Derailment near Grange Over Sands (22/03/24)

[Discuss223]

With hindsight, people can nearly always find something that would have prevented a particular accident. Whether it is proportionate to the risk, and whether it introduces other hazards, are much more difficult questions to answer.

That is true but the accident wasn't caused by a fault of the train, it was caused by a void in the track bed. https://www.modernrailways.com/article/pipe-damage-caused-grange-over-sands-derailment

The derailment of a pair of Northern Class 195 DMUs near Grange-over-Sands on 22 March 2024 was caused by the track collapsing into a void created by a damaged pipe.

 

[BrianW]

The question "Who pays?" concerned the repair of the unit. Was any contributory cause of the incident anything to do with NR?

Thank you. If it was my money, I wouldn't want to pay up to make good something caused by someone else, or contributed to by someone else's negligence. I appreciate that 'the only winners' may be thought to be the legal profession, but I don't see that the poor b....y passenger or taxpayer should pick up the tab, nor for that matter that the poor b....y infantry of foot soldiers on the ground doing their best with inadequate resources should pay with their jobs or reputation. I hope (and trust?) that ORR, or whoever is responsible for investigating and/or adjudicating such matters, will see that justice is done. Is there a sense that this was a foreseeable accident waiting to happen?

 

[PG]

I don't see that the poor b....y passenger or taxpayer should pick up the tab

I can't (ultimately) see any one else paying. Network Rail, a government company, own the infrastructure upon which the Northern (another government company) train was running.

 

[edwin_m]

That is true but the accident wasn't caused by a fault of the train, it was caused by a void in the track bed. https://www.modernrailways.com/article/pipe-damage-caused-grange-over-sands-derailment

Point taken. What I said applies equally to any consequence, but that makes it even more questionable if a backup to the backup is needed as some are suggesting.

 

[BrianW]

I can't (ultimately) see any one else paying. Network Rail, a government company, own the infrastructure upon which the Northern (another government company) train was running.

Although I can see that this expenditure may count as growth in GDP, I hope that our government, responsible to us for the effective use of limited funds, will see to it that such outcomes, which I argue were both foreseeable and could and should have been avoided, will be avoided 'going forward'. The 'Green Book' which guides (controls?) government decisions on investment is up for review at present. The use of Benefit-Cost Analysiis as a determinant has long been criticised; may we hope that longer-term benefits like lower maintenance costs, less disruption, etc may be better considered. The effects of inadequate attention to design and maintenance (eg Culham, Yarnton, Fisherton/ Salisbury, Carmont/ Stonehaven- and more!) let alone the increasing vulnerability of Victorian infrastructure to effects of global warming warrant increased, or redirected, attention and investment.

 

[RGM654]

OOPS! Apologies! I was getting mixed up between this one and the Talerddig one.

 

[millemille]

I can't (ultimately) see any one else paying. Network Rail, a government company, own the infrastructure upon which the Northern (another government company) train was running.

Apart from the fact that it isn't a Northern owned train, it's an Eversholt Rail Group owned train. Northern lease it and operate it, so if Eversholt are out of pocket as a result of the derailment then they must be compensated.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Doesn't that depend on what the contract between Northern and Eversholt says? Presumably Northern have continued to pay the leasing charges on the unit.

 

[millemille]

Doesn't that depend on what the contract between Northern and Eversholt says? Presumably Northern have continued to pay the leasing charges on the unit.

Not what was being discussed. The leasing charges have nothing to do with the cost of the repair of the vehicles. Someone has to pay for the repair, or the replacement, of Eversholt's asset. Northern and their insurers will be doing everything, on the basis that Northern are without blame in this, to find someone other than themselves to bear that cost.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Yes but the contract between Northern and Eversholt will presumably cover such eventualities as derailment damage.

 

[millemille]

Yes but the contract between Northern and Eversholt will presumably cover such eventualities as derailment damage.

You seem determined to not read what I've written, why?

 

[Rail Ranger]

Of course I've read what you've written. Leasing charges are high. They may cover derailment damage. We don't know what the contract between Northern and Eversholt says.

 

[millemille]

Of course I've read what you've written. Leasing charges are high. They may cover derailment damage. We don't know what the contract between Northern and Eversholt says.

You keep on talking about leasing charges. That's not what is being discussed here. It's the repair of the vehicles. Two completely separate and unrelated matters.

 

[driverd]

You keep on talking about leasing charges. That's not what is being discussed here. It's the repair of the vehicles. Two completely separate and unrelated matters.

Hardly unrelated if the leasing contract includes cover for accident damage.

On a more general note, the repair costs will likely be a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things - I'm not too sure why everyone seems so focused on it.

For instance, enhanced drainage inspection at a national level would dwarf the cost of repairing a damaged unit.

 

[43096]

Of course I've read what you've written. Leasing charges are high. They may cover derailment damage. We don't know what the contract between Northern and Eversholt says.

Hardly unrelated if the leasing contract includes cover for accident damage.

What sort of cover are you thinking of? Financial liability lies with the insurers and how that is recovered between organisations. If you are talking about vehicle replacement temporarily, we can pretty certain that isn't in the contract with Eversholt. Why? Because to cover that needs vehicles that are operationally comparable, which would have to be a diesel type already in Northern's fleet - which Eversholt don't have any spare units of. Such cover can be included, but can only be where the lessor has suitable vehicles i.e. where there is a regular churn of standard vehicles on leases. For that you're really looking at large numbers of standard types, which the UK doesn't have - you're looking at the big European leasing operations like Akiem, Beacon, ELL and Railpool which could offer that with their large fleets of standard TRAXX and Vectron locos.

 

[driverd]

What sort of cover are you thinking of? Financial liability lies with the insurers and how that is recovered between organisations.

I was just thinking more in terms of if insurance lies with the owner and is bundled in the lease package, or if northern would be responsible. I've honestly no idea on the contractual details here or how it's worded.

Personally I was just making the point that the lease agreement could be relevant in terms of which party (or which parties insurance) ends up footing the bill.

 

[JordR]

It appears that Northern are obliged to repair the unit, it's their name on the tender to do so not Eversholt's.

 

[DaveyJones]

It appears that Northern are obliged to repair the unit, it's their name on the tender to do so not Eversholt's.

Which makes sense. If I damaged a leased car, I would expect to pay to repair it

 

[Rail Ranger]

Except that Northern didn't damage the unit, Network Rail did (both of course owned by the Government).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except that Northern didn't damage the unit, Network Rail did (both of course owned by the Government).

That's only analogous to the car - if someone else crashed into my lease car, I'd be claiming on their insurance policy to have it fixed and managing the process. Thus Northern will arrange the repair but presumably claim from Network Rail for the cost.

That the cost appears to be a third of the cost of a new unit (ish) shows the damage must be severe!

 

[stuving]

I have a suspicion this is not the first time a train has been damaged by infrastructure failure! So you'd expect, at the least, a lot of precedents and established practices in this area. But in fact there are more specific legal arrangements too.

You may find this High Court judgement helpful, even if it's quite old (from 2005, the derailment was at Welham Curve in 2000). It's on vlex, so paid for, but you should see the first page or two which is enough to get the idea. There may have been some changes since then, bit I'd expect the current situation to be very similar.

To summarise, the RoSCo (HSBC) and the TOC (GNER) had a lease that said the TOC was responsible for any damage. The TOC had a number of agreements with NR, including for track access and also the CAHA. This is the Claims Allocation Handling Agreement, which was part of the privatisation scheme and allocates liability to pay for damage suffered by outsiders. It was meant to prevent legal haggling delaying compensation in such cases. RoSCos were not made parties to CAHA, they are "third parties" under it. A RoSCo may not even have any contract or agreement with NR.

The lease is a contract between TOC and RoSCo, it can only allocate liability between them - it can't name a third party. It's very rare for a RoSCo to cause damage to a train once it's in the hands of the TOC, so logically the TOC is liable for all damage. Operating the train involves using NR's infrastructure, under the terms of the TAA. So if that causes damage to the train, the TOC has a claim against NR. In practice, each party has an insurer (or several) who will largely act on their behalf and compensate them for some unrecovered losses.

The CAHA affects such claims between bits of "the railway", and this from the judgement relates:

6. CAHA made arrangements for a third party claimant to deal with a "Lead Party" on behalf of all "potentially liable industry partners" (i.e. parties to CAHA) under a contractual ADR system. Also included in CAHA were limitation provisions. Clause 16 established a cap of £5 million on the aggregate net sum payable for property damage by any parties to CAHA who were liable for the relevant loss.

 

[RichardAsh1981]

The sands have been on the move in Morecome Bay, showing the level of challenge these areas pose.
Photo (taken 10th August last year) of the "Collins Weir", built between 1847 and 1849, buried by sand but now exposed again. The train in the background is on Leven Viaduct.

Log in to Facebook

Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Youtube video of walking along the weir in May 2024:

sand to level with the top on one side and scoured out on the other.
Another video from the same author, March 2025:

this is an aerial shot which starts along the railway crossing and then follows the weir from 2:48 onwards.

 

[mpthomson]

The sands have been on the move in Morecome Bay, showing the level of challenge these areas pose.
Photo (taken 10th August last year) of the "Collins Weir", built between 1847 and 1849, buried by sand but now exposed again. The train in the background is on Leven Viaduct.

Log in to Facebook

Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Youtube video of walking along the weir in May 2024:

sand to level with the top on one side and scoured out on the other.
Another video from the same author, March 2025:

this is an aerial shot which starts along the railway crossing and then follows the weir from 2:48 onwards.

They're always on the move, the Kent Channel changes position in the estuary fairly regulary near Arnside