Level crossing accident on Arun Valley Line 17/02/18

[MarkyT]

The train just off the crossing was approaching in the opposite direction when the incident occured, the train directly involved stopped some way down the line. Given the position of both I'd say they're both pretty close to where each other was when the incident occured.

So an up train was the initial impact. Then the down one visible in the press photo approached, perhaps also hitting the wreckage of the road vehicle. Very nasty.

Two trans had passed over in opposite directions shortly before the incident, given how close the last one before and train involved with the collision were I wouldn't be surprised if the barriers hadn't raised between them, indeed all three, and if the accident hadn't happened, all four. It's only a 3 minute headway and trains were coming in quick succession in either direction.

For trains arriving close together at a double line AHBC, barriers remain closed and lights lit if a 'road open time' of 10 seconds or more cannot be guaranteed between them. That means trains actually 'strike-in' at least 10 seconds earlier than the minimum warning time distance and the control system normally waits 10 seconds before first illuminating the yellow crossing signal. 'Strike-in' positions are fixed track circuit boundaries and treadle positions used to trigger the crossing controls at distances calculated using the maximum permitted approach speed.

 

[theageofthetra]

As soon as I saw a quote saying couple of trains had passed closely beforehand this was my first thought.

Feel for the driver hopefully he is receiving the support and care s/he needs.

If any good is to come out of this horrible incident is that the nationwide media coverage will hammer home the consequences of ignoring barriers.

Is there something in the placement of the GSM-R equipment on the Electrostars that make them particularly susceptible to this? I ask as we had an HST on New Year’s Eve hit a large tree that caused significant damage to the driving cab (struck the back of the desk and tilted it 45 degrees towards the driver) - with several on train systems damaged as a result but the Driver was able to hit the Red Button and initiate a REC (Emergency Call) even if they then weren’t able to speak to the signalman.

Happened too in the derailment near Ashford a couple of years ago. GSMR failing to work correctly when most needed.

If I understand it some bright spark signed it off without having ever being tested by the manufacturer in a sudden deceleration.

Given the number of locations on the rail network where there is no mobile coverage quick comms to /from a signaller can be vital in preventing a serious incident.

 

[SPADTrap]

Forgive me for being a little rusty on these matters, but doesn't an AHBC fail in the lowered position? Locally monitored types fail raised I know but then it's the train drivers responsibility to observe the crossing before crossing at caution and there are white and red lights with advance warning boards on approach to help. For an AHBC there are none of these. Looking at the press photo the rear of the down train involved is visible just past the crossing so it's possible it didn't 'strike out' fully, especially likely if treadles and track circuit cables were damaged in the incident.

It won't 'fail' but they do 'time out' and raise after a while, the lights stay flashing though. See the thread about the car colliding with the failed freight train across an AHB. They're designed to.

 

[Llanigraham]

Thanks, that's surprising. I would have imagined that all road/rail LCs would have CCTV (even if not actively monitored at AHB crossings).

Thanks, I'm aware of the general fail-safe principle, but crossings are often a little more nuanced as to what exactly is the failsafe condition, as with the locally monitored half barrier types which is definitely designed to fail with the barriers open to road traffic, but clearly with the rail drivers' indications showing stop.

Sorry, but if the crossing is half barriered then it is NOT locally monitored, and there are NO signal indications for the train driver.

 

[Spartacus]

So an up train was the initial impact. Then the down one visible in the press photo approached, perhaps also hitting the wreckage of the road vehicle. Very nasty.

It was a down train involved, 2B52 0832 Horsham - Bognor, the one sat at the crossing is 1C13 0713 Southampton - Horsham. As far as I know 1C13 made no contact with the car, which was thrown into the down cess (and lineside equipment) by the impact with 2B52.

 

[RichardKing]

No, current plan is to ue the one in all the pictures next to the crossing to drag the other back towards Horsham.

Ah, right. Thanks for confirming.

 

[Ambient Sheep]

Indeed, just saw that myself. As bad as the cretin complaining about the delay.

To be fair the "cretin"'s complaint seems to be more about the surprisingly circuitous route she's now been required to take in order to get just a few stops up the line, rather than the accident itself, but I agree that she's been extremely insensitive about the whole thing. A simple rephrasing expressing condolences to all concerned before then complaining about the workaround arrangements might have worked wonders.

I actually think the journalist's behaviour is arguably worse, especially given the age of those involved.

Hmmm, that makes it sound as if I might be defending the complainant's text. I'm really not.

 

[HowardGWR]

Most unfortunately for SN, today is also the day there is a possession somewhere between Littlehampton and Brighton, so that if you are travelling from, say, Portsmouth, to Gatwick, then your avoidance route is subject to buses as well as the Pulborough route.

 

[theageofthetra]

Sorry, but if the crossing is half barriered then it is NOT locally monitored, and there are NO signal indications for the train driver.

And if an axle counter area any wreckage would not cause a track circuit issue either.

 

[LowLevel]

Is there something in the placement of the GSM-R equipment on the Electrostars that make them particularly susceptible to this? I ask as we had an HST on New Year’s Eve hit a large tree that caused significant damage to the driving cab (struck the back of the desk and tilted it 45 degrees towards the driver) - with several on train systems damaged as a result but the Driver was able to hit the Red Button and initiate a REC (Emergency Call) even if they then weren’t able to speak to the signalman.

I think much depends on the circumstances really. A class 66 on a liner crashed into a tree on the 27th December last year somewhere around Leamington Spa/Banbury which killed it's GSMR and the driver had to make an emergency call from a signal post telephone. Happily it was before passenger services had resumed.

I've always thought class 153s are particularly vulnerable to this issue as they only have one set of equipment to service both interfaces so if it's broken it's properly broken.

I also cannot believe there are still trains about without forward facing CCTV.

 

[jon0844]

And even worse, it appears that a journalist is sniffing round the friend of the dead boy to try to get more details out of her, despite the fact that she's presumably 15 too.

She's from the Daily Mail.

 

[sarahj]

So the normal sequence of this crossing would be. Up line. Stopper Bog-Hrh, then Fast Sou - Hrh. (attach at HRH to form service to London). The fact that the Sou is there means the Bog-Hrh will have only passed a few mins before, esp if not stopping at Christ Hospital and maybe running a couple mins late. Meanwhile on the down you have have the London to PMH/Sou, just after detaching at Hrh, followed by the stopping part, which is the one which hit. So, sitting at the crossing, you could have, all within a short while, Up, down, then up, then down. The folks sitting there assume trains have passed after 1 and 2, crossing not open, oh sod it......And it's a local crossing. Local crossings for Local people are one of the worse, as they think they know.
Just a thought tho', could be some other reason.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

https://twitter.com/katejackson84/status/964801637654163456
This is the person. All I can say is I hope Southern throw her delay repay form in the bin.

Same here, what she doesn't realise that one day it could be one of her siblings, her parents or even herself that could be involved in a similar incident. I hate to say it but this is one example of Generation Snowflake.

Getting back on topic, I do know the area well and I do believe that the Compass bus service 74 will also be affected as that too passes by the crossing.

 

[theageofthetra]

I think much depends on the circumstances really. A class 66 on a liner crashed into a tree on the 27th December last year somewhere around Leamington Spa/Banbury which killed it's GSMR and the driver had to make an emergency call from a signal post telephone. Happily it was before passenger services had resumed.

I've always thought class 153s are particularly vulnerable to this issue as they only have one set of equipment to service both interfaces so if it's broken it's properly broken.

I also cannot believe there are still trains about without forward facing CCTV.

There are loads!

Having not used CSR were there similar issues with it failing in an impact situation?

 

[Spartacus]

sarahj's said what I was thinking, I might even say that depending on the direction they were crossing, the car driver might have been able to see 1C12 some distance away and thought 'there's plenty of time', not seeing 2B52 much closer coming from Christ's Hospital. That's only a guess based on what we've seen so far though, I'm sure drivers reports will provide a good view of what happened.

Although I doubt it's too relevant in this case, it's right that local, less used crossings do tend to be quite bad in one respect, when the local has a little knowledge and thinks they know it all, they're then caught often out by late runners, ECS movements, freights and specials, as well as timetable changes. They know the public timetable so therefore think they know when all the trains are coming.

 

[MarkyT]

Sorry, but if the crossing is half barriered then it is NOT locally monitored, and there are NO signal indications for the train driver.

I do understand this example is a standard AHBC without local monitoring. Sorry if I didn't make that clear, but I was replying to an earlier post that claimed the barriers might be expected to rise after a time automatically even if some of the control equipment had failed or been destroyed. I replied that was not likely to be the case and compared this to the locally monitored type which IS definitely designed to fail with barriers up.

 

[sarahj]

Although I doubt it's too relevant in this case, it's right that local, less used crossings do tend to be quite bad in one respect, when the local has a little knowledge and thinks they know it all, they're then caught often out by late runners, ECS movements, freights and specials, as well as timetable changes. They know the public timetable so therefore think they know when all the trains are coming.

Just put me in mind of that crossing crash a year or so back. Local operated crossing, user never phoned up the box as the next train not due for 30 mins, crossed, hit by an engineering train.

You know what they say about assumption....It's the mother of all F@*K ups

 

[Llanigraham]

I do understand this example is a standard AHBC without local monitoring. Sorry if I didn't make that clear, but I was replying to an earlier post that claimed the barriers might be expected to rise after a time automatically even if some of the control equipment had failed or been destroyed. I replied that was not likely to be the case and compared this to the locally monitored type which IS definitely designed to fail with barriers up.

At the crossing I controlled (right outsde the Box) the barriers either failed DOWN, or if failed when up, they would gradually fall, and then refuse to raise again, until put on "local control", ie a MOM coming out and pumping them himself. And that took so long we just left them down and people had to find another route, which luckily was only half a mile away.

 

[MarkyT]

It won't 'fail' but they do 'time out' and raise after a while, the lights stay flashing though. See the thread about the car colliding with the failed freight train across an AHB. They're designed to.

Thanks for that clarification. I haven't worked on crossing circuits for over two decades but that's now ringing some bells... If I recall its a very long timer that is sufficient for signallers to put in place alternative arrangements for warning approaching trains after the crossing failure alarm is received, which occurs if the crossing remains closed for longer than 180s. I do remember that with the half barrier arrangement the DoT was very concerned about barriers being down for extended periods, even in failures, as it can encourage weaving around them.

 

[Llanigraham]

Just put me in mind of that crossing crash a year or so back. Local operated crossing, user never phoned up the box as the next train not due for 30 mins, crossed, hit by an engineering train.

You know what they say about assumption....It's the mother of all F@*K ups

Ah yes, the old lady on her way to Chapel, on the Cambrian Coast!

 

[45669]

Would the media be taking this much interest if this unfortunate incident had taken place at a road junction and the victims' car had been hit by another car?

 

[Robertj21a]

Would the media be taking this much interest if this unfortunate incident had taken place at a road junction and the victims' car had been hit by another car?

No, why should they, it would be far more common. This is quite unusual.

 

[45669]

No, why should they, it would be far more common. This is quite unusual.

My point exactly. But as soon as there's a train involved...

 

[Ambient Sheep]

She's from the Daily Mail.

What a surprise. I suspected as much -- it's a well-known tactic for them -- but didn't have the inclination to go digging myself. Thanks.

 

[1e10]

My point exactly. As soon as there's a train involved...

By that same logic the media should ignore any airline or sea incidents..

 

[Darandio]

To be fair the "cretin"'s complaint seems to be more about the surprisingly circuitous route she's now been required to take in order to get just a few stops up the line, rather than the accident itself, but I agree that she's been extremely insensitive about the whole thing. A simple rephrasing expressing condolences to all concerned before then complaining about the workaround arrangements might have worked wonders.

She is now the feature of an 'article' on the Mirror now anyway, maybe that is what she wanted.

 

[45669]

By that same logic the media should ignore any airline or sea incidents..

Don't be silly! We're not discussing aeroplanes or boats. Fortunately, incidents between motor cars and aeroplanes or boats really are unusual. Sadly, incidents between trains and cars or people at level crossings crop up in RAIB reports rather more often.

 

[dgl]

The barriers at Crewkerne AHB do seem to go down slightly ~10cm and then raise back up again, I'm guessing this is part of the emergency fail safe that if the circuitry doesn't detect the slight movement then the barriers will fall, protecting the line.

 

[Marklund]

The barriers at Crewkerne AHB do seem to go down slightly ~10cm and then raise back up again, I'm guessing this is part of the emergency fail safe that if the circuitry doesn't detect the slight movement then the barriers will fall, protecting the line.

No. That's the power pack hydraulics leaking off enough to make up the motor contacts. They're set to drive up the barriers before the red road lights come on.

 

[45669]

I was under the impression that train drivers had a white light displayed to them to confirm that the barriers had lowered and the wig-wags were wig-wagging. Is that not the case?