Is the UK 'overdue' a serious rail accident?

[HSTEd]

In safety case industries, nuclear being another example, we are always waiting for the next accident.

We hope it doesn't happen, but we know eventually it will.

 

[Horizon22]

They do make "observations" which are bad practices noted in passing but not directly causal to the accident. Safety-critical communications is one area where air beats rail hands down, see also Roger Ford on the subject.

Well as someone who often works with safety-critical comms, I've got no argument with you there. I've personally experienced many shocking examples from colleagues in positions with more responsibility than me in my career.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I can't find a link online, but I always remember one of the daily rags were atrocious, a massive headline read "Freight Train was 40 (something) Early" as in to imply it was the freight train's fault for the seriousness of the accident,(had it been on time, it may not have hit the wreckage) it may have been The Sun but can't remember 100%.

Might actually have been the Daily Telegraph...

Selby freight train was 20 minutes early

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[edwin_m]

In safety case industries, nuclear being another example, we are always waiting for the next accident.

We hope it doesn't happen, but we know eventually it will.

We actually should be anticipating the next accident and looking at ways to prevent it.

 

[HSTEd]

We actually should be anticipating the next accident and looking at ways to prevent it.

It surprisingly difficult to do that though, as we often cant see failure modes until they happen.

 

[Lloyds siding]

The improvements in infrastructure must have helped the record.
The (deliberately) neglected maintenance of track under Railtrack was appalling.
In the 1990s I became scared to commute into work because the track on our local line appeared to me to be in a dangerous state. I walked along the platform at my local station making notes of the defects that I could see from several feet away: sleepers so rotten that the chairs were not held in place, whilst in the sounder sleepers almost every chair had one or more screws that were obviously loose (or missing), about 1 in 3 rail clips or spring keys were missing, half the fishplates had obvious loose bolts, and could be seen moving as trains passed over, one was broken. On the journey to work there was one section of track where the suspension suddenly 'topped out', presumably caused by a significant depression in the track, followed by the rebound as the spring loaded up again (this was at about 70 mph).
I was so concerned that I phoned the HSE and got put through to a member of the Railway Inspectorate. I outlined my concerns and my simple track inspection, to which the response was "Did I think myself qualified to say that the track was not in a safe condition?" to which I replied that I wasn't an engineer, but had a science and technical background and therefore understood that rail track is overengineered, with a significant degree of redundancy, but given numerous defects in every component holding the track together I didn't think it would be easy to say that it was safe, and suggested he went to see it for himself. After this exchange I decided to commute by car.

 

[LAX54]

**But** early running trains do have a safety consequence, in being (in theory) more likely to end up approaching a Red signal, or approaching a track patrol that may not be expecting it (for example)

(Though I agree implying early runnimg was somehow a cause of the severity of the Heck accident is disingenuous at best)

Many track patrols are now done under a Line Blockage, so there is no danger of being caught out, I do admit not all areas do this yet, but the is a programme to rid the railway of all Red Zone working, but that is not a 5 min job.

 

[najaB]

But was that really good luck?

Yes. While getting into the situation where you lost control wasn't down to luck, once you lost control it was down to pure chance what the outcome was. Was it the best possible outcome? No. Was it the worst possible outcome? No. It lay somewhere between the two extremes - where it lay was down to luck.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Without diving into the full nature of the conversation, some anecdotal evidence:

Around 2016/17 I remember worsening track conditions, and increased TSRs, and it seemed to be related to NR work practice where some infrastructure teams weren’t allowed to use sub-contractors so their ‘yield’ was less and effectively they weren’t getting as much done.

I reported one particular bad spot and it became TSRd straight away (a lot of people wouldn’t report them because they’d see it as hassle, a shame), but there was a lot of it.

Luckily, it never ended in a disaster but given how rubbish infrastructure spend and the NR budget was at the time it seemed just hours away at any one time for an accident to happen as a result of a piece of bad track or points (a la Potters Bar).

Let’s hope money keeps flowing in such that the railway is always in prime condition and safe.

 

[O L Leigh]

Yes. While getting into the situation where you lost control wasn't down to luck, once you lost control it was down to pure chance what the outcome was. Was it the best possible outcome? No. Was it the worst possible outcome? No. It lay somewhere between the two extremes - where it lay was down to luck.

As I said before, I don't particularly wish to turn this into a discussion on the nature and psychology of luck. But I would prefer to call it circumstance. Once you're off the road you're really in the hands of physics, not luck.

 

[Speed43125]

As I said before, I don't particularly wish to turn this into a discussion on the nature and psychology of luck. But I would prefer to call it circumstance. Once you're off the road you're really in the hands of physics, not luck.

I suppose one could argue the exact positioning of ballast, old rails, drainage channels etc varies by location and time for no particular reason, making it luck?
I would tend to agree though 'circumstance' is a better word though.

 

[O L Leigh]

My issue with "luck" is that it infers some form of guiding hand that can be influenced to be either "good" or "bad". To me that's just hokum, because the outcome of any given event is unpredictable and influenced by, in this case, physics. Once you're off the road you bounce where physics dictates you will bounce and you'll either survive it or you'll be squashed flat by an oncoming train or some other immovable object like a bridge. I can see why people like to believe in luck because it helps us to make sense of the world, something that we're hard-wired to do, but I would be hard-pressed to say that the outcomes of any of the incidents mentioned up-thread were the result of luck. Accidents are unpredictable in their nature, and to say that one accident had a "lucky" outcome when another did not is just a shorthand way of saying it could have been worse without acknowledging that it could also have been better.

 

[snookertam]

Im not sure I’d use the term ‘overdue’ but I understand why the OP has used it. There’s more than a few incidents where we’ve got away with it, the Chiltern/Met incident being one.

There was a derailment at Inverkeilor near Montrose around 2012 which sent an XC off the road fouling the opposite line, while a southbound train was a few miles away at Montrose. In autumn 2015 I believe a wrong side signalling failure caused by leaf fall contamination nearly resulted in a head on collision on the Paisley Canal line. Both trains were stopped by the signaller sending out a GSMR emergency call, and averted it.

 

[edwin_m]

Many track patrols are now done under a Line Blockage, so there is no danger of being caught out, I do admit not all areas do this yet, but the is a programme to rid the railway of all Red Zone working, but that is not a 5 min job.

Better equipment on the measuring trains also reduces the need for track patrols, and many junctions now have lighting so the pointwork can be inspected under a night time line blockage. However as far as I'm aware patrols were traditionally done with the line open, without trying to avoid the scheduled times of trains on that line. The patroller had to be alert enough to get clear of an approaching train while also examining the track - not something I would like to have done! They were also alone, although there's an argument to say that two people distract each other so are at more risk than one. The one mitigation was that they would always face approaching trains, and any bi-directional running would be locked out by a special switch known as a PLOD.

 

[najaB]

My issue with "luck" is that it infers some form of guiding hand that can be influenced to be either "good" or "bad".

That's your inference. As defined, the word has no such connotation:

luck: success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions

 

[PupCuff]

Lots of aspects of the "good safety culture" you mention are very much in place in the rail industry.

You aren't wrong, but I suppose the point I'd make is that while your (or, indeed, any given) TOC/FOC/IM/whatever may have an industry leading safety culture, if even one part of the industry doesn't have that same positive attitude towards safety culture (and there's definitely more than one part of the industry that does not) then that's all it takes for everything to line up and the risk to be realised. There's also a colossal difference between something being 'in place' and it being effective.

There's no wrong or right way to maintain an effective safety culture but it's effectiveness at the end of the day can be seen from its outputs and if you're seeing few staff speak up about safety issues, or not correctly following rules, or the actions coming out of incident investigations are poor then that's indicative that things really ought to be a bit better.

 

[O L Leigh]

That's your inference. As defined, the word has no such connotation:

Then why do people cross their fingers, carry lucky charms, wear a particular pair of lucky pants/socks or have lucky routines they follow, etc, when they're hoping for a certain outcome? There is definitely more than just a whiff of trying to influence the outcome by invoking good luck in all of these.

"Chance" is a far better word and much closer to my own preference of "circumstance", as it correctly identifies that outcomes are random and/or unpredictable due to being controlled by factors outside one's own control.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I can't find a link online, but I always remember one of the daily rags were atrocious, a massive headline read "Freight Train was 40 (something) Early" as in to imply it was the freight train's fault for the seriousness of the accident ,(had it been on time, it may not have hit the wreckage) it may have been The Sun but can't remember 100%.

I recall a similar comment after Purley, where one of the trains was running late. I don't think they understand that other trains don't just blithely continue on their allotted courses if another train is running out of course.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Generally speaking rule number one of protection should always be *never* use the timetable as a means of staying safe.

Whilst there’s no doubt no p-way in the world that’s never done “there won’t be a train for a few minutes, this is our moment”, anyone who knows what they’re doing will still treat things as if a train *could* appear at any moment even if they’re sure in reality it won’t.

Staplehurst (1865) is a well known example. The PW crew had mistaken the date and thus were unprepared for a boat train (whose timing was dependent on the tide and thus varied from one day to the next) which arrived when they were in the middle of replacing a rail. There were ten fatalities in the resulting derailment. One of the passengers was Charles Dickens, who never fully recovered and died five years later, to the day.

 

[LAX54]

Then there are 'Contractors' who work on the Railway, some are good, some are...........

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The problem with "luck" when talking about things going seriously wrong somewhere, is that once you invoke luck or chance you're effectively washing hands of control and responsibility. Yes, a number of unfortunate coincidences aligned at Heck, but there were still valuable lessons to be learned.

On the little semantic aside, the concept of luck being good or bad is relatively recent, linguistically speaking. In German, all luck is good luck and you either have it or you don't!

 

[alxndr]

I don't necessarily think we're "overdue" but I really do think that the risk of complacency is heightened because of the length of time since the last serious accident. There have been near misses, which should be seen as a warning, but I worry it's not enough, and not enough fuss is made over them. The RAIB investigates and reports, but sometimes it appears that the interest ends there.

I'd like to see reading of investigation reports become mandatory for everyone involved in a related role. If it's trackworkers in a near miss, make everyone from the newest apprentice to the manager who's done 40 years service read them. Same for if poor maintenance was a contributing factor. Highlight the consequences of making mistakes from the very beginning of someone's career and throughout.

Reminders of what can happen when something goes wrong really does sharpen the mind.

Many track patrols are now done under a Line Blockage, so there is no danger of being caught out, I do admit not all areas do this yet, but the is a programme to rid the railway of all Red Zone working, but that is not a 5 min job.

Just be careful of not falling into the trap of thinking a line blockage is foolproof. I dislike the current trend for completely demonising red zone and thinking that line blockages are the answer to all our problems—they are not. Multiple near misses have occurred due to line blockage irregularities, they add to signaller workload (increasing risk), and rely on local knowledge which can be lacking. They also take time to set up, and it's an undeniable fact that people cut corners to save time.

Then there are 'Contractors' who work on the Railway, some are good, some are...........

The same goes for NR staff. Everyone doing the same job is at risk of making the same mistakes and can learn from each other, regardless of what name is printed on the back of a jacket.

I heard a complaint that this weeks Safety Digest was titled something along the lines of "Near miss with trackworkers" rather than specifying they were (sub)-contracted trackworkers. That attitude doesn't help encourage learning.

 

[bramling]

The problem with "luck" when talking about things going seriously wrong somewhere, is that once you invoke luck or chance you're effectively washing hands of control and responsibility. Yes, a number of unfortunate coincidences aligned at Heck, but there were still valuable lessons to be learned.

On the little semantic aside, the concept of luck being good or bad is relatively recent, linguistically speaking. In German, all luck is good luck and you either have it or you don't!

This is a all a bit of an argument over semantics.

The way I see it is that *if* we’re choosing to make a judgement on rail safety based on the number of accidents causing injuries or fatalities to passengers, which tends to be a frequently used yardstick for measuring success in safety performance, yes the industry has done well.

However if we look back through the last 20 years there have been a number of incidents where had things panned out differently they could have been just as disastrous as ones where fatalities have occurred. Whether it’s luck, circumstance, good fortune or whatever, one vehicle incursion resulted in a head-on collision, multiple fatalities and many injuries, whilst another vehicle incursion caused little more than a bit of disruption, a heavy repair bill for a 323, and a few shaken up but ultimately unharmed people.

There’s certainly been incidents in the last 20 years which could very easily have gone the wrong way, and on the basis that we’re still seeing these incidents with reasonable frequency then the original premise of the thread is sound, namely that at some point one of these incidents is going to happen and the outcome isn’t going to be so good.

In that sense how we all view luck is probably a subject for a philosophy paper, but clearly there’s some element of randomness involved in determining the severity of consequences from an incident. It *is* clearly random as there’s no correlation between a car dropping onto a line and what aggravating factors may then happen - for example the presence of the points at Heck (or for that matter Ufton) were completely irrelevant to the *cause*, but their presence had a massive relevance to the *effect*, turning a comparatively minor incident into a major disaster.

From an industry point of view the North Rode derailment still had a pretty thorough investigation so one could say that it was treated by the industry just as seriously as Heck, but if we judge safety based on fatalities and injuries then how many people would even remember North Rode?

 

[LAX54]

Just be careful of not falling into the trap of thinking a line blockage is foolproof. I dislike the current trend for completely demonising red zone and thinking that line blockages are the answer to all our problems—they are not. Multiple near misses have occurred due to line blockage irregularities, they add to signaller workload (increasing risk), and rely on local knowledge which can be lacking. They also take time to set up, and it's an undeniable fact that people cut corners to save time.



The same goes for NR staff. Everyone doing the same job is at risk of making the same mistakes and can learn from each other, regardless of what name is printed on the back of a jacket.

I heard a complaint that this weeks Safety Digest was titled something along the lines of "Near miss with trackworkers" rather than specifying they were (sub)-contracted trackworkers. That attitude doesn't help encourage learning.

We have had over the years, a fair share of irregularities, it is so easy to do, a piece of paper protects no one in reality, an S&T tech once told me, that as far as he was concerned, and some did not agree, that the safest way was a lookout standing in the 4 foot, he would be wide awake checking and double checking, as he did not wish to be run over ! but that is well frowned on now. Night time line blocks, we have had Contractors come from North of Doncaster sometimes 190+ miles before now

 

[Lucan]

In safety case industries, nuclear being another example, we are always waiting for the next accident.
We hope it doesn't happen, but we know eventually it will.

I have worked in the UK nuclear power industry, on the safety case side, and that was certainly not our attitude. We studied possible accident scenarios and designed measures to prevent them. Of course you can include in "accident" someone in the kitchen staff cutting their finger on a knife if you like. But believe me, there was an occasion when the entire site staff not on shift were called into the canteen for a stern lecture on safety because someone in the kitchen cut their finger.

I have worked in both railways and nuclear, and the UK nuclear industry is far more safety conscious than the UK railway industry (I cannot speak for ones abroad), which in turn is orders of magnitude above most other industries - I have experienced those too.

 

[O L Leigh]

From an industry point of view the North Rode derailment still had a pretty thorough investigation so one could say that it was treated by the industry just as seriously as Heck, but if we judge safety based on fatalities and injuries then how many people would even remember North Rode?

I would say that, from an industry point of view, safety is not judged on the basis of fatalities and injuries. That the North Rode and Great Heck incursions both received the same level of industry scrutiny and investigation underlines this point. Both were serious incidents even though the outcomes were different. That one incident is remembered and another forgotten is hardly the point, as long as such lessons as can be learned from these incidents are absorbed.

I expect that I may be alone in this view (as in so many others), but I think that the internalisation of focus within the industry in terms of the investigation into an incident and extracting the lessons from it is preferable to the brouhaha and hullaballoo that inevitably results when the mainstream media comes tramping through in their hobnail boots.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

There was a derailment at Inverkeilor near Montrose around 2012 which sent an XC off the road fouling the opposite line, while a southbound train was a few miles away at Montrose.

It was deliberate sabotage, not an accident, and the rule book covers what to do in detail.

The results of the derailment were potentially serious but there's relatively little we can do to stop acts of sabotage/vandalism, if someone wants to get onto the track and wants to derail a train, they will find a way to do so.

 

[HSTEd]

I have worked in the UK nuclear power industry, on the safety case side, and that was certainly not our attitude. We studied possible accident scenarios and designed measures to prevent them.

Yes, people work daily to try and anticipate the accidents and engineer them away.
But a lot of people in the nuclear industry, especially in academia, go to bed half-fearing that they will wake up to news footage of a reactor accident in progress.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The (deliberately) neglected maintenance of track under Railtrack was appalling.

Regular posters know I'm no fan of privatisation, but I really do think this is unfair.

I don't think Railtrack deliberately intended to neglect track maintenance, or even that deliberately decided to cut corners by doing the bare minimum. The issue was fragmentation. Railtrack knew they had to maintain their infrastructure, and they wanted to maintain their infrastructure. The issue was they didn't know what infrastructure they had, they didn't know what needed maintaining and they didn't know what parts of their infrastructure were life-expired and needed fixing right away.

That fragmentation caused Ladbroke Grove- drivers had been complaining about the siting of that signal, but because they were complaining to their TOC it never got filtered through to Railtrack. Then add in a lack of national training standards, with each TOC largely left to do their own thing, and you end up with a woefully inexperienced driver making the exact mistake the experienced hands had been warning about for ages. It also caused Hatfield and Potters Bar.

The cack-handed and rushed privatisation caused the run of serious accidents in the late 90s, definitely. The people who knew what they were doing had left the industry, and the ones who remained were scattered to the four winds. But I don't think any of it was deliberate, it was just a rushed mess left by a Government who knew they were on borrowed time and shoved it all through before they lost their wafer-thin majority.

I (arbitrarily) only counted accidents with more than three fatalities and 25 injuries as 'major'.

But drawing that distinction shows how there's even a huge dollop of luck historically. Look at Watford in 1995. "Only" one person died, but the train that did the SPAD and was fouling the up fast was hit by a slower-moving empty coaching stock train slowing down for the same the junction, and not by an express train doing 110mph. And similarly with Winsford, again where the accident involved an empty coaching stock move; if that pacer had had passengers on board, it doesn't bear thinking about.

To answer the original question, I think we have been lucky but- crucially- you make your own luck. As with footballers, it's amazing how the more you practice the luckier you become. I think the railway industry should be pleased with how it has responded to the tribulations of the Railtrack era, and I think credit where credit is due- it can't all be put down to luck. Inevitably the wrong set of circumstances will conspire at the wrong place at the wrong time again in the future, but the more failsafes you have the more ducks have to line up in a row.