Croydon Tram Crash

[Taunton]

I was disappointed in the CPS that they even launched a prosecution of the driver, let alone seven years later.

Quite how a high speed (for trams) ex-railway alignment, driven on sight, in tunnel, ending in a sudden 10-15mph curve, without any safety cues or lighting during darkness, managed to get past any meaningful risk assessment, always seemed unreal. Frankly I was surprised it took them so long before there was an accident there. Very similar to the Amtrak Cascades accident.

 

[MarkyT]

I was disappointed in the CPS that they even launched a prosecution of the driver, let alone seven years later.

Quite how a high speed (for trams) ex-railway alignment, driven on sight, in tunnel, ending in a sudden 10-15mph curve, without any safety cues or lighting during darkness, managed to get past any meaningful risk assessment, always seemed unreal. Frankly I was surprised it took them so long before there was an accident there. Very similar to the Amtrak Cascades accident.

There have been many over-speed in curve accidents on heavy and light rail over the years worldwide. BR eventually started equipping the advance warning boards for significant speed reductions with AWS to wake the driver up at the critical braking point, then latterly further protected sites with TPWS overspeed traps. A simple 'tram AWS' perhaps using a digital balise at the braking point for the curve restriction might have prevented this tragedy. Even an 'alarm only' functionality might have been sufficient to get the driver's attention.

 

[bramling]

I was disappointed in the CPS that they even launched a prosecution of the driver, let alone seven years later.

Quite how a high speed (for trams) ex-railway alignment, driven on sight, in tunnel, ending in a sudden 10-15mph curve, without any safety cues or lighting during darkness, managed to get past any meaningful risk assessment, always seemed unreal. Frankly I was surprised it took them so long before there was an accident there. Very similar to the Amtrak Cascades accident.

I’ve always thought the same. The guy has had this saga ongoing for seven years, which in my view is unacceptable. It’s quite clear, even with allowance for hindsight, that the setup at Sandilands was an accident waiting to happen. Unfortunately I get the sense there’s been an element of some people out sniffing for blood.

The whole thing is very sad from start to finish.

 

[100andthirty]

There have been many over-speed in curve accidents on heavy and light rail over the years worldwide. BR eventually started equipping the advance warning boards for significant speed reductions with AWS to wake the driver up at the critical braking point, then latterly further protected sites with TPWS overspeed traps. A simple 'tram AWS' perhaps using a digital balise at the braking point for the curve restriction might have prevented this tragedy. Even an 'alarm only' functionality might have been sufficient to get the driver's attention.

A system to prevent overspeeding into sharp curves has been installed and has been operational since 2020. It's not quite as simple as suggested by MarkyT as there are several tags on the approach to each location to intercept the braking curve based on an assessment of likely approach speeds, assuming trams don't always travel at the signed speed for the section.

 

[SLC001]

There are no winners. All so unsatisfactory and the delay in prosecuting unacceptable. I wonder if the desire to prosecute was because of the number of deaths and this put pressure on the CPS to prosecute? We have seen this on a number of occasions and the impartiality of the CPS has to be questioned.
Today my sympathies are with the driver but we must not forget the families and friends of those who died and ask questions of those responsible for the safety of the system.

 

[snookertam]

I was disappointed in the CPS that they even launched a prosecution of the driver, let alone seven years later.

Quite how a high speed (for trams) ex-railway alignment, driven on sight, in tunnel, ending in a sudden 10-15mph curve, without any safety cues or lighting during darkness, managed to get past any meaningful risk assessment, always seemed unreal. Frankly I was surprised it took them so long before there was an accident there. Very similar to the Amtrak Cascades accident.

Was shocked at this myself. My (albeit partial) knowledge of train driving confirms how the drivers explanation of what he remembers happening can absolutely add up. There’s a reason why railways have overspeed sensors and perhaps why trams and perhaps even agencies in charge of the road network should consider them too. Human beings are very much fallible no matter how much training and familiarity they have with what they are doing.

 

[swj99]

I see there have been some vile comments on the AOL news report about this. I've reported some of the worst ones, but it might be useful if others do the same.

Croydon tram crash driver cleared of ‘not taking reasonable care’ of passengers

Alfred Dorris cleared of health and safety breach over fatal incident in which seven people died

www.aol.co.uk

 

[bramling]

I see there have been some vile comments on the AOL news report about this. I've reported some of the worst ones, but it might be useful if others do the same.

Croydon tram crash driver cleared of ‘not taking reasonable care’ of passengers

Alfred Dorris cleared of health and safety breach over fatal incident in which seven people died

www.aol.co.uk

Very depressing to read many of the comments on there. There’s a saying that goes along the lines that one of the troubles with the world is that intelligent people are full of doubts whilst stupid people are full of confidence, and many of those comments on there unfortunately prove this in spades. I genuinely don’t really understand what these people expect?

As far as I’m aware at no stage has there been any evidence come to light that the tram driver was doing anything reckless which might have contributed to the accident occurring (examples might be using a mobile phone, reading a book or whatever). By contrast it’s quite clear the design of that section of tramway contained a significant risk which no one had identified as needing mitigation. On top of that there have been questions raised about Tramlink‘s fatigue management.

I don’t think it’s too much to expect anyone to understand the fact that a human driving a tram first thing in the morning is likely to be susceptible to fatigue.

 

[dastocks]

I was disappointed in the CPS that they even launched a prosecution of the driver, let alone seven years later.

I believe it was the ORR who launched the current set of prosecutions, and the track and tram operators have already pleaded guilty to their respective roles in the accident. The fact that the jury decided in favour of the driver does not mean that, as a key participant, he should not have been prosecuted.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Very depressing to read many of the comments on there. There’s a saying that goes along the lines that one of the troubles with the world is that intelligent people are full of doubts whilst stupid people are full of confidence, and many of those comments on there unfortunately prove this in spades. I genuinely don’t really understand what these people expect?

As far as I’m aware at no stage has there been any evidence come to light that the tram driver was doing anything reckless which might have contributed to the accident occurring (examples might be using a mobile phone, reading a book or whatever). By contrast it’s quite clear the design of that section of tramway contained a significant risk which no one had identified as needing mitigation. On top of that there have been questions raised about Tramlink‘s fatigue management.

I don’t think it’s too much to expect anyone to understand the fact that a human driving a tram first thing in the morning is likely to be susceptible to fatigue.

Aside from the blatant racism, the comments make it abundantly clear that the majority of the public have zero knowledge of the human factors or skills involved in driving a tram or a train.
It’s a completely different set of skills to road vehicle driving and, as someone who both drives a road vehicle and trains, I can categorically confirm that high levels of concentration are much more prevalent in driving a vehicle on rails.
I’m personally glad of this verdict, there cannot be an acknowledgment of failings on the part of the companies involved whilst simultaneously trying to prosecute the person involved that was expected to work under those outdated procedures on an infrastructure that has subsequently been found to have been unfit for purpose

 

[vinnym70]

I suspect a lot of where we've got to now is just due process happening.

Presumably, first there was an inquest in coroners court, the result of which will have informed whether legal proceedings could/should happen.

After that, once there are multiple parties involved (victims, operating company, companies contracted for maintenance, ORR, the driver) it all gets very complex.

I would assume there are literally many thousands of hours of legal work undertaken before the possibility of a trial even becomes likely - and then many thousands of hours more once a trial is reality.

Anyone who's been involved in even an insignificant car accident will know everyone tries to blame everyone else (rightly or wrongly). Unfortunately, the only people who really benefit here are those in the legal profession

 

[Taunton]

I believe it was the ORR who launched the current set of prosecutions, and the track and tram operators have already pleaded guilty to their respective roles in the accident. The fact that the jury decided in favour of the driver does not mean that, as a key participant, he should not have been prosecuted.

I do agree that I was incorrect to say the CPS. Surprises me. Not only that, but I now read they decided years ago it was not prosecutable by them. Quite how some other government department can then launch a separate trial that ends up in the Old Bailey, especially as a prior inquest gave a verdict of Accidental Death, makes me think it is some form of Turf War between government departments.

 

[Thirteen]

TfL and FirstGroup are due to be sentenced next month, I assume they'll be given an unlimited fine.

 

[vinnym70]

I do agree that I was incorrect to say the CPS. Surprises me. Not only that, but I now read they decided years ago it was not prosecutable by them. Quite how some other government department can then launch a separate trial that ends up in the Old Bailey, especially as a prior inquest gave a verdict of Accidental Death, makes me think it is some form of Turf War between government departments.

Same as I wrote above. No-one wants to be blamed or (importantly) to foot the bill.
The significant issue here is that the propensity of blame likely falls on those who have weaker representation in court.
Not on those who actually are culpable (which in turn triggers more legal work in appeals)

 

[bramling]

Same as I wrote above. No-one wants to be blamed or (importantly) to foot the bill.
The significant issue here is that the propensity of blame likely falls on those who have weaker representation in court.
Not on those who actually are culpable (which in turn triggers more legal work in appeals)

It doesn't really help that this accident was essentially a blind-spot that applied to the entire tram "industry", in that it could probably just as easily have happened on another system - though the setup at Sandilands was a particularly extreme example. It does genuinely seem to be the case that no one envisaged this scenario. That certainly doesn't mean TFL and their contractor come out smelling of roses though. At the end of the day, though, the people on that tram entrusted themselves in the care of TFL and First Group, and it was their duty to ensure a safe method of working was in place.

 

[43066]

Driver has been found not guilty:

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

Great result.

Ridiculous this was pursued!

 

[vinnym70]

It doesn't really help that this accident was essentially a blind-spot that applied to the entire tram "industry", in that it could probably just as easily have happened on another system - though the setup at Sandilands was a particularly extreme example. It does genuinely seem to be the case that no one envisaged this scenario. That certainly doesn't mean TFL and their contractor come out smelling of roses though. At the end of the day, though, the people on that tram entrusted themselves in the care of TFL and First Group, and it was their duty to ensure a safe method of working was in place.

I'm all for due process when it serves to identify issues, fix them and ensure that processes are in place to stop them happening again.
I suspect that finding the driver not guilty then opens up further legal avenues - the most probable of which is why a vehicle can be travelling at such speed at that point knowing there was a tight radius curve.
If the driver isn't guilty, it moves on to the next party to apportion blame and rinse/repeat until those found legally culpable have to pay.
We could still be discussing this in another 7 years from now.

But, meanwhile, useful potential lessons learned aren't necessarily applied which is where I find fault with the whole extended legal process.

 

[edwin_m]

It doesn't really help that this accident was essentially a blind-spot that applied to the entire tram "industry", in that it could probably just as easily have happened on another system - though the setup at Sandilands was a particularly extreme example. It does genuinely seem to be the case that no one envisaged this scenario. That certainly doesn't mean TFL and their contractor come out smelling of roses though. At the end of the day, though, the people on that tram entrusted themselves in the care of TFL and First Group, and it was their duty to ensure a safe method of working was in place.

The almost identical situation at Oldham Werneth was identified as a hazard during the design process, before Sandilands, and a chevron sign added. So it can't be said to have applied across the industry.

 

[Taunton]

100 years ago on tramways it was sensibly identified by the Board of Trade (long-ago predecessor of ORR, but they must have the files) examiner that in Stockport the sudden descent from Reddish down Lancashire Hill into the town centre was a hazard, so there was a large official Stop board at the top, and they had some procedures to follow before going down. It was all in the regulations. Worked perfectly for the life of the tram system there. Nowadays it seems the examining inspector doesn't have the capability to identify that sort of risk, so a 12mph curve immediately after a high speed section in tunnel is, well ... up to you.

 

[Busaholic]

I suspect a lot of where we've got to now is just due process happening.

Presumably, first there was an inquest in coroners court, the result of which will have informed whether legal proceedings could/should happen.

The inquests took place over two months in 2021, and the jury declared the crash was an accident. This provoked a strong reaction from some relatives of the deceased, claiming the driver was a 'coward' for not attending, even though his mental state was known to be fragile, and, in any case, there was no presumption that he should attend.

 

[bramling]

The inquests took place over two months in 2021, and the jury declared the crash was an accident. This provoked a strong reaction from some relatives of the deceased, claiming the driver was a 'coward' for not attending, even though his mental state was known to be fragile, and, in any case, there was no presumption that he should attend.

To be very honest, I have little time for these relatives who are out for blood. There has never been any evidence nor even any grounded suggestion that the driver did anything other than make a mistake. There was zero mitigation to prevent a momentary lapse having serious consequences, despite various measures which could have been in place.

Frankly, we are seven years down the line now, and it’s time for some maturity to be shown. Plenty of people lose relatives in difficult circumstances without feeling the need to sniff for the blood of a scapegoat. For their part the media should draw a line under this now, seven years is long enough. As someone else said, it’s overshadowing the important issue which is to learn the safety lessons, and the only gain is the bank balances of the lawyers involved.

 

[43066]

To be very honest, I have little time for these relatives who are out for blood. There has never been any evidence nor even any grounded suggestion that the driver did anything other than make a mistake. There was zero mitigation to prevent a momentary lapse having serious consequences, despite various measures which could have been in place.

Frankly, we are seven years down the line now, and it’s time for some maturity to be shown. Plenty of people lose relatives in difficult circumstances without feeling the need to sniff for the blood of a scapegoat. For their part the media should draw a line under this now, seven years is long enough. As someone else said, it’s overshadowing the important issue which is to learn the safety lessons, and the only gain is the bank balances of the lawyers involved.

I completely agree - it’s OTT to a level where one starts to lose a little sympathy.

Of course people vilifying the driver is convenient for some as it lets TfL/Tramlink off the hook completely.

 

[Chris M]

TfL and FirstGroup are due to be sentenced next month, I assume they'll be given an unlimited fine.

(pedant alert) They will almost certainly be given a fine, and while the amount they could be fined is (I think) unlimited, the fine they actually receive will be a specific finite amount.

 

[Busaholic]

(pedant alert) They will almost certainly be given a fine, and while the amount they could be fined is (I think) unlimited, the fine they actually receive will be a specific finite amount.

Which means the passengers pay for the misdeeds of the management - until directors/senior management are sacked or even imprisoned (in appropriate circumstances) nothing will change. By the way, I'm in no way suggesting that anyone in this particular case should be jailed, but heads should have rolled, certainly.

 

[ainsworth74]

Which means the passengers pay for the misdeeds of the management - until directors/senior management are sacked or even imprisoned (in appropriate circumstances) nothing will change. By the way, I'm in no way suggesting that anyone in this particular case should be jailed, but heads should have rolled, certainly.

Open question but are the relevant directors still in post? Would seem unhelpful to sack directors who had nothing to do with the accident in question.

 

[pdeaves]

Open question but are the relevant directors still in post? Would seem unhelpful to sack directors who had nothing to do with the accident in question.

Companies House record (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03097532/officers) suggests that three of the six current directors were in place before 2016.

 

[AndrewE]

companies now to be sentenced:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66289085 says

Transport for London (TfL) and Tram Operations Limited (TOL) are to be sentenced in a three-day hearing, after accepting failings in their health and safety duties.
They have been prosecuted by the Office for Road and Rail.
The tram, carrying 69 passengers, was travelling at three times the speed limit when it toppled over on a sharp near the Sandilands stop.

Not much news in the article, really!

 

[matt_world2004]

£170 victim surcharge for killing. 7, seriously injuring 19 and injuring 43 others is taking the mick

 

[156421]

£170 victim surcharge for killing. 7, seriously injuring 19 and injuring 43 others is taking the mick

And where does the £14 million fine actually go to?

 

[ainsworth74]

£170 victim surcharge for killing. 7, seriously injuring 19 and injuring 43 others is taking the mick

It's a fixed amount (10% of the value of the fine with a minimum of £30 and a maximum of £170 for an offence prior to 28 June 2019) to help fund victim services. It isn't something to paid to the victims and the actual punishment is the £14 million fine that was levied. Seems slightly odd to be getting wound up about the surcharge and ignore the fine...

And where does the £14 million fine actually go to?

I believe it simply goes back to the Government for general spending on all the things the Government spends money on. But I'm open to correction on that.