Croydon Tram Crash

[johnkingeu]

There has been a welcome drop in deaths on the road. However, the KSI figure (killed and seriously injured) is higher than it was for most of the 90s. KSI includes life changing injuries. Plenty of hard work, yes, but actually very little progress, and a very different attitude overall.

An example as proof of a different attitude: lowering the speed limit to 60 mph on motorways would avoid 94 fatalities and 371 serious injuries per year. This has been rejected by the road industry, whereas in the rail industry, speed restrictions are introduced pretty swiftly if there is thought to be an increased risk.

I'm not criticising in any way the hard work by many people in the road industry. What I am suggesting is that over time the attitude of the rail industry should prevail. Hopefully this might happen over time anyway as driverless cars start to be introduced and there are major investigations whenever an accident occurs.

Road casualty statistics

 

[EveningStar]

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.

That thought occurred to me as well. However, this is confined to an unusually detailed summary and the main report reverts to the normal, strictly objective, approach.

 

[Busaholic]

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.

So you are against guided busways on the same principle?

 

[Busaholic]

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

The driver would still be in the cab and capable of an emergency stop. Nobody says a train driver has to master road conditions because his/her train goes through such crossings.

 

[Busaholic]

The driver would still be in the cab and capable of an emergency stop. Nobody says a train driver has to master road conditions because his/her train goes through such crossings.

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 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.

Why is it insulting to drivers to acknowledge they are human and not robots? There is sufficient evidence in the report that this accident followed several near misses on the same stretch of line, one in particular days before the accident, all apparently caused by driver inattention, although not usually deliberate. Every time an underground or other line opens with full automation, even with a 'driver' retained for cosmetic or emergency reasons, do you cry 'insult'? If so, I say prepare to be insulted.

As a car driver, I have nodded off at the wheel. I was fortunate that, in my case, I woke quickly enough to avoid an accident, but it is easily done when you're tired.

ATO is how I think things should go in the long run on Tramlink - I've loved trams all my life, since living next to a London tram line as a youngster, so been travelling on them, off and on, since 1950-1, possibly earlier. I'm sure the Man on the Clapham Omnibus (or the Woman on the Addington Tram) would feel safer too.

 

[WatcherZero]

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.

Non-mainline rail is excluded from EU regulations and is the responsibility of national governments so the GB non-EU driving rules apply.
https://www.gov.uk/drivers-hours/gb-domestic-rules

When on the road light rail vehicles come under domestic highway legislation with a few statutoury amendment opt outs on vehicle safety equipment (e.g. rear reflectors), rules on selling and owning vehicles, opt out of following certain road signs and legislation allowing them to follow differential speed limits to other vehicles.

Others excluded from EU regulations and follow domestic driving hours rules are breakdown vehicles, vehicles which cant exceed 40kph, Emergency Services, road testing/R&D, vehicles under 7.5 tonnes driven for charity, more than 25 years old, agricultural, forestry and farming travelling less than 100km from base, charity minibuses carrying 10-17 passengers, vehicles transporting live animals less than 50km, vehicles carrying animal carcasses as waste, educational vehicles e.g. mobile libraries, vehicles on islands smaller than 2300 sqkm, electric or gas powered vehicles travelling less than 50km, circus vehicles, steam vehicles, vehicles for driving lessons or tests and milk floats.

 

[jon0844]

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.

Funny reading that just after I saw an operative doing line painting on a NSL road this evening, using his vehicle as the lighting provision (lights that were in turn blinding oncoming motorists).

Sure he had hi-vis on, but he had his back to oncoming traffic that had to overtake, and given this was a Friday night where it was a) -1 degrees and b) Quite likely at 2330 to have drunk drivers on the road smacked of a very poorly conducted risk assessment.

I actually intend to notify the council over it, because that could be a very easily avoided fatality right there.

 

[BestWestern]

There has been a welcome drop in deaths on the road. However, the KSI figure (killed and seriously injured) is higher than it was for most of the 90s. KSI includes life changing injuries. Plenty of hard work, yes, but actually very little progress, and a very different attitude overall.

An example as proof of a different attitude: lowering the speed limit to 60 mph on motorways would avoid 94 fatalities and 371 serious injuries per year. This has been rejected by the road industry, whereas in the rail industry, speed restrictions are introduced pretty swiftly if there is thought to be an increased risk.

The introduction of rules concerning the railway is done in the certain knowledge that said rules will be adhered to strictly, and without political fallout. Something like reducing motorway speeds to ridiculous levels will result in nothing but the entire nation ignoring it, and then voting for somebody else at the next election.

Incidentally, a 60mph motorway network would be a disaster, and isn't the solution. Yes you'll save lives, but not as many as if you reduced the limit to 50mph, or 40mph, or just closed them and planted tulips. There will always be risk, such is life.

 

[edwin_m]

Conversely, if you do manage to change people's behaviour on the roads you save a large number of lives for relatively little cost. See for example how drink-driving these days is socially unacceptable to a large part of the population, whereas in the 1980s most people saw the sin as being caught for it. There would be another drop in road deaths if speeding or using a phone when driving became similarly unacceptable.

There is little scope for doing this on the railways because the safety culture is that much stronger to start with, most further improvements would require major investment (eliminating level crossings is probably most significant) and despite Croydon the number of casualties on railways and tramways is already low, so reducing it doesn't save many lives.

 

[Busaholic]

Over a year on, and the crash driver remains on police bail. Surely by now he should either be charged or told he faces no charges; the uncertainty is neither fair to the driver nor to the people involved in the crash, and the relatives of those who died. A 't' uncrossed or an 'i' undotted can be sorted prior to a trial, if there is to be one.

 

[Antman]

Over a year on, and the crash driver remains on police bail. Surely by now he should either be charged or told he faces no charges; the uncertainty is neither fair to the driver nor to the people involved in the crash, and the relatives of those who died. A 't' uncrossed or an 'i' undotted can be sorted prior to a trial, if there is to be one.

Yes you would have thought by now a decision could be made one way or the other but then again it's much the same situation regarding the Shoreham air crash which happened more than two years ago.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Am I the only one who is somewhat underwhelmed by the analysis in the RAIB report? It goes for the 'micronap' conclusion but doesn't give any medical or physiological commentary on what such a thing is nor what aspects of this awful incident (other than the driver's recollection) support the view that this was the cause. The only thing it points out that is the driver had a period of 'low workload' in the c.90 seconds leading up to the accident (ie. the downhill coast and earlier turn), but I doubt whether many Tramlink drivers would recognise this description of their experience in this section given that they have to remain vigilant at all times when driving these vehicles and the 'fast section' leading up to the Sandilands curve is very short. Recall that the 1975 Moorgate accident was studied over and over again and the Inspectorate report at the time felt unable to reach any firm conclusion on the reason for the apparent loss of concentration by Driver Newson. The cause remains a mystery. Perhaps the RAIB report should be more circumspect. And, although it seems to have looked at shift patterns, the commentary there seems to imply that fatigue was unlikely to be a factor given the rest that the driver had in prior days yet it comments in other parts of the report about the risks of fatigue. The conclusion to be drawn, in my view, is the cause was a loss of concentration but it is quite possible for a driver's mind to wander whilst still being conscious: is there really enough evidence in the report to justify its conclusions. What the report does, do, however, by highlighting the training and safety management processes at Tramlink (particularly the perception that trams could not overturn) is to make it next to impossible for the CPS to prefer charges so I would hope that option is now dropped.

 

[Busaholic]

Am I the only one who is somewhat underwhelmed by the analysis in the RAIB report? It goes for the 'micronap' conclusion but doesn't give any medical or physiological commentary on what such a thing is nor what aspects of this awful incident (other than the driver's recollection) support the view that this was the cause. The only thing it points out that is the driver had a period of 'low workload' in the c.90 seconds leading up to the accident (ie. the downhill coast and earlier turn), but I doubt whether many Tramlink drivers would recognise this description of their experience in this section given that they have to remain vigilant at all times when driving these vehicles and the 'fast section' leading up to the Sandilands curve is very short. Recall that the 1975 Moorgate accident was studied over and over again and the Inspectorate report at the time felt unable to reach any firm conclusion on the reason for the apparent loss of concentration by Driver Newson. The cause remains a mystery. Perhaps the RAIB report should be more circumspect. And, although it seems to have looked at shift patterns, the commentary there seems to imply that fatigue was unlikely to be a factor given the rest that the driver had in prior days yet it comments in other parts of the report about the risks of fatigue. The conclusion to be drawn, in my view, is the cause was a loss of concentration but it is quite possible for a driver's mind to wander whilst still being conscious: is there really enough evidence in the report to justify its conclusions. What the report does, do, however, by highlighting the training and safety management processes at Tramlink (particularly the perception that trams could not overturn) is to make it next to impossible for the CPS to prefer charges so I would hope that option is now dropped.

Driver Newson may well have been dead or so near death as to make no difference for some minutes before the crash. From memory, was it not four or five days before his remains were able to be recovered from what had been his cab, and we were spared the details of what exactly those remains consisted of, but suffice to say there was no way that anything could be concluded from them as to what may have happened. For whatever reason, there seemed to be a whispering campaign to suggest he committed suicide, for which absolutely no supporting evidence was ever produced, indeed there was considerable evidence that he had things planned for later on that day. The suicide theory seemed to suit some at the top of both London Underground and the GLC and was never able to be properly refuted because of the coroner's (necessarily) 'open' verdict on his death. By focussing on Newson's supposed state of mind L.T. were able to partially deflect attention from the shortcomings that allowed a tube train to slam into a dead-end tunnel wall.

 

[edwin_m]

Am I the only one who is somewhat underwhelmed by the analysis in the RAIB report? It goes for the 'micronap' conclusion but doesn't give any medical or physiological commentary on what such a thing is nor what aspects of this awful incident (other than the driver's recollection) support the view that this was the cause. The only thing it points out that is the driver had a period of 'low workload' in the c.90 seconds leading up to the accident (ie. the downhill coast and earlier turn), but I doubt whether many Tramlink drivers would recognise this description of their experience in this section given that they have to remain vigilant at all times when driving these vehicles and the 'fast section' leading up to the Sandilands curve is very short.

Microsleep is only identified as a probable reason. Causes related to the vehicle such as brake failure are eliminated so the cause is effectively down to the driver and whether it is microsleep or loss of concentration the possible remedies are the same. It also mentions that the longest section of Tramlink where the driver doesn't have to take any action is from starting to accelerate after Lloyd Park curve and crossing until braking for the Sandilands curve.

 

[MarkyT]

Microsleep is only identified as a probable reason. Causes related to the vehicle such as brake failure are eliminated so the cause is effectively down to the driver and whether it is microsleep or loss of concentration the possible remedies are the same. It also mentions that the longest section of Tramlink where the driver doesn't have to take any action is from starting to accelerate after Lloyd Park curve and crossing until braking for the Sandilands curve.

And the report also points out there is no discernable landmark as to position within the tunnels especially in the dark when the short breaks between the individual sections are not obvious. The standard small tram speed limit commencement sign is also comparatively inconspicuous compared to typical road signage (note Tramlink have added road style chevrons at the bend since).
I think recommendation 5 is most important in asking for the industry to look closely at the particular risks of 'off street' railway like sections with their typically higher speed running and what additional mitigations might be appropriate on approach to tight curves, junctions and transitions back to normal 'on street' or 'segregated' running. My suggestion would be a warning sign and an associated passive transponder at the normal braking commencement point; a kind of tram distant and AWS if you like. Minimum functionality on board could be an increasingly strident alarm that needs cancelling by the driver. That could be enhanced later to enforce emergency braking if ignored like AWS or more sophisticated automatic speed control as a modern passive digital transponder could encode some details about the restriction ahead.

 

[JaJaWa]

Update on the similar incident that was mentioned of the tram derailing on a bend here in Hong Kong – also speed:

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...ng-kong-tram-overturned-outside-bank-china-hq

Driver of toppled Hong Kong tram admits speeding at twice limit
27 Feb 2018 - 11:04pm
The driver of a Hong Kong tram that overturned and left 11 passengers in hospital last year admitted in court on Tuesday that he had been speeding at about twice the limit as he wanted to get home sooner.

The District Court heard how Lo Chi-leung, 24, had been driving tram No 123 at between 28.2km/h and 31.2km/h when the accident took place on a bend outside the Bank of China on Des Voeux Road Central in Hong Kong’s financial district on April 6.

Internal company guidelines from operator Hong Kong Tramways fix the speed limit for trams entering normal bends such as the one at the accident site at 15km/h.

The tram derailed and wobbled left then right, hitting a nearby tram stop. It then toppled onto its left side. The crash damaged a shelter roof at the tram stop and a pedestrian railing.

Eleven passengers were sent to hospital, nine with minor injuries.

But Wong Kin-chuk, 64, suffered a teardrop fracture to his spine, partial dislocation of his left shoulder joint, and a sprained neck and left shoulder joint. He was in hospital for 20 days, during which surgery was required.

Another passenger, Joe Wong Yiu-chor, 59, was in hospital for four days due to a fractured left clavicle and left scapula, tenderness over his left shoulder and upper back, and superficial abrasions to his right hand.

Hong Kong police investigate passenger complaint about speeding in tram accident
Lo was also injured, with superficial abrasions found on his left knee and arm. He was arrested shortly after the accident. At the time he told police a bus had hit the tram, causing it to derail.

But subsequent investigations found no significant scratch or dent on the bus, indicating it was unlikely the vehicle had seen any impact with another object. It was also concluded that the tram had no irregularities in its braking system or electrical and mechanical parts.

On Tuesday Lo pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, an offence punishable by seven years’ imprisonment and a HK$50,000 fine.

He apologised to the victims and the company through his legal counsel Nelson Lam, who argued Lo had held no intention of causing serious harm.

“The time was almost midnight,” Lam told district judge Tam Sze-lok. “There was less traffic, fewer passengers, fewer road users, and unwittingly he allowed himself to enter into a situation more reckless, and he tried to go faster so he could go home to see people dear to him.”

Happy happy ding ding? Hong Kong’s new-look trams offer more smiles per mile
Thirteen certificates of appreciation and 14 letters were submitted in support of Lo during mitigation, including one from Lo himself expressing his remorse over the accident.

He will be sentenced on March 14, pending background reports.

The court heard how Lo was a married man and from a devoted Christian family, with a brother who shared his interests in engineering and motor vehicles.

Prior to joining Hong Kong Tramways in January 2016, Lo captained ferries to Macau and worked at the local restaurant chain Café de Coral.

The last case of a tram overturning was back in 1983 when a concrete mixer rammed into one in Shau Kei Wan, injuring 21 people. In 1964 a speeding tram toppled over at a double bend in Admiralty, injuring 59 and killing one.

 

[ColinC]

Presumably, as RAIB has published its report, it doesn't need to keep the damaged tram any longer. Has any decision been made as to its fate?

 

[BestWestern]

Presumably, as RAIB has published its report, it doesn't need to keep the damaged tram any longer. Has any decision been made as to its fate?

Given that fatalities occurred, I would imagine stripping for parts and then scrapping would be the most likely outcome. The PR risk of it re-entering service would be considerable.

 

[Chris M]

Unless any and all legal proceedings are also complete (I have no idea) then I would be surprised if the tram has been released back to the operator yet.

 

[D365]

The PR risk of it re-entering service would be considerable.

91132 (former 91023) has remained in service after two fatal accidents.

 

[LiftFan]

Renumbering seems to work as even the media won't pay attention to the numbers.

 

[BestWestern]

91132 (former 91023) has remained in service after two fatal accidents.

Yep, but it didn't overturn and kill passengers travelling inside it. A train is, of course, made up of lots of separate vehicles, each with their own number, as well as rake or set numbers, headcodes and potentially various other means of identification. That's way too complex for most of the media and most of the public to understand or really care about.

By contrast, the tram was one individual vehicle, and photographs of it lying on its side at the crash site, proudly sporting its fleet number, were in mass circulation. People not only lost their lives on board, but were - bluntly putting it - dragged out of it and crushed underneath it. That's really very unpleasant indeed, and putting it back into service, particularly in the same community, is a bad idea. Just as the London bombing tube carriages and bus were cut up discreetly and out of sight, sometimes things are best quietly put to bed in the interests of decency.

 

[Domh245]

It's also worth bearing in mind that it'd have to be in suitably good condition before re-entering service, and as the RAIB report showed there were some fairly significant damage to parts of the vehicle that would probably necessitate rebuilding most of it. It may well be the case that repairing it will be uneconomical.

 

[LiftFan]

Saying that they did rebuild the two C stock carriages that were bombed, for the trains to be taken out of service and scrapped a mere 7 years later...

 

[edwin_m]

It's also worth bearing in mind that it'd have to be in suitably good condition before re-entering service, and as the RAIB report showed there were some fairly significant damage to parts of the vehicle that would probably necessitate rebuilding most of it. It may well be the case that repairing it will be uneconomical.

The report actually said that the structure stood up well to the accident, most of the fatalities being due to the failure of the windows. However this would be from the point of view of survivability and doesn't say anything about whether it would be beyond economic repair.

 

[Domh245]

Fair point, but you could describe the survival cell of a car as standing up well to an accident, but if the crumple zones and other sacrificial bits have been damaged enough then it won't be rebuilt or reused. It is difficult to tell without actually being involved obviously, but the pictures I was looking at (pg 92 of the final report) looked like there was fairly significant damage to the cab end sections and roof. Perhaps they are an easy fix that'd just involve welding in replacement sections, but maybe not.

 

[edwin_m]

Fair point, but you could describe the survival cell of a car as standing up well to an accident, but if the crumple zones and other sacrificial bits have been damaged enough then it won't be rebuilt or reused. It is difficult to tell without actually being involved obviously, but the pictures I was looking at (pg 92 of the final report) looked like there was fairly significant damage to the cab end sections and roof. Perhaps they are an easy fix that'd just involve welding in replacement sections, but maybe not.

That was exactly the point of the second sentence of my post.

 

[43096]

Yep, but it didn't overturn and kill passengers travelling inside it. A train is, of course, made up of lots of separate vehicles, each with their own number, as well as rake or set numbers, headcodes and potentially various other means of identification. That's way too complex for most of the media and most of the public to understand or really care about.

By contrast, the tram was one individual vehicle, and photographs of it lying on its side at the crash site, proudly sporting its fleet number, were in mass circulation. People not only lost their lives on board, but were - bluntly putting it - dragged out of it and crushed underneath it. That's really very unpleasant indeed, and putting it back into service, particularly in the same community, is a bad idea. Just as the London bombing tube carriages and bus were cut up discreetly and out of sight, sometimes things are best quietly put to bed in the interests of decency.

Just a load of over sensitive twaddle. Should we be scrapping every car/bus/lorry that is involved in a fatal accident with a pedestrian or cyclist, then? There have been plenty of vehicles returned to service after fatal accidents - including tube vehicles involved in fatal bombings.

If it is economically repairable, then get it back in service. If it isn't then scrap it.

 

[bramling]

Just a load of over sensitive twaddle. Should we be scrapping every car/bus/lorry that is involved in a fatal accident with a pedestrian or cyclist, then? There have been plenty of vehicles returned to service after fatal accidents - including tube vehicles involved in fatal bombings.

If it is economically repairable, then get it back in service. If it isn't then scrap it.

Twaddle or otherwise, I suspect it's highly likely that there's probably been a decision from on-high within TFL that the tram will not be returned to service. Rightly or wrongly I could envisage considerable reputational risk were the story to break that the tram is back in service. Why take that risk when it's quite easy simply to order a new tram?

Can anyone think of any rail vehicles in which people have died as part of an accident where the vehicle has returned to service? There are obviously plenty of cases where other vehicles from the unit have re-entered service (e.g. 205018/205029 at Cowden), however I'm struggling to think of any recent examples where an actual vehicle has re-entered service. The Watford 321s were effectively completely new vehicles.

 

[pdeaves]

If it is economically repairable, then get it back in service. If it isn't then scrap it.

A certain class 91 was involved in two separate fatal accidents and is still running today after appropriate repairs. It was 'disguised' with a renumbering but is nonetheless still running.