Network Rail to be prosecuted

[68000]

My point is that obviously the crossing was dangerous.

not appropriate

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe. If used incorrectly. If used correctly I would say it was probably perfectly safe

Well, I see your point. But I think the Country seems to be moving towards a situation where people expect to be protected from themselves (just look at all of the difficulties a few years back due to those seemingly unable to use train doors !).

 

[Old Timer]

The giirls ignored the warnings and yet the company gets prosecuted. It can be argued that the families should get prosecuted for the distress caused to the the train driver and the maintenance gang who had to clean up and the passengers who were disrupted.

I wonder what would ahppen if 2 teenage girls ignored warnings and ran across a busy motorway and were hit by a truck and killed?

The two scenario are completely incomparable.

There was a clear history of misuse of the crossing and as such Network Rail had a clear duty of care to prevent access to the railway when a train was approaching, in the same way that level crossings in Lincolnshire and other areas, had locking wicket gates.

That fact that this was recognised and nothing done about it was bad enough, but the deliberate witholding of documents which revealed that NR actually knew this was the final nail in the coffin, bearing in mind NR is already under investigation criminal investigation for the deliberate misreporting of accidents and incidents to staff in order to improve its safety record.

 

[68000]

The two scenario are completely incomparable.

There was a clear history of misuse of the crossing and as such Network Rail had a clear duty of care to prevent access to the railway when a train was approaching, in the same way that level crossings in Lincolnshire and other areas, had locking wicket gates.
.

not appropriate

 

[Old Timer]

The safest action to take was to shut the crossing, why was this not taken up?

No this was not the safest way.

The safest means of operation has now been implemented, which is the gates locked by track occupancy, and a footbridge provided.

The costs of these will be considerably less than the outcome of the Prosecution and compensation payments, leaving aside that fact that two young girls lost their lives.

Well, I see your point. But I think the Country seems to be moving towards a situation where people expect to be protected from themselves (just look at all of the difficulties a few years back due to those seemingly unable to use train doors !).

There has always been a "Duty of Care" however in recent years the public have become far more avaricious, goaded on by the "No Win No Fee" reptiles who will try even when there is little chance of success, simply on the basis that the Insurance Company will try to settle out of Court, firstly because it costs an absolute fortune to instruct a defence, and secondly because of the risk of creating a precedent.

For some reason the Legislature has taken the view that the ordinary person is no longer capable of acting in a reasonable manner with the result that Companies and others are now expected to undertake greater levels of care. 100 years ago they would have been laughed out of Court if not indeed sentenced for Contempt, but these days the Legislature seem only too keen to bend over backwards to allow even greater levels of self neglect.

As we have seen with the rocketing cost of motor insurance, there is no such thing as a free lunch and ultimately those who pay in the long term will be the customers themselves.

 

[Minilad]

I just want to say something from a slightly different angle.
Just before this sad accident the rule book was changed with regards to drivers sounding the horn. Before the rule change it was a requirement to sound the horn when passing through a station with a train standing on an adjacent platform. The rule change made this no longer a requirement. I wonder if this had still been in the rule book the driver of the Stansted train would have blown the horn on approach to the station and maybe, just maybe, those girls would have heard that and not crossed the track

 

[yorksrob]

There has always been a "Duty of Care" however in recent years the public have become far more avaricious, goaded on by the "No Win No Fee" reptiles who will try even when there is little chance of success, simply on the basis that the Insurance Company will try to settle out of Court, firstly because it costs an absolute fortune to instruct a defence, and secondly because of the risk of creating a precedent.

As we have seen with the rocketing cost of motor insurance, there is no such thing as a free lunch and ultimately those who pay in the long term will be the customers themselves.

Indeed, although in the case of level crossings, I wonder how much farepayers will be expected to pay for the sins of motorists !

 

[Old Timer]

I just want to say something from a slightly different angle.
Just before this sad accident the rule book was changed with regards to drivers sounding the horn. Before the rule change it was a requirement to sound the horn when passing through a station with a train standing on an adjacent platform. The rule change made this no longer a requirement. I wonder if this had still been in the rule book the driver of the Stansted train would have blown the horn on approach to the station and maybe, just maybe, those girls would have heard that and not crossed the track

It is hard to say, however the pressure to reduce the operation of the warning horns has come from the general public, and their Parliamentary/Local Council representatives with threats of issuing noise enforcement orders. Again another case of peoples lowered tolerance thresholds.

Had the old HMRI been around they would have given short shrift to this however the HSE as usual simply buckled under as they are all civil servants anxious not to raise their heads above the parapet, which is why Industries overseen by the HSE continue to tens of workers each year.

 

[Minilad]

It is hard to say, however the pressure to reduce the operation of the warning horns has come from the generla public, and their Parliamentary/Local Council representatives. Again another case of peoples lowered tolerance thresholds.

Noise Pollution they call it. I call it a vital safety tool

 

[68000]

No this was not the safest way.

The safest means of operation has now been implemented, which is the gates locked by track occupancy, and a footbridge provided.

.

not appropriate

 

[Nym]

But then it wouldn't be Network Rail's fault if they say "Do not cross here!" The joys of a blame soc.

 

[Old Timer]

Indeed, although in the case of level crossings, I wonder how much farepayers will be expected to pay for the sins of motorists !

Where a motorist is responsible, there will be a claim against their Insurance.

Legally the Railway could make a claim against anybody but many people may not have adequate Insurance and of course you can write the headlines written by the scum media now can't you.

But then it wouldn't be Network Rail's fault if they say "Do not cross here!" The joys of a blame soc.

A sign has little relevance in situations such as this. The Courts will not accept these as being adequate when there are other systems that can be put in place.

 

[AlterEgo]

It can be argued that the families should get prosecuted for the distress caused to the the train driver and the maintenance gang who had to clean up and the passengers who were disrupted.

There really are some heartless things said on this forum. I despair.

 

[BestWestern]

It really does make me sad and angry to see the total denial of self responsibility that afflicts our society today. I harbour no ill thoughts towards the two young people who lost their lives in this sad incident, but if indeed they chose to ignore warnings then that is, sadly, their own fault The lawyers, judges, HSE, media and whatever other vultures have been circling this can launch all the prosecutions they like, but I find it hard to see how NR can justifiably be at blame over and above two perhaps slightly foolish individuals who made a conscious decision to disregard the warnings not to do exactly what they decided to do.

A 'history of misuse' does not transfer the blame from those who are misusing it to Network Rail. Idiots in vehicles jump half-barriers on a regular basis up and down the country, is that NR's fault as well?! People trespass, walking off the end of platforms to go and vandalise the lineside or steal cabling, is that NR's fault for not installing 8 foot high platform doors at every station on the network? It is high time we as a society stopped looking to blame the 'big guy' every time somebody pushes their luck and gets it wrong, and this would seem to apply particularly to the railways. I'm tired of hearing that it's NR or the TOC or whoever who is at fault because they didn't make it physically impossible for somebody to deliberately do something stupid. If there's a sign telling you not to do something, you have two choices. Obey it and be safe, or ignore it and take responsibility for your own misguided actions :roll:

 

[68000]

I have now amended my posts as on reflection it was not an appropriate thing to say. Ths will teach me not to post after a long days travelling on the motorway network!

 

[tirphil]

I just want to say something from a slightly different angle.
Just before this sad accident the rule book was changed with regards to drivers sounding the horn. Before the rule change it was a requirement to sound the horn when passing through a station with a train standing on an adjacent platform. The rule change made this no longer a requirement. I wonder if this had still been in the rule book the driver of the Stansted train would have blown the horn on approach to the station and maybe, just maybe, those girls would have heard that and not crossed the track

I still sound the horn for the above despite the change. TW1, section 10.2 c) covers this.

Train movements
You must sound the horn:

when approaching or passing a location where shunting is taking place on a line immediately adjacent to the line you are on

at any other time you consider necessary.

Of course the driver of the Stansted train may have sounded the horn, but I don't know whether this is the case or not.

 

[Bodie]

Pleased to see, I am not the only one who is disappointed with this.

Looking at the things we know the single most important point for me is that all the alarms and lights were working correctly.

In my eyes this is no more then a tragic accident. Why does there have to be someone to blame for everything thesedays???

I do believe it was summed up best by a reporter on Channel 5 news. who said the parents of the two young girls wanted to find a reason for their deaths. For if Network Rail isn't to blame it means the girls were at fault and until this current (till yesterday) position is changed they can not get closure.

I must say that, I too would probably feel that way were it someone I knew who had died in such tragic circumstances.
That doesn't alter the fact though that an accident is an accident.

I would like to finish by saying, rather then see Network Rail prosecuted I would like to see more education for children on how to use the railway.

Coming from a railway family, the first thing I learnt was not to misuse the railway and to always be guard whenever you are near them.

Sadly for the average child this isn't the case. I would like the railway to be afforded the same level of education as the roads.

For it seems to me that the reason the girls opened the gate and began to cross was because they didn't know that if the lights and alarms didn't go off straight away then another train was coming.
This is basic railway safety - why isn't it being drummed into school kids???

 

[Old Timer]

Bodie
This section from the Report may be worth reading.

The actions of the girls
312 It is likely that during the 20 seconds before the accident the girls’ attention was focused on train 2H14, the train to Cambridge. During much of this period they were standing beside or just beyond the miniature stop light display. They would have continued to hear the ‘warble’ alarm at the crossing but it is possible they assumed it applied only to train 2H14.

313 The timings provided at Table 8, and the recollection of witnesses, indicate that the girls held the gate open whilst train 2H14 was passing and then ran out onto the crossing as its rear cab passed in front of them.

314 The most likely explanation for the behaviour of the girls is that their strong motivation to catch the train to Cambridge, and a high degree of distraction, made them temporarily unaware of the risks posed by the Up line. In addition, it is likely that the girls assumed that the audible alarm they could hear related only to the train that was passing ahead of them.

315 Motivation and distraction are behavioural traits commonly associated with accident causation. In particular, they are often linked to road accidents involving teenagers and children [Ref. Appendix H, 5, 10, 11 and 12].

316 The problem of level crossing users disregarding the second train to arrive at a vehicular level crossing has been identified by Network Rail as a significant contributor to risk. It is therefore clear that the accident at Elsenham is not unprecedented but instead can be seen as a typical example of human error at a level crossing.

317 The investigation also has considered the girls’ state of mind and how this may have contributed to the actions taken. Witnesses have stated that the girls appeared happy and excited when they were in the booking office. On arrival at the gate the girls appeared happy. A witness with a close view of the gate on platform 1 said the girls stood at the gate for some time but did not appear agitated.

318 Given the above, it is not possible to state with any degree of certainty how the girls’ general demeanour and state of mind contributed to their subsequent error.

Like all professional Railwaymen and women I find such fatalities particularly distressing. A suicide has the intention, the girls in this particular case did not.

The report is very clear in where it lays the blame, and deservedly so. Network Rail has a long history of not treating safety with the respect it requires, hence why a number of senior safety staff who held that view were removed from post and their employment terminated under "Compromise Agreements" - which have effectively prevented them from revealing the history behind their dismissal. Hopefully the ORR will consider calling these people to testify.

As I said in anearlier post the current arrangements would have been implemented under BR long before an accident occurred, and the cost of now having done so will be minor compared to what is to come. Such is the way that Companies with a poor safety outlook have to learn.

 

[WillPS]

So, is the case surrounding no sign stating "do not cross until alarm discontinues and light dims"? Or is the case surrounding the lack of a physical barrier to prevent crossing?

 

[Old Timer]

So, is the case surrounding no sign stating "do not cross until alarm discontinues and light dims"? Or is the case surrounding the lack of a physical barrier to prevent crossing?

No, the case will be about Network Rail's failure to have taken apropriate action to prevent the accident occurring. In the case of additional warning arrangements I imagine that the Prosecution would argue that the lomg history of abuse by passengers, and their abuse of Railway staff who challenged them, means that passive measures were not suitable.

The Prosecution will cite the revised measures and demonstrate that they were reasonable practicable, and should have been installed on the basis of pre-existing information that NR already had.

It is this area of safety manageemnt that the HSE/ORR look at these days.

Each Company must undertake risk assessments for its employees and others who may be affected. Done properly these will indicate a level at which action can be taken. Only if something is "not reasonably practicable" is there any form of defence.

The fact that NR have now undertaken modifications demonstrates that something could have been done had they managed their own risk assessments properly. It is this failure in addition that will be charged under the Management Regs.

 

[GearJammer]

It really does make me sad and angry to see the total denial of self responsibility that afflicts our society today. I harbour no ill thoughts towards the two young people who lost their lives in this sad incident, but if indeed they chose to ignore warnings then that is, sadly, their own fault The lawyers, judges, HSE, media and whatever other vultures have been circling this can launch all the prosecutions they like, but I find it hard to see how NR can justifiably be at blame over and above two perhaps slightly foolish individuals who made a conscious decision to disregard the warnings not to do exactly what they decided to do.

A 'history of misuse' does not transfer the blame from those who are misusing it to Network Rail. Idiots in vehicles jump half-barriers on a regular basis up and down the country, is that NR's fault as well?! People trespass, walking off the end of platforms to go and vandalise the lineside or steal cabling, is that NR's fault for not installing 8 foot high platform doors at every station on the network? It is high time we as a society stopped looking to blame the 'big guy' every time somebody pushes their luck and gets it wrong, and this would seem to apply particularly to the railways. I'm tired of hearing that it's NR or the TOC or whoever who is at fault because they didn't make it physically impossible for somebody to deliberately do something stupid. If there's a sign telling you not to do something, you have two choices. Obey it and be safe, or ignore it and take responsibility for your own misguided actions :roll:

Quite agree, Network Rail (or any big organisation) can't be held accountable for everyone elses behavoir, its tragic that the girls died, but it was an accident.

I read Old Timers comments and can do a certain degree see where hes coming from, but it just seems wrong to me to blame NR.

 

[Old Timer]

Quite agree, Network Rail (or any big organisation) can't be held accountable for everyone elses behavoir, its tragic that the girls died, but it was an accident.

I read Old Timers comments and can do a certain degree see where hes coming from, but it just seems wrong to me to blame NR.

I am simply stating the situation as it now is in Law.

Any property owner (including you incidentally) has a duty of care towards anyone who comes onto your property, be they authorised or not. There is NO warning sign which denies liability that is worth its salt. For example IF you put up a warning about a dog and someone gets bitten it will be you who is held accountable and can be sued because the sign is evidence of you knowing that the dog was liable to bite someone.

None of this is new as such, but all this information is there in a variety of legal websites.

As I said previous, the Legislature has taken the view that people are unable to look out for themselves anymore. Crazy I know but that is mostly to blame upon those who use and abuse the "Claims Culture". As a demonstration of that simply walk into your local and tell those there that you slipped over on the pavement (especially in Liverpool !) and they will be rushing to tell you to claim compensation.

 

[GearJammer]

I am simply stating the situation as it now is in Law.

Any property owner (including you incidentally) has a duty of care towards anyone who comes onto your property, be they authorised or not. There is NO warning sign which denies liability that is worth its salt. For example IF you put up a warning about a dog and someone gets bitten it will be you who is held accountable and can be sued because the sign is evidence of you knowing that the dog was liable to bite someone.

None of this is new as such, but all this information is there in a variety of legal websites.

As I said previous, the Legislature has taken the view that people are unable to look out for themselves anymore. Crazy I know but that is mostly to blame upon those who use and abuse the "Claims Culture". As a demonstration of that simply walk into your local and tell those there that you slipped over on the pavement (especially in Liverpool !) and they will be rushing to tell you to claim compensation.

Oh im not saying your wrong Old Timer, just i think the system is wrong.

 

[Old Timer]

Oh im not saying your wrong Old Timer, just i think the system is wrong.

Yes, I know I was just trying to give you an indication of why we are where we are. I don't disagree with you at all.

As a Country we have chosen the US route of taking away any responsibility from an individual and now we see the results. The only way would be for a Commission or similar to codify how a "reasonable person" would act or behave, and thus remove stupid claims. That said there will, always be stupid people with us. The sort who microwave the cat to dry it, or go searching for a gas leak with a match or a candle. You cannot mitigate for stupidity I am afraid, although our Legislature seems to be well up for this right now.

I remember a painful period when I first studied Law and discovered the number of areas where blantant stupid actions have over time lowered the levels and burden of proof necessary to succeed.

I remember the one about the bus passenger who stood up as the bus was stopping and walked to the front of the bus and fell over, who successfully sued the bus company. Not one person on the course could agree with that, but it set the scene for much of where we are now.

 

[Bodie]

The above comments are spot on, thank you Old Timer for sharing your expertise in this field.

The law really is an ass

Why do we in this country copy everything that is bad about the USA. There are good things of course, if only we took them up.

We're the de facto 51st state

Back to the case...

It could be said that any supposed blame on NR's part is down to not properly carrying out 'risk assessments' at the crossing.

Bleeding 'risk assessments' - It's not so much as 'is this safe?' as 'What is the stupidist thing someone could do?'

It's part of the reason nothing is tried these days. Where would we be if people acted this way in the past???
Sat naked eating bits of grass I say!

Reminds me of something I saw this week. I have been watching alot of the Levison Inquiry and I noticed that the witness box is a tiny bit higher then the rest of the court floor. Thus there is a small step up to it.
So of course there is that ghastly black/yellow striped tape covering the whole thing.
Heaven's above! - its a step!

My bed is much higher, should I put tape on that then???
Or just if someone else is using it, in case they sue me.

 

[Trog]

Bodie
As I said in anearlier post the current arrangements would have been implemented under BR long before an accident occurred, and the cost of now having done so will be minor compared to what is to come. Such is the way that Companies with a poor safety outlook have to learn.

So why after fifty years of BR ownership, was there no footbridge when RT/NR took over?

 

[Old Timer]

So why after fifty years of BR ownership, was there no footbridge when RT/NR took over?

Because there has been an exponential increase in services since BR days - as explained in the report. BR did undertake the installation of the warning bells, however the use of the crossing has increased considerably since BR.

 

[jon0844]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-16786373

The girls, who were about to catch another train for a Christmas shopping trip to Cambridge, opened the unlocked wicket gates and walked on to the crossing. They were both struck by the Stansted train and killed.

Outside court, Reg Thompson, Charlotte's father, said: "The horror of that day is always with us and the huge hole in our lives left by Charlie will never be filled.

"In the aftermath of the accident, Network Rail claimed the girls had acted recklessly and that somehow their youthful exuberance led directly to their deaths.

"I never believed that they were the architects of their own terrible end. It has taken six years to reveal the truth of what happened."

Safety features, including locked gates, were introduced in September 2006.

I may be considered cruel, but I still think they were the 'architects of their own terrible end' as they ignored the very clear warning lights. As they were in a rush, any attempt to put more words on (such as saying that if the lights remain on, another train is coming) would have been pointless as they wouldn't have read ANY of it.

I accept a locked gate may have helped, but if someone is sufficiently desperate to get on a train, who says that someone else might not try and force the gate open, or even jump over it? There has to be a limit to how much you can do to protect people from themselves.

 

[GB]

Bodie
This section from the Report may be worth reading.



Like all professional Railwaymen and women I find such fatalities particularly distressing. A suicide has the intention, the girls in this particular case did not.

The report is very clear in where it lays the blame, and deservedly so. Network Rail has a long history of not treating safety with the respect it requires, hence why a number of senior safety staff who held that view were removed from post and their employment terminated under "Compromise Agreements" - which have effectively prevented them from revealing the history behind their dismissal. Hopefully the ORR will consider calling these people to testify.

As I said in anearlier post the current arrangements would have been implemented under BR long before an accident occurred, and the cost of now having done so will be minor compared to what is to come. Such is the way that Companies with a poor safety outlook have to learn.

You seem intent on blaming Network Rail (as usual) yet the points you highlighted point towards the girls own unfortunate actions.

...and Ive heard many stories of cover ups between low level staff members during BR times, so are you really telling me things were that much better back then.

 

[Hydro]

Now people can be locked into the railway boundary if they're on the foot crossing and a train activates it.

Hooray for safety. Hearts > Heads.