Lorry backs over LC and breaks barrier

[Ediswan]

This has been discussed before; Network Rail's tendency to go for MAXIMUM FULL VOLUME CONDEMNATION of a third party with every incident, before deciding whether in fact that's appropriate.

They could have chosen to state that the safety systems at the crossing are sufficiently robust that neither the driver, trains, nor passengers were ever in danger.

 

[norbitonflyer]

They could have chosen to state that the safety systems at the crossing are sufficiently robust that neither the driver, trains, nor passengers were ever in danger.

Although we don't want road users to get the message that crossings are so fail-safe that they shouldn't be treated with due caution. The situation could have been very different if the crossing had been automatic - and how many road-users know the difference?

You Tube videos [in the USA] aren't necessarily representative of actual numbers, but there do seem to be quite a lot of at-grade crossing collisions between trains and road vehicles, especially semis. How does that stack up with your experience.

From what I read, there does seem to be more risk-taking at grade crossings in the States. I guess this is partly because most trains are freight, which means they are relatively slow (so you have more time to get out of their way) and very long (so you may be held up for a VERY long time if you do wait).

 

[Neo9320]

It's near Stoke, I expect someone in most of the pubs would get you in!

Love this! Laughed more than I should have

 

[LAX54]

Visibility of what, from where? The road eastward in the mirrors? Vehicles exiting from Wedgwood? The flashing lights? The track looking north over his shoulder for trains hurtling south; and looking south for Stoke-bound trains not calling at the open Wedgwood Station?

What is the line speed there?
I think there are 10-12 tph?
Maybe the driver thought he would have plenty of time between deciding to reverse and anything indicating anything coming- like lights flashing, claxons sounding, barriers descending, car ...? Like so many fools.

How long between a barrier being smashed by a vehicle ON the crossing and a train arriving having passed the 'protecting' signal? How much stopping time and distance including reaction, braking etc?

Ufton Nevert and Hixon come to mind- the latter just 15 miles or so from Wedgwood!

I wonder how much the newer residents of Wedgwood Park would have liked the price of their desirable residences hiked by a Section 106 contribution to a new rail bridge?

Anyone know any detail of the Travel Plan and associated monitoring that were part of the Planning Permission?

Would it have been possible to stop a train then if need be?

It was CCTV, so there would never have been a train close, or allowed to get close, the signal would be at danger, 1) As the Signaller would not have set a route, and 2) the broken boom will flag failure / fault and will not allow the signal to clear.

He'd have had an excellent view of the road in his mirrors, it's very straight. Anyone coming out of Wedgwood has to give way. It's not a road drivers job to check railway lines are clear.
The wisdom on here is that the protecting signal is not cleared until the signaller has confirmed the crossing is clear. Railway staff don't check it's clear whilst lowering them. Therefore a train would have been able to stop. Thus making Network Rail look fools and incompetent for announcing that it placed trains in danger as it clearly didn't. Network Rail have scored a spectacular own goal with this.
I doubt many residents are too bothered as few will use the crossing. It goes onto country lanes and heading the other way is faster and easier. It's only relatively recently that the crossing has been open evenings and weekends anyway.

It would have been a danger if he had reversed through the barriers of course, unlikely, but.... not unknown !

Although we don't want road users to get the message that crossings are so fail-safe that they shouldn't be treated with due caution. The situation could have been very different if the crossing had been automatic - and how many road-users know the difference?


From what I read, there does seem to be more risk-taking at grade crossings in the States. I guess this is partly because most trains are freight, which means they are relatively slow (so you have more time to get out of their way) and very long (so you may be held up for a VERY long time if you do wait).

A freight in the USA...when they get going ...they hoss along at a fair old lick !

So the telephone WAS available!
So why didn't he phone BEFORE he made the movement?

Lazy ?

 

[Paul Kelly]

Their original argument that the lorry driver put lives at risk is now being mocked because it's Network Rail who lower barriers on things and aren't watching.

Yes indeed - it seemed to me very clear from the original video that the problem was the barrier coming down on the lorry which had been (apparently) traversing the crossing relatively safely up to that point.

the protecting signal is not cleared until the signaller has confirmed the crossing is clear. [...] Network Rail look fools and incompetent for announcing that it placed trains in danger as it clearly didn't.

Agree strongly. I feel it makes it less likely that a genuine warning will be taken seriously. "The Boy who Cried Wolf" comes to mind.

 

[alxndr]

So the telephone WAS available!
So why didn't he phone BEFORE he made the movement?

It may have been—and I don't know this crossing at all—that the only phone available was for the local control unit (LCU). These are normally the railway side of the fence, grey, and aren't attended for public use. After the barriers had been damaged the driver might have deemed that it was necessary to go hunting for a contact method, even if it wasn't intended for public use.

 

[jupiter]

Surprised they don’t have stricter “social media” and “talking to the press” policies. I’d have thought in any on-the-ball organisation, dropping the ball like this would result in a disciplinary or even dismissal. Access to the CCTV footage alone should be tightly regulated. This must have been an official release then? Someone’s name should be on it.

 

[zwk500]

Surprised they don’t have stricter “social media” and “talking to the press” policies. I’d have thought in any on-the-ball organisation, dropping the ball like this would result in a disciplinary or even dismissal. Access to the CCTV footage alone should be tightly regulated. This must have been an official release then? Someone’s name should be on it.

This is a very official release. Here's the release as hosted on NR's website: https://www.networkrailmediacentre....versing-into-level-crossing-barriers-in-stoke

Could you expand on what has been done that's a sackable offence, and who should be fired for it? The manoeuvre is dangerous. It did cause lots of disruption and could have been avoided, even after the driver had already crossed the LX (he could have pulled up past the crossing and phoned his office or 101, regardless of railway provided points of contact). The press team have been asked to put together a release to accompany this footage, and have done so in line with other press releases of this type.

 

[Taunton]

So the telephone WAS available!
So why didn't he phone BEFORE he made the movement?

One of the members here has visited the site, and reports above that there is no phone or signage. Contact must have been made another way.

 

[jupiter]

If it’s an official release then clearly there is no disciplinary offence.

 

[Falcon1200]

Nobody is suggesting the driver is blameless, but Network Rail have to shoulder most of the blame.

Um..... surely saying that NR has to shoulder most of the blame is saying that the driver (and their employer) are indeed almost blameless ! Did the professional road haulage company and the professional lorry driver contracted and paid for by NR to provide a service have no responsibility whatsoever to plan where they were going, what they were being asked to do, and establish any potential hazards, before setting off, or even accepting the contract ? A quick look at Google maps, available to anyone with internet access, might have been an idea.

 

[zwk500]

Um..... surely saying that NR has to shoulder most of the blame is saying that the driver (and their employer) are indeed almost blameless ! Did the professional road haulage company and the professional lorry driver contracted and paid for by NR to provide a service have no responsibility whatsoever to plan where they were going, what they were being asked to do, and establish any potential hazards, before setting off, or even accepting the contract ? A quick look at Google maps, available to anyone with internet access, might have been an idea.

By definition, if most of the blame is shouldered by one party, at least some must be shouldered by others.

 

[LAX54]

Um..... surely saying that NR has to shoulder most of the blame is saying that the driver (and their employer) are indeed almost blameless ! Did the professional road haulage company and the professional lorry driver contracted and paid for by NR to provide a service have no responsibility whatsoever to plan where they were going, what they were being asked to do, and establish any potential hazards, before setting off, or even accepting the contract ? A quick look at Google maps, available to anyone with internet access, might have been an idea.

The move the Lorry driver made was dangerous, even if there was no level crossing there ! and he did not even reverse in a straight line, could well have hit something or someone, and as has been said, Highway code states DO NOT reverse over a level crossing......for obvious reasons.
It is said he was delivering for Net Rail, so would have had a contact number, who could have assisted, at the very least getting a MOM to site. (in the end he called from the crossing to say he had ripped a boom off)
Don't know the set up in the box, but the Signaller maybe could have pressed stop when he saw what the driver was doing.
As for NR crying wolf, as there was no danger to trains, if they said this, many drivers would think that it would be the same at all crossings, and we know that is not true.
Blame? not knowing the whole story, and what you can 'see' 95% Driver 5% NR.

 

[BrianW]

Does anyone know- is the Rail Accident Investigation Branch investigating?

RAIB: current investigations and safety digests

www.gov.uk

The most recent listed relates to 'Collision at Grosmont, 21 09 2021'.
As the introductory sentences say: it may be that we have decided not to investigate.
That there are nearly 200 posts on this thread suggests that surely there is something worthy of investigation here.

 

[AM9]

Does anyone know- is the Rail Accident Investigation Branch investigating?

RAIB: current investigations and safety digests

www.gov.uk

The most recent listed relates to 'Collision at Grosmont, 21 09 2021'.
As the introductory sentences say: it may be that we have decided not to investigate.
That there are nearly 200 posts on this thread suggests that surely there is something worthy of investigation here.

More likely it shows that there is something that some members want to post about.

 

[cornishjohn]

Did the professional road haulage company and the professional lorry driver contracted and paid for by NR to provide a service have no responsibility whatsoever to plan where they were going, what they were being asked to do, and establish any potential hazards, before setting off, or even accepting the contract ? A quick look at Google maps, available to anyone with internet access, might have been an idea.

Hard to say without more information. Last time I bought something "big" the seller's paperwork asked me to specifically identify any access issues that might exist for my delivery site. So _IF_ such a question had been ignored that would be on the purchaser not the deliverer. For all we know the driver might have been explicitly told "straight up there mate, you'll be right". I don't know how easy it is it is to find a banksman in a hurry.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Whenever there is video footage of a railway employee misbehaving, everyone says they want to see the footage immediately before it. It maybe helpful here too. On the right of the screen at the very start there is clearly something moving there.
Its been reported locally that the lorry driver approached the crossing and then a Network Rail employee in hi-Viz orange waved at him from the other side of the crossing, so the driver drove over to him. At this point the error was realised and the Network Rail employee drove over the crossing in their car to clear the road for the lorry to follow reversing over. When the lorry hit the barriers, the Network Rail employee used the phone at the crossing. Although they had no official key, they used some tools in their car to access it.
The lorry driver remained at the scene to cooperate with police who are pressing no charges.
Network Rail, who couldn't wait to release the video, have been asked for their version, but have now resorted to "no comment' I expect this story will now quietly die away.

 

[BrianW]

Deafdoggie- thank you for your persistence on this.

Whenever there is video footage of a railway employee misbehaving, everyone says they want to see the footage immediately before it. It maybe helpful here too. On the right of the screen at the very start there is clearly something moving there.
Its been reported locally that the lorry driver approached the crossing and then a Network Rail employee in hi-Viz orange waved at him from the other side of the crossing, so the driver drove over to him. At this point the error was realised and the Network Rail employee drove over the crossing in their car to clear the road for the lorry to follow reversing over. When the lorry hit the barriers, the Network Rail employee used the phone at the crossing. Although they had no official key, they used some tools in their car to access it.
The lorry driver remained at the scene to cooperate with police who are pressing no charges.
Network Rail, who couldn't wait to release the video, have been asked for their version, but have now resorted to "no comment' I expect this story will now quietly die away.

 

[dosxuk]

The move the Lorry driver made was dangerous, even if there was no level crossing there ! and he did not even reverse in a straight line, could well have hit something or someone

Without knowing exactly what is going on behind the lorry, you can't say that. How do you know he hadn't asked a car driver to hold the traffic while he completed the reversing move? Do we even know he didn't have a banksman?

Lorry's reversing happens all the time, without being able to see the full situation it's impossible to say whether this was a dangerous move or not.

 

[Falcon1200]

Its been reported locally that the lorry driver approached the crossing and then a Network Rail employee in hi-Viz orange waved at him from the other side of the crossing, so the driver drove over to him. At this point the error was realised and the Network Rail employee drove over the crossing in their car to clear the road for the lorry to follow reversing over. When the lorry hit the barriers, the Network Rail employee used the phone at the crossing. Although they had no official key, they used some tools in their car to access it.

That's an interesting update, and I for one hope that the story does not quietly die away and that all the facts are made known.

 

[Taunton]

Whenever there is video footage of a railway employee misbehaving, everyone says they want to see the footage immediately before it. It maybe helpful here too. On the right of the screen at the very start there is clearly something moving there.
Its been reported locally that the lorry driver approached the crossing and then a Network Rail employee in hi-Viz orange waved at him from the other side of the crossing, so the driver drove over to him. At this point the error was realised and the Network Rail employee drove over the crossing in their car to clear the road for the lorry to follow reversing over. When the lorry hit the barriers, the Network Rail employee used the phone at the crossing. Although they had no official key, they used some tools in their car to access it.
The lorry driver remained at the scene to cooperate with police who are pressing no charges.
Network Rail, who couldn't wait to release the video, have been asked for their version, but have now resorted to "no comment' I expect this story will now quietly die away.

If this is true, then I hope the lorry driver has "Mr James Dean, Network Rail’s West Coast South route director" up in court for defamation of character. This needs a good investigating journalist to get to the bottom of it. The Daily Mail is normally interested in such.

From the BBC report :

"James Dean, Network Rail’s West Coast South route director, said: “It’s almost unbelievable that this lorry driver decided to reverse over this level crossing, putting not only them but also the oncoming train and its passengers in danger."

 

[TrafficEng]

If someone got injured or killed because of this and RAIB became involved you could bet a number of recommendations would be made to NR, and they'd be for the high jump.

Does anyone know- is the Rail Accident Investigation Branch investigating?

I'd suggest that injury or death may not be necessary for RAIB to be taking a look.

There are clear parallels with the Mucking (Essex) incident from 2019.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dea69ff40f0b6088d2cd1bf/R162019_191209_Mucking.pdf

For those who feel the railway/NR have no accountability in the incident the current thread relates to, paragraphs 76-82 are a must-read.

76 Network Rail’s processes and oversight of construction activities did not recognise the risk presented by the level crossing, a factor probably linked to the cause of the incident.
....

82
It is possible that the inadequate consideration of level crossing risk by Network Rail was a consequence of:

*the work being on railway infrastructure, but protected by a permanent fence and therefore assumed to have minimal impact on operational railway tracks;

*the work was part of a Network Rail project so not subject to the controls applied by Network Rail’s asset protection processes applicable to non-railway organisations undertaking construction work close to railway infrastructure...

As would be paragraph 90

90 In May 2019, partly in response to the incident at Mucking, Network Rail issued a safety alert (reference NRA19-07) to relevant managers and contractors highlighting this incident and the need to consult railway operations staff where works or access to a construction site are within 200 metres of a level crossing. The alert also reminds people about the need to issue adequate information about the site, including site access/egress instructions, to all delivery drivers. A copy of the safety alert is included as Appendix B.

The text I've bolded in para 90 will be useful to anyone who believes a lorry driver (or their employer) has sole responsibility to identify issues and risks at the point of delivery and/or collection.

NRA19-07 also makes interesting reading -

Where works are within 200m of a level crossing, or where access to a contruction [sic] site is over a level crossing, Level Crossing Managers and Local Operations Managers should be consulted to validate that the proposed risk mitigation measures are adequate.

The questions RAIB might usefully ask are -
*whether the activities that the plant was being used for constitute "works";
*who was the client, and who was the principal contractor;
*whether the learning points from the Mucking incident have been learned;
*whether the instructions given in NRA19-07 are being complied with.
*what risk mitigation measures were employed to deal with the inevitable need for a large vehicle to reverse across a level crossing, contrary to the guidance of the Highway Code.


It would seem unduly harsh to view the lorry driver in this present incident principally to blame if their role was indeed to collect/deliver plant/equipment at a NR site - which effectively had only one means of access/egress - and that access/egress was "over a level crossing" with nowhere for the lorry to be safely turned round. [a key consideration at Mucking being the availability of a junction on the far side of the crossing to facilitate a u-turn movement (but not used)]

However, I'll await the RAIB report before offering my view on the correct apportionment of blame.

 

[norbitonflyer]

On the right of the screen at the very start there is clearly something moving there.

Not visible on the BBC link, but can be seen on the slightly longer clip on Network Rail's own site, which starts a second or so earlier. (the lorry is completely out of shot for at least two seconds in the NR link, whereas its tail-lift is already in shot at the point the BBC clip starts)

 

[Dr Hoo]

In today’s ‘Metro’ I see that Thames Water have been fined £100,000 for “setting up potentially dangerous road works”.
(I am not clear whether there is a parallel crime of ‘setting up potentially dangerous rail works’.)

 

[BrianW]

I'd suggest that injury or death may not be necessary for RAIB to be taking a look.

There are clear parallels with the Mucking (Essex) incident from 2019.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dea69ff40f0b6088d2cd1bf/R162019_191209_Mucking.pdf

For those who feel the railway/NR have no accountability in the incident the current thread relates to, paragraphs 76-82 are a must-read.




As would be paragraph 90



The text I've bolded in para 90 will be useful to anyone who believes a lorry driver (or their employer) has sole responsibility to identify issues and risks at the point of delivery and/or collection.

NRA19-07 also makes interesting reading -



The questions RAIB might usefully ask are -
*whether the activities that the plant was being used for constitute "works";
*who was the client, and who was the principal contractor;
*whether the learning points from the Mucking incident have been learned;
*whether the instructions given in NRA19-07 are being complied with.
*what risk mitigation measures were employed to deal with the inevitable need for a large vehicle to reverse across a level crossing, contrary to the guidance of the Highway Code.


It would seem unduly harsh to view the lorry driver in this present incident principally to blame if their role was indeed to collect/deliver plant/equipment at a NR site - which effectively had only one means of access/egress - and that access/egress was "over a level crossing" with nowhere for the lorry to be safely turned round. [a key consideration at Mucking being the availability of a junction on the far side of the crossing to facilitate a u-turn movement (but not used)]

However, I'll await the RAIB report before offering my view on the correct apportionment of blame.

Lessons learned?
TrafficEng- thank you so much for this- you could almost do a 'search and replace' on it- omitting 'Mucking' and substituting 'Wedgwood'.

 

[LAX54]

Whenever there is video footage of a railway employee misbehaving, everyone says they want to see the footage immediately before it. It maybe helpful here too. On the right of the screen at the very start there is clearly something moving there.
Its been reported locally that the lorry driver approached the crossing and then a Network Rail employee in hi-Viz orange waved at him from the other side of the crossing, so the driver drove over to him. At this point the error was realised and the Network Rail employee drove over the crossing in their car to clear the road for the lorry to follow reversing over. When the lorry hit the barriers, the Network Rail employee used the phone at the crossing. Although they had no official key, they used some tools in their car to access it.
The lorry driver remained at the scene to cooperate with police who are pressing no charges.
Network Rail, who couldn't wait to release the video, have been asked for their version, but have now resorted to "no comment' I expect this story will now quietly die away.

Interesting turn of events, however something does not ring right with the description, does not match various things.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Interesting turn of events, however something does not ring right with the description, does not match various things.

What doesn't match?

 

[AlterEgo]

Um..... surely saying that NR has to shoulder most of the blame is saying that the driver (and their employer) are indeed almost blameless !

No, it does not. If someone shoulders "most" of the blame, then there is some blame apportioned elsewhere. I would have thought this was obvious?

 

[2HAP]

No word yet from the RAIB as to whether or not they are investigating. I belive this incident may fall under scheduld 1(9) of the RAIB's notification guide.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832175/RAIBN3_Quick_Guide_to_Notification_v3.pdf

1(9) Accidents or incidents which could haveled to deaths or serious injuries or 2m euros worth of damage to trains, infrastructure or environment, had the circumstances been slightly different.

 

[GB]

They may well have been notified but there is no way this will be investigated by the RAIB. The crossing and signalling worked as designed and as it is supposed to. Any comparison with the Mucking crossings is slim at best. That was an AHB where there were only few seconds between lorry and train.