Croydon Tram Crash

[LOL The Irony]

In the case of the 156, I presume you're referring to the Ais Gill accident?

It's a fair point that few probably would even know. In the case of the Croydon tram, I suspect the problem would be when the story got blurted out by the media "Horror tram back in service" that there might be some kind of backlash, where if it weren't for publicity no one would be any the wiser.

2 units were involved and both are with Northern. And I've been on at least one of those units.

 

[Domh245]

There might be an opportunity for an add-on order to the last batch of M5000s which were recently ordered.

The CR4000s and M5000s have next to nothing in common. It'd be like asking Bombardier to build another S stock once they've finished building the Class 345s.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The CR4000s and M5000s have next to nothing in common.

Seconded. CR4000's are low floor and M5000's are high floor.

 

[bluegoblin7]

Seconded. CR4000's are low floor and M5000's are high floor.

That's pretty much the least important of the things they don't have in common.

 

[bramling]

The CR4000s and M5000s have next to nothing in common. It'd be like asking Bombardier to build another S stock once they've finished building the Class 345s.

I can’t see a CR4000 being built when Tramlink has in recent years procured extra trams from Stadtler. This is the most likely replacement scenario IMO, probably as part as a further fleet expansion whenever that may happen.

 

[bramling]

If Stagecoach choose to foot the bill that's up to them but I'm pretty sure their insurers wouldn't have done. The fact that the bus was in Walthamstow on route 69 I believe says it all, wasn't the idea that it would be kept on route 30? Even before Stagecoach lost the 30 it was normally on other less high profile routes and it's currently at North Street garage in Romford so never gets anywhere near Central London. If it were scrapped tomorrow would anybody other than a few bus enthusiasts bat an eyelid? That said I believe it is going to a museum when it's withdrawn from service? If it were really about sticking two fingers up to the arsonists then every bus that's been burned out would be repaired regardless of cost but clearly reality has to take over at some point.

As for the tram, I'm no expert but I'd have thought it was repairable, presumably the damage is largely restricted to one side?

Remember it was a near 50 mph derailment, so the entire tram will have taken quite a knocking. Then add to this the rescue and recovery effort. I suppose on the other side of the coin the underside equipment may have been spared by the vehicle quickly overturning. I just can’t see it being repaired - it’s an old tram to an old design, it must have sustained pretty major damage, and on top of that there are sensitivities and reputational risks to consider. Why bother when they can simply order a new tram.

 

[Domh245]

I can’t see a CR4000 being built when Tramlink has in recent years procured extra trams from Stadtler. This is the most likely replacement scenario IMO, probably as part as a further fleet expansion whenever that may happen.

My thoughts as well, possibly when/if the Sutton extension gets done. Barring that, I half suspect that they'll soldier on without that unit until an opportunity arises to replace all of the CR4000s (and potentially the Variobahns as well, offering them to Bergen) and then replace it then.

 

[LOL The Irony]

That's pretty much the least important of the things they don't have in common.

I beg to differ. The fact they're the different sizes is the most important thing they don't have in common.

 

[Busaholic]

In the case of the Spirit of London bus, I doubt if the arsonist would have even been aware of the significance of the bus and I'm pretty sure it would have been scrapped had it been beyond economical repair.

I agree with the first part, but in the case of the second and if the decision was a marginal one (which I suggest it was) then other factors may have influenced it, call it sentiment or good PR or whatever. Stagecoach wouldn't have liked the negative PR, which could have cost them far more than 60 grand.

 

[Antman]

I agree with the first part, but in the case of the second and if the decision was a marginal one (which I suggest it was) then other factors may have influenced it, call it sentiment or good PR or whatever. Stagecoach wouldn't have liked the negative PR, which could have cost them far more than 60 grand.

Apart from a few enthusiasts I can't imagine anyone would have been to bothered.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Apart from a few enthusiasts I can't imagine anyone would have been to bothered.

Well some survivors and victims families would have.

 

[Busaholic]

Apart from a few enthusiasts I can't imagine anyone would have been to bothered.

Not worth the 'Evening Standard' getting hold of the story - TfL would then have had to respond, and make their displeasure known (for public effect, anyway). Also, don't forget the driver of the bombed bus still worked for Stagecoach at West Ham, so there'll have been local feelings to be taken into account. Really not worth the potential aggro for anyone other than a crazed monetarist.

 

[Antman]

Well some survivors and victims families would have.

You know that for a fact do you?

The bus operates in the Romford area now, a long way from the events it is supposed to be commemorating. It would probably make more sense to name a new bus Spirit of London.

 

[Antman]

Not worth the 'Evening Standard' getting hold of the story - TfL would then have had to respond, and make their displeasure known (for public effect, anyway). Also, don't forget the driver of the bombed bus still worked for Stagecoach at West Ham, so there'll have been local feelings to be taken into account. Really not worth the potential aggro for anyone other than a crazed monetarist.

I really don't think that the Evening Standard or anybody else would be greatly interested and I don't suppose TfL would comment. Like I said it would probably be simpler all round to just name a new bus Spirit of London.

 

[LOL The Irony]

You know that for a fact do you?

The bus operates in the Romford area now, a long way from the events it is supposed to be commemorating. It would probably make more sense to name a new bus Spirit of London.

You're nice. If a memorial for a family member of yours was damaged and was just removed would you be upset?

 

[Antman]

You're nice. If a memorial for a family member of yours was damaged and was just removed would you be upset?

What a ridiculous comparison!

 

[PermitToTravel]

In the case of the Spirit of London bus, I doubt if the arsonist would have even been aware of the significance of the bus

I agree with your points pretty much entirely, but think it's worth noting that the bus does actually look pretty distinctive:

 

[BestWestern]

I agree with your points pretty much entirely, but think it's worth noting that the bus does actually look pretty distinctive:

Stagecoach are self-insured, as with most of the large groups, and a PR piece was made of the decision to repair the vehicle. It very definitely received special treatment because of its status. It's worth pointing out that the bus was a one-off ordered specifically to replace the bombing victim, it wasn't randomly selected from the existing fleet. That may have further influenced things. In the cold light of day, it may well have been economical simply to dispose of the vehicle in the usual way. However, what are the chances that somebody would rather swiftly have noticed the significance of the bus, and that one of the media outlets would have picked up the story. It was clearly deemed a worthwhile expense to go for a positive PR win. If nobody was remotely interested in such things, there would have been no reason at all to spend the money.

As for the tram, when an event has been the subject of intense media attention, particularly over a sustained period of time, public feeling and opinion becomes a significant factor, even if some more 'logically' minded people might struggle to see any sense in that. Think Grenfell Tower; if it could have been refurbished, would anybody would have wanted to live in it? Sometimes the fallout from an event dictates a particular course of action, and is seen as a more significant aspect than the simple technicalities of the situation. Bear in mind that in London exist free newspapers like the Evening Standard and Metro, they aren't exactly high brow and they'll quickly sensationalise something if they can make a fuss over a cheap story.

 

[Busaholic]

Stagecoach are self-insured, as with most of the large groups, and a PR piece was made of the decision to repair the vehicle. It very definitely received special treatment because of its status. It's worth pointing out that the bus was a one-off ordered specifically to replace the bombing victim, it wasn't randomly selected from the existing fleet. That may have further influenced things. In the cold light of day, it may well have been economical simply to dispose of the vehicle in the usual way. However, what are the chances that somebody would rather swiftly have noticed the significance of the bus, and that one of the media outlets would have picked up the story. It was clearly deemed a worthwhile expense to go for a positive PR win. If nobody was remotely interested in such things, there would have been no reason at all to spend the money.

As for the tram, when an event has been the subject of intense media attention, particularly over a sustained period of time, public feeling and opinion becomes a significant factor, even if some more 'logically' minded people might struggle to see any sense in that. Think Grenfell Tower; if it could have been refurbished, do you think anybody would have wanted to live in it? Sometimes the fallout from an event dictates a particular course of action, and is seen as a more significant aspect than the simple technicalities of the situation. Bear in mind that in London exist free newspapers like the Evening Standard and Metro, they aren't exactly high brow and they'll quickly sensationalise something if they can make a fuss over a cheap story.

I think you've reinforced rather well my initial bit on the special status within the Stagecoach group of the Spirit of London bus. I'm sure Stagecoach weren't so short of buses that it was imperative of them to order a one-off so soon after the tragic event, rather, it was making a statement and one that I thought at the time was both necessary, for bus workers' morale as much as anything, and rather magnificent. It could have been seen as cynical to allow a lesser cowardly act to see off the bus, and one that could attract negative PR.

 

[AlterEgo]

The CPS have decided not to prosecute the driver, Alfred Dorris, due to a lack of evidence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50212531

Driver Alfred Dorris will not face action due to a lack of evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said.
Corporate manslaughter charges will also not be brought against Transport for London (TfL) or the operator Tram Operations Ltd.
Prosecutors said the available evidence "does not support a prosecution".

 

[bramling]

The CPS have decided not to prosecute the driver, Alfred Dorris, due to a lack of evidence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50212531

That’s good news, hopefully he will be able to draw a line and move on now.

Must admit I’m surprised there’s not to be a corporate prosecution. With the great benefit of hindsight the risk of an over speed on that curve could quite possibly have been foreseen, although of course Tramlink’s setup was no different to numerous other tram networks throughout Britain. Especially against a backdrop when institutions get fined for people leaning out of windows.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That’s good news, hopefully he will be able to draw a line and move on now.

Must admit I’m suspended there’s not to be a corporate prosecution. With the great benefit of hindsight the risk of an over speed on that curve could quite possibly have been foreseen, although of course Tramlink’s setup was no different to numerous other tram networks throughout Britain.

Whilst there's likely going to be disappointment at this decision from survivors/the bereaved, it's more important that lessons are learned to minimise the risk of a repeat incident than it is for a scapegoat (individual or corporate) to be found. Mr. Dorris will have this on his mind for the rest of his life, and I don't think any of us would want to switch places with him.

If the evidence doesn't support a prosecution it would be silly to pursue it for a symbolic reason.

 

[edwin_m]

Whilst there's likely going to be disappointment at this decision from survivors/the bereaved, it's more important that lessons are learned to minimise the risk of a repeat incident than it is for a scapegoat (individual or corporate) to be found. Mr. Dorris will have this on his mind for the rest of his life, and I don't think any of us would want to switch places with him.

If the evidence doesn't support a prosecution it would be silly to pursue it for a symbolic reason.

The BBC link does also say that Mr Dorris didn't willfully do anything that would cause him to be over-fatigued - unlike, for example, the road vehicle driver who caused the Great Heck collision.

 

[Dieseldriver]

The BBC link does also say that Mr Dorris didn't willfully do anything that would cause him to be over-fatigued - unlike, for example, the driver who caused the Great Heck collision.

Sorry to be pedantic and it's not a dig in any way but thought I'd add, it was the Driver of a road vehicle who was found to be the cause, not either of the two Train Drivers.

 

[ainsworth74]

Sorry to be pedantic and it's not a dig in any way but thought I'd add, it was the Driver of a road vehicle who was found to be the cause, not either of the two Train Drivers.

Yes an important point of clarification and I'm sure @edwin_m was just a little imprecise in their phrasing rather than actually suggesting that either of the two train drivers were at fault in anyway. The Land Rover driver however, who had stayed up all night, most certainly was at fault for driving whilst excessively tired and had the convictions to go with it.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes an important point of clarification and I'm sure @edwin_m was just a little imprecise in their phrasing rather than actually suggesting that either of the two train drivers were at fault in anyway. The Land Rover driver however, who had stayed up all night, most certainly was at fault for driving whilst excessively tired and had the convictions to go with it.

I absolutely agree, no offence taken, and will amend the previous post.

 

[Busaholic]

That’s good news, hopefully he will be able to draw a line and move on now.

Must admit I’m surprised there’s not to be a corporate prosecution. With the great benefit of hindsight the risk of an over speed on that curve could quite possibly have been foreseen, although of course Tramlink’s setup was no different to numerous other tram networks throughout Britain. Especially against a backdrop when institutions get fined for people leaning out of windows.

The set-up of Tramlink, or London Trams as we're supposed to call it now, makes it less likely that corporate manslaughter charges would stick, because TfL may be the 'owners' of it but Tram Operations Ltd, a subsidiary of First Group, actually operate it. Therefore it could be argued that if one were to be charged, so should the other, and I'm sure a defence counsel for either party would make that point forcefully at the outset of any trial. You could say that all such set-ups make the possibility of corporate manslaughter charges vanishingly small, but only a cynic would say that might be deliberate.

 

[matt_world2004]

The set-up of Tramlink, or London Trams as we're supposed to call it now, makes it less likely that corporate manslaughter charges would stick, because TfL may be the 'owners' of it but Tram Operations Ltd, a subsidiary of First Group, actually operate it. Therefore it could be argued that if one were to be charged, so should the other, and I'm sure a defence counsel for either party would make that point forcefully at the outset of any trial. You could say that all such set-ups make the possibility of corporate manslaughter charges vanishingly small, but only a cynic would say that might be deliberate.

And large amounts of the TfL rail network was set up that way as well.

 

[Mag_seven]

Driver has been found not guilty:

Breaking : The driver in Croydon Tram crash has been found not guilty of failing to take reasonable care of his passengers.

https://twitter.com/bbctomedwards/status/1670763124964614146?s=46&t=CNuIVkxUNiCIU6N8sSkp7g

 

[AndyPJG]

BBC News item on this:-

Croydon tram crash: Driver not guilty over fatal derailment

The driver of a tram that crashed in Croydon in November 2016, killing seven people, has been cleared of failing to take reasonable care at work.
Alfred Dorris, 49, was charged under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 over the derailment, which left another 19 people seriously injured.
There were 69 passengers on the tram when it toppled over on a sharp bend.
A jury at the Old Bailey cleared him in less than two hours. Mr Dorris left the dock in tears.
Those who died were Dane Chinnery, Donald Collett, Robert Huxley, Philip Logan, Dorota Rynkiewicz, Philip Seary and Mark Smith.
The jury heard Mr Dorris was driving the tram at over 70 km/h, more than three times the limit as he approached the curve near Sandilands.
The prosecution claimed Mr Dorris, from Beckenham, south-east London, may have had a "micro-sleep" while at the controls of the tram. He denied this, saying "It just went horribly wrong for me."

IMAGE SOURCE,MET POLICE
Image caption,
Dorota Rynkiewicz, Dane Chinnery, Donald Collett, Mark Smith, Phil Seary, Philip Logan and Robert Huxley were killed in the derailment
He told the trial that he had become "confused" and "disorientated" before the tram derailed but that he could not explain how it happened.
While giving evidence, Mr Dorris broke down in tears as he described his final journey and said he was "deeply sorry" for the crash.
He blamed his confusion on a combination of external factors including poor lighting and signage in the Sandilands tunnel complex, darkness and bad weather.

Image caption,
The accident happened early on the morning of 9 November 2016
He told the jury he had thought he was travelling in the opposite direction, but by the time he realised his mistake, the tram was already tipping over and he was thrown from his seat, causing him to hit his head and pass out.
Mr Dorris also said he had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder since the crash and had become estranged from his wife and daughter.
The criminal case was bought by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).
Transport for London (TfL) and the tram operator Tram Operations Limited (TOL) previously pleaded guilty to not taking reasonable care under health and safety laws. They will be sentenced next month.