• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Llanboidy Level Crossing - RAIB report released

Status
Not open for further replies.

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
3,071
Location
St Albans
The RAIB report into the accident at Llanboidy Level Crossing in December 2011 has been released today - see: http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/120927_R202012_Llanboidy.pdf


Rail Accident Investigation Branch said:
Collision between a train and a lorry and trailer on Llanboidy automatic half barrier level crossing, 19 December 2011

Summary

At 09:44 hrs on Monday 19 December 2011, a train running from Milford Haven to Manchester struck a lorry and trailer on Llanboidy automatic half barrier (AHB) level crossing, near Whitland in Wales.

The impact between the train and the lorry caused the lorry to be separated from its trailer and pushed along the track by the train. The lorry driver left his cab prior to the impact but was struck by the trailer and slightly injured during the collision.

The lorry had stopped on the crossing when the barriers lowered for the approaching train. The train driver saw the lorry when the train was 270 metres away and travelling at 68 mph (109 km/h). The train driver applied the emergency brake, but the train
was unable to stop before reaching the crossing. The train was not derailed but 27 passengers were injured in the collision, one seriously, and four received treatment in hospital before being discharged later the same day. The train conductor and the catering host received minor injuries and were treated in hospital and the driver suffered shock.

The accident occurred because the lorry driver did not telephone the signaller for permission to cross and because local factors encouraged him to take a line towards the right of the road.

Road signs, in English and Welsh, on the approach to the crossing instructed drivers of large or slow vehicles to phone the signaller for permission to cross the railway. The road signs defined the terms ‘large’ and ‘slow’ and the lorry and trailer were of such a length, and were likely to have been travelling at such a speed, that the lorry fell within the scope of both of these terms. A number of factors forced the lorry and trailer to use the right-hand side of the road to pass over the crossing; the orientation of the road over the crossing being misaligned with the rest of the road, the position of one of the road traffic light signals and the position of vehicles parked close to the crossing. While travelling slowly over the crossing the barrier on the exit side came down in front of the lorry, causing the lorry driver to stop his vehicle.

The RAIB has made six recommendations as follows:

  • Network Rail in conjunction with the ORR to revise the crossing order and reduce the effect of road misalignment at the crossing;
  • The ORR to revise its guidance to cover misalignment of the road and the ability for a large vehicle to exit an AHB crossing when the barriers descend;
  • Network Rail to revise its risk management process for level crossings to include the effect of road misalignment;
  • Network Rail to give guidance to its staff and contractors on where to park when working on or near level crossings;
  • Angel Trains to examine how to mitigate the risk to the driver from detachment of cab panels during a collision; and
  • Alstom and Angel Trains to review the coupler bump stop mounting and retention arrangement
Full report - click here (PDF format)

Original thread: Whitland level crossing crash
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,045
Location
North Wales
The BBC's website is reporting that the driver of the lorry has pleaded guilty to endangering lives on the railway at Swansea Crown Court. Summarising the Welsh page: His barrister referred to several findings of the [presumably RAIB's] report, including that vehicles were parked nearby and that the crossing lights were incorrectly situated. The driver was released on bail and the judge will pass sentence on the 24th.

Newyddion BBC Cymru / BBC Wales News

Carmarthenshire train crash: Oswald Davies guilty plea

A hay lorry driver accused of causing a crash with a train has pleaded guilty to endangering the lives of passengers.

The collision happened on 19 December last year when the train hit the lorry at the Henllan Amgoed railway crossing in Carmarthenshire.

Swansea Crown Court heard that Oswald Huw Davies, 49, of Llanboidy, had got out of his cab seconds before the collision.

He is due to appear before the court for sentencing on 26 October.

During a short plea hearing, the court was told that Davies pleaded guilty on the basis of neglect.

Barristers acting for Davies said a railway accident report mentioned that his view was obstructed by Network Rail vehicles parked alongside the crossing, and the lights on the railway crossing were not properly aligned.

The court heard that when the barriers came down Davies thought it was Network Rail staff messing about.

He got out of his cab to remonstrate and seconds later the train hit the lorry, the court was told.
 
Last edited:

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
Tragic accident, NR contractors vans in the wrong place, crossing warning lights in the wrong place, roadway not aligned, driver pleaded guilty,(Of course he should have phoned) I hope non of our colleagues use the word moron which is used far too frequent on RF.

my opinion of course

"Tragic accident" is not the correct term here. The driver has been convicted of "endangering the lives of passengers on the railway" therefore I don't think it is an accident.

The driver could have stopped and asked for the vans to be moved but chose not to do so. As you note he should also have stopped and telephoned the signaller but didn't. He (or his employer ) could also have taken the trouble to use a vehicle which complied with the law but chose not to do so. The collision was therefore a result of deliberate actions.
 

merlodlliw

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2009
Messages
5,852
Location
Wrexham/ Denbighshire /Flintshire triangle
"Tragic accident" is not the correct term here. The driver has been convicted of "endangering the lives of passengers on the railway" therefore I don't think it is an accident.

The driver could have stopped and asked for the vans to be moved but chose not to do so. As you note he should also have stopped and telephoned the signaller but didn't. He (or his employer ) could also have taken the trouble to use a vehicle which complied with the law but chose not to do so. The collision was therefore a result of deliberate actions.

of course it was an accident, & in my opinion it is the correct term was used,who ever was in charge of the NR contractors vans,should have also seen the risk and stopped them from parking there in the first place.
I do not feel for the driver, but I am sure he never set out to cause this accident, I have driven at 32 MPH through Coedpoeth, thus breaking the law by 2 MPH, but never set out to cause an accident.

The whole episode is tragic.
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
of course it was an accident, & in my opinion it is the correct term was used,who ever was in charge of the NR contractors vans,should have also seen the risk and stopped them from parking there in the first place.
I do not feel for the driver, but I am sure he never set out to cause this accident, I have driven at 32 MPH through Coedpoeth, thus breaking the law by 2 MPH, but never set out to cause an accident.

The whole episode is tragic.
If I am driving along a road with badly parked vehicles, or where sight lines are impaired, I like to think I drive more carefully. The driver is responsible for his vehicle and what it does.
Perhaps we need to distinguish between an "accident" - where, say, a tree gets blown over in front of a car, giving it no time to stop - and an "accident", where an incident was caused by negligence or carelessness - as here.
 
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
972
Location
Blackpool south Shore
A Crown Court can give the maximum penalties deserved.
Luckily no lives were lost.
A few queries/ thoughts regarding the accident.
If the lorry & trailer were within the 18.75m, would have the accident still occurred?
If there were no barriers, or no obstructions, would the extended lorry have completely cleared the crossing before the train?
'Slow' vehicles - I have towed a well loaded trailer over level crossings, and because of the uneven surface, especially if the track is not at right angles to the road, I have crawled over the crossing, to save damaging the trailer or possibility of destabilising the load, although it is capable of 60mph.

Personally I would have driven through the barrier with my foot hard down!
 
Last edited:

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,457
Location
Somewhere
The length of the truck and trailer wasn't the issue. It was the fact the driver crossed at (or less than) the minimum 5mph as stated on the sign. So yes, if the truck and trailer was less then 18.75m the accident still would have happened just as it still would have happened had the offside wigwag been 1m to the left or the NR contractor vans not there.
 
Last edited:

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,045
Location
North Wales
The length of the truck and trailer wasn't the issue. It was the fact the driver crossed at (or less than) the minimum 5mph as stated on the sign. So yes, if the truck and trailer was less then 18.75m the accident still would have happened just as it still would have happened had the offside wigwag been 1m to the left or the NR contractor vans not there.

Quoting the above RAIB report:

RAIB Report 20/2012 said:
The combined length of lorry and trailer, when coupled together, was calculated as 21.48 m at the time of the accident. As this was longer than the length defined as ‘large’ on the sign (over 18.75 m), the driver should therefore have phoned for permission to cross the line.

The length of the truck and trailer was also a factor.
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,457
Location
Somewhere
If he was to travel at such a slow speed over the crossing he should have phoned the signaller anyway as it would had come under the "slow" category.

If the lorry was 18.74M (there by negating the need to get permission) the accident would still have happened.
 

SussexMan

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2010
Messages
477
The RAIB seem to investigate things in quite some detail but in this instance the report seems to ignore the thought processes of the driver when he got out of the cab and thought that the NR staff had activated the crossing making it come down on the vehicle. My first instinct would have been "put my foot down, forget about the barrier" but clearly this wasn't the driver's. Something seems to have been telling him that the barriers coming down were nothing to do with a train coming but instead were related to the NR workers. Logic would have told him that the NR workers wouldn't have made the barriers come down on the lorry because they could see the lorry - but clearly that didn't occur to him. I would have thought a bit more investigation by the RAIB into the psychology and thought processes would have been good because that's a factor in some level crossing accidents or potential accidents. The Hixon accident happened because no one stopped to think that a train could come because they just hadn't appreciated the nature of the AHB crossing. We assume that people know that AHB crossings mean that if there is an obstruction the train will still come, but I wonder what %age of drivers actually appreciate that.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
If the lorry was 18.74M (there by negating the need to get permission) the accident would still have happened.

I added the comment about the trailer length because a driver and company flouting the law repeatedly on one matter are perhaps of a mind set to ignore other aspects of the law.
 

merlodlliw

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2009
Messages
5,852
Location
Wrexham/ Denbighshire /Flintshire triangle
A Crown Court can give the maximum penalties deserved.
Luckily no lives were lost.
A few queries/ thoughts regarding the accident.
If the lorry & trailer were within the 18.75m, would have the accident still occurred?
If there were no barriers, or no obstructions, would the extended lorry have completely cleared the crossing before the train?
'Slow' vehicles - I have towed a well loaded trailer over level crossings, and because of the uneven surface, especially if the track is not at right angles to the road, I have crawled over the crossing, to save damaging the trailer or possibility of destabilising the load, although it is capable of 60mph.

Personally I would have driven through the barrier with my foot hard down!

Well put, as you are a driver of such vehicles you are aware of the problems of destabilising loads & damage, I still think Network Rails maintenance vehicles parking up needs attention in this instance, which the report suggests was also a factor.
 
Last edited:

mark46245

Member
Joined
21 Apr 2012
Messages
9
Location
surrey
I added the comment about the trailer length because a driver and company flouting the law repeatedly on one matter are perhaps of a mind set to ignore other aspects of the law.

Please see page 12, paragraphs 21 and 22 of the RAIB report. This was an "accident" waiting to happen. IMHO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top