would make a lot of sense to transfer money spent on saving the very occasional minor injury or life on the railway to road safety where it could save many more lives. The transport system needs considering as a whole.

I agree with this, but I'm not suggesting that the rail industry doesn't consider the cost of safety improvements - clearly it does. It's more a difference in mindset between road and rail. The road industry asks "How can we make things a bit safer than they are now?" The rail industry asks "How can we get to zero deaths?" and works backwards from that point. I think it is quite likely that if the road industry took the rail approach we would have fewer deaths for the same amount of expenditure because aiming for zero and believing it is possible means you approach the question differently and make different design decisions.

 

[Taunton]

The difference is that the road industry accepts that there will be many thousands of deaths per year, including children, and the cost of any work to reduce this must be kept at a minimum.

Actually the road industry has similarly worked hard on the issue. It's no longer "many thousands" of deaths, which reached a UK-wide high point of about 7,000 per year in the mid-1960s, and have progressively been worked down. Some years ago they got down to 2,000 per year, and it was felt that would be something of a bottom point, but they continue to fall and are now down to about 1,800. Among other things, injuries to road maintenance personnel from passing traffic, much like on the railway, has been reduced to negligible figures. Hard work all round, and actually no stupidity with costs.