Ufton Nervet - Ten Years On.

[Saint66]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-29755734

Ten years ago seven people were killed when a train collided with a car parked on a Berkshire level crossing. Now survivors of the disaster are asking why, despite another death there last month, the crossing has still not been closed.

Julie Lloyds had rushed to get the train home from London Paddington to get to her grand-daughter's birthday party in Newbury.


"
Ten years have gone by. How many more years do we want to wait? It's not good enough”

Less than an hour into her journey, the 17:35 First Great Western London Paddington to Penzance service crashed.

"All of a sudden there was a screeching of the brakes and you could feel it," Ms Lloyds, now 61, said. "That's a noise I still don't like."

The carriage juddered and the lights went out. "Then all I know is I'm hanging in a very precarious position and we're moving," added Ms Lloyds.

"At that stage I hate to say, it felt smooth. We had gone on to the other line's tracks.

"I still think if I had been sat next to the window I'm damn sure I wouldn't have been here. I still don't know why I didn't sit next to the window because I always did."

Jane Hawker, 56, had recently moved to Newbury from Bath. She had been to an exhibition at Tate Britain with a friend and remembers choosing the 17:35 London Paddington train because it was the fastest.

The pair had been looking at an envelope of photos together when they felt a "jolt".

"We looked at each other and said 'that doesn't feel right'," she said.

"I've never been on a roller coaster but the memory I have is going right up in the air and over.

"It felt like being in a tumble dryer, feeling as though I was being flung around, hitting various things.

"Each time I hit something I thought 'I've survived that, I wonder what will happen with the next one'.

"I did assume I would die. I remember thinking my children were at an age where they would be ok.

"It's not quite that your life flashes before you but you think if I go now this, that or the other will have happened."

The level crossing remains open, despite Network Rail saying it intends to close it

The crash had been caused by Brian Drysdale - a 48-year-old chef at the nearby Wokefield Park Hotel who had parked on the level crossing and turned the lights off.

When train driver Stan Martin spotted him he had just seconds to apply the emergency brakes. The train was travelling at 100 mph, though, and an inquest into the deaths heard there was nothing he could have done to prevent the disaster.

All eight carriages derailed before the train came to rest about a quarter of a mile from the crossing.

Mr Drysdale, Mr Martin and four passengers were killed in the crash and a fifth passenger died in hospital the next day.

This only part of a long BBC news article.

Thoughts are with all those involved ten years on from this horrific crash.

Is it time to finally get the crossing shut?

 

[455driver]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-29755734

Is it time to finally get the crossing shut?

Have a word with the people that prevented NR building the bridge they wanted 'because it would be visible from some houses and have an adverse effect on their view'!

 

[swt_passenger]

Have a word with the people that prevented NR building the bridge they wanted 'because it would be visible from some houses and have an adverse effect on their view'!

There's a few articles around trying to criticise NR about the time taken, but there have been some significant objections to overcome. It would be better to see some media criticism levelled at the selfish close neighbours...

 

[scotraildriver]

Shut the crossing and it would just happen elsewhere. If someone is determined to do something like that nothing will stop them. Closing it might prevent "accidents" but not deliberate acts.

 

[Johnuk123]

If every time somebody decided to end it all on a crossing that crossing was then closed it would be somewhat over the top to say the least.
The bloke who decided to kill himself was mentally unstable and thought he might have HIV.
If the crossing was replaced by a bridge he maybe might have jumped off it instead in front of a train.

 

[sprinterguy]

If the crossing was replaced by a bridge he maybe might have jumped off it instead in front of a train.

And six people who died would have lived – The train driver would probably be quite shaken, but would have survived such an incident (I’m not aware of any incidences in this country of the driver of a train being killed by a suicidal individual who has jumped in front of a train?).

 

[Darandio]

And six people who died would have lived – The train driver would probably be quite shaken, but would have survived such an incident (I’m not aware of any incidences in this country of the driver of a train being killed by a suicidal individual who has jumped in front of a train?).

Which proves there are balanced views to every possibility. Just a shame that the article cannot portray the same, balanced view.

 

[Class377]

If every time somebody decided to end it all on a crossing that crossing was then closed it would be somewhat over the top to say the least.
The bloke who decided to kill himself was mentally unstable and thought he might have HIV.
If the crossing was replaced by a bridge he maybe might have jumped off it instead in front of a train.

What about the near-miss, scooter collision and two people hit (I've left out the suicide attempt as that, as you say, could have also occurred with the bridge, but one would imagine not, since even simple barriers often deter people) since then? 5 incidents in 10 years to me seems like Ufton Nervet is a high-risk level crossing and a bridge would be a good solution to this.

 

[Antman]

There's a few articles around trying to criticise NR about the time taken, but there have been some significant objections to overcome. It would be better to see some media criticism levelled at the selfish close neighbours...

I hardly think it's fair to call people selfish for voicing objections, if there had been a bridge there at the time that individual might well have just gone to another level crossing and done the same thing there.

 

[Chouette]

I hardly think it's fair to call people selfish for voicing objections, if there had been a bridge there at the time that individual might well have just gone to another level crossing and done the same thing there.

At another level crossing, the train might not have been doing 100mph! They really have no place on high speed lines.

 

[westv]

At another level crossing, the train might not have been doing 100mph! They really have no place on high speed lines.

The Selby crash was caused by a road vehicle but there was no crossing involved there.

 

[Darandio]

The Selby crash was caused by a road vehicle but there was no crossing involved there.

And it was also caused by an extreme chain of events, the first of which should now be preventable at that site. Unfortunately, you can normally only learn preventative measures when something goes horribly wrong.

 

[sprinterguy]

The Selby crash was caused by a road vehicle but there was no crossing involved there.

In both Great Heck (Selby) and Ufton Nervet, the presence of a set of points (facing at Ufton Nervet and, I think, trailing at Great Heck) immediately after the collision site was what lead to the dire consequences of these accidents. Both trains would most likely have stayed upright and inline otherwise (though not sure if the Freightliner coal train would have hit the southbound GNER service at Great Heck regardless).

In terms of the number of subsequent incidents and the presence of this feature at Ufton Nervet, I think that this crossing can be considered to be a high risk.

 

[3141]

I hardly think it's fair to call people selfish for voicing objections, if there had been a bridge there at the time that individual might well have just gone to another level crossing and done the same thing there.

Maybe the way it's expressed might be modified, but I think objections by local residents to a bridge proposal are a relevant part of the issue. It's not solely a matter of unfeeling/bureaucratic/incompetent Network Rail deserving to be blamed for inaction.

Also, the fact that this happened ten years ago is irrelevant. As stated already, the accident was caused by the action of the driver committing suicide by placing his car where it would be hit by a train - an appallingly selfish action, because he must have known that others were likely to be killed and injured. Whether the level crossing should be replaced has to do with the level of risk for normal users. From what some other posters have said, there have been accidents there since 2004 which suggests that at that crossing the level of risk is high. If so, those responsible for making decisions - are they the local council, or NR? - would be justified in overriding the objections.

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe the way it's expressed might be modified, but I think objections by local residents to a bridge proposal are a relevant part of the issue. It's not solely a matter of unfeeling/bureaucratic/incompetent Network Rail deserving to be blamed for inaction.

Also, the fact that this happened ten years ago is irrelevant. As stated already, the accident was caused by the action of the driver committing suicide by placing his car where it would be hit by a train - an appallingly selfish action, because he must have known that others were likely to be killed and injured. Whether the level crossing should be replaced has to do with the level of risk for normal users. From what some other posters have said, there have been accidents there since 2004 which suggests that at that crossing the level of risk is high. If so, those responsible for making decisions - are they the local council, or NR? - would be justified in overriding the objections.

A decision on whether to build a bridge on any given route would be in the hands of a Planning Inspector. In this case it will be a brave one who refuses it, assuming all the reasonable objections have been dealt with reasonably.

 

[Antman]

Maybe the way it's expressed might be modified, but I think objections by local residents to a bridge proposal are a relevant part of the issue. It's not solely a matter of unfeeling/bureaucratic/incompetent Network Rail deserving to be blamed for inaction.

Also, the fact that this happened ten years ago is irrelevant. As stated already, the accident was caused by the action of the driver committing suicide by placing his car where it would be hit by a train - an appallingly selfish action, because he must have known that others were likely to be killed and injured. Whether the level crossing should be replaced has to do with the level of risk for normal users. From what some other posters have said, there have been accidents there since 2004 which suggests that at that crossing the level of risk is high. If so, those responsible for making decisions - are they the local council, or NR? - would be justified in overriding the objections.

Yes on the face of it this was a selfish act although who knows what state of mind he was in at the time?

Wouldn't a crossing keeper in situ and full barriers be a better compromise?

 

[PG]

Have a word with the people that prevented NR building the bridge they wanted 'because it would be visible from some houses and have an adverse effect on their view'!

There's a few articles around trying to criticise NR about the time taken, but there have been some significant objections to overcome. It would be better to see some media criticism levelled at the selfish close neighbours...

Maybe the way it's expressed might be modified, but I think objections by local residents to a bridge proposal are a relevant part of the issue. It's not solely a matter of unfeeling/bureaucratic/incompetent Network Rail deserving to be blamed for inaction.
...[snip]...
From what some other posters have said, there have been accidents there since 2004 which suggests that at that crossing the level of risk is high. If so, those responsible for making decisions - are they the local council, or NR? - would be justified in overriding the objections.

Look back to Motts Lane, Witham in Essex - yes I know it wasn't a roadway crossing but the history of getting it replaced by a footbridge is relevant:

• 2003 NR identify need to replace crossing with a bridge - insufficient funding available and other crossings in the area were a higher priority
• 2009 NR explore options for replacement but again funding problems
• 2010 District council offers some funding and NR come up with proposals to modify proposed bridge so that it is affordable
• 2011
  • NR seek to remove horse riders from authorised users (to allow cheaper footbridge to go ahead) - objections received
  • County council and NR seek to close crossing completely (on safety grounds) pending replacement by footbridge - objections received and decision referred to planning inspectorate
• 2012 Planning inspectorate refuse permission (to close crossing) - cite delay between closure and replacement bridge being built as no firm commitment by NR to start date for building bridge
• 2013
  • Fatal accident occurs
  • NR decide to replace crossing with bridleway bridge
  • District council grant permission for replacement bridge
  • Building of bridge commences - crossing closed
• 2014 Bridge opens to public

So really a period of between 4 and 5 years from when NR got serious about replacing the crossing with a bridge to the bridge being in use - so as can be seen NR has a few hurdles to overcome when seeking to replace any crossing with a bridge which all delay proceedings!

 

[bramling]

Have a word with the people that prevented NR building the bridge they wanted 'because it would be visible from some houses and have an adverse effect on their view'!

Whilst I can understand the feelings of those involved, I don't feel it is fair to blame the presence of the crossing for the accident. As far as is known it was a fully deliberate act, and if the individual concerned hadn't chosen to do it here then for all we know he might have gone elsewhere.

I don't think it's appropriate either to link the track layout, as any collision with a road vehicle can result in a derailment, even if there were no points involved the train might have fouled the other line with a train approaching, with equally catastrophic results.

I don't see what's wrong with making this location a CCTV crossing, based on the sequence of events this design *should* have prevented the accident.

 

[Andrewlong]

It's interesting that when the person taking their own life causes death on the railway, there is little sympathy for them and demands to prevent it from happening again.

When someone takes their life and just causes major delays as a consequence people show sympathy but seldom seek solutions such as platform barriers.

 

[Silv1983]

It's a tragedy no doubt, and like everyone I sympathise with those who have lost loved ones - but by the logic of those calling for it's closure I say where do we draw the line? Why not ban kitchen knives, or close the M25 whilst we're at it. The railway budget is better spent elsewhere - and not on projects to appease those who are (understandibly) grieving and whom require a visible/tangible change as a coping mechanism.

 

[westv]

It's interesting that when the person taking their own life causes death on the railway, there is little sympathy for them and demands to prevent it from happening again.

When someone takes their life and just causes major delays as a consequence people show sympathy but seldom seek solutions such as platform barriers.

My sympathy always lies with those that are left to pick up the pieces - both literally and figuratively.

 

[brad465]

I saw that Network Rail were carrying out like a cost-benefit analysis of building a bridge or full barriers being placed. Surely in an incident where there are deaths, injuries, lots of disruption, and grief for years to come, that would be the checkmate of all checkmates, no number/scale of costs could beat it out.

 

[Daz28]

I saw that Network Rail were carrying out like a cost-benefit analysis of building a bridge or full barriers being placed. Surely in an incident where there are deaths, injuries, lots of disruption, and grief for years to come, that would be the checkmate of all checkmates, no number/scale of costs could beat it out.

Death is an inevitable and indeed necessary aspect of life. We must all die of something, somewhere, somehow. If we could magically prevent all deaths, we would not be able to live.

More than 1,700 people died on the roads last year. Only 7 died on level crossings. Since we don't live in a society with unlimited funding, we will always need a method to decide how best to invest what we have.

Suicide has been a part of life for as long as their have been humans on the planet. In some societies it is seen as a noble and dignified act by brave people. In our society we seem to treat it as an act of failure, both by those undertaking it, and those who are powerless to prevent it.

Almost 6,000 people took their own life last year. The true number is almost certainly higher, since coroners will always err on the side of caution when the subject's intentions cannot be determined with certainty. Approx 200 of those took their life on the railway. Perhaps one or two per year will be at level crossings.

Ufton Nervet was a tragedy. It was a suicide. It was a level-crossing fatal incident. It was also a criminal act, the unlawful killing of those victims on the train.

No amount of money can guarantee that such an incident cannot happen again. No form of transport can ever be 100% safe. Because life itself is by its nature an uncertain and risk prone activity.

If it wasn't, would it still be worth living?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I saw that Network Rail were carrying out like a cost-benefit analysis of building a bridge or full barriers being placed. Surely in an incident where there are deaths, injuries, lots of disruption, and grief for years to come, that would be the checkmate of all checkmates, no number/scale of costs could beat it out.

Nope, everything has a cost. Why spend for example £1m fixing a nasty corner on a road, when the most amount of compensation families get for a death is £30k and it's only happened once?

 

[Antman]

I saw that Network Rail were carrying out like a cost-benefit analysis of building a bridge or full barriers being placed. Surely in an incident where there are deaths, injuries, lots of disruption, and grief for years to come, that would be the checkmate of all checkmates, no number/scale of costs could beat it out.

I would think full barriers would be the more realistic option, it must be difficult to justify the cost of a bridge on what I assume is not a particularly busy road?

 

[physics34]

was sad to hear (if it was true) that the driver died due to being suffocated in the cab by ballast and gravel that entered the cab, not by impact forces. Very unfortunate.

 

[Antman]

ITV Meridian news showed a service that was held at the crossing by survivors and relatives.