Welshpool crossing crash (22/06/20)

[Tomnick]

I’ve no idea if or where the “3 minute rule” was, or if it was even a rule.

Regards additional protection, yes! It does increase time going on, and off.

We’re all axle counter so it’s EPR on regardless of whether their planned or required.

Patrollers needing to Cross a 10 meter long bridge need a line block and EPR now.

I understand there is a heavy push to zero or making it as difficult as possible to have red zone works, so pretty much all work is in green zone line blocks - which increase our workload.

Personally I think that’s where it’s gone a bit bonkers, shifting and quite possibly increasing the overall risk (by increasing your workload) rather than reducing it. It was creeping in when I left, contractors being forced to use additional protection even where it was clearly unnecessary (which means higher workload, more conversations, more people involved) and the regular gangs taking their booked line blocks yet carrying on working (safely) once they’d given them up. The best story that I heard was the gang (contractors, again) needing to access something, using a public foot crossing over a busy railway but otherwise well clear of the line. It took them ages to get the block, involving two different boxes, during which time numerous old women had trundled past with ancient canines in tow...

 

[alxndr]

Patrollers needing to Cross a 10 meter long bridge need a line block and EPR now.

Really? I had the understanding it only applied to blocks over 5 minutes in length. Or has it changed again...?

Back on topic, this is the vital thing:

How many times is the under-pressure DPD driver, a regular visitor, going to sit and wait for a train that's ten minutes away before deciding "f**k it, I'm just going to take a chance this time"? It's pretty unlikely, really, that someone crossing a well maintained crossing in a small vehicle is going to get stuck (not really much more so than at an AHB?), but if users get fed up and start routinely crossing without phoning, it's far more likely that there'll be an accident.

It's easy to say that the public should do as their told, but the reality is that people cut corners. They get complacent. They always have and always will. As the old 1914 The Safety Movement book frankly says "men will take their lives in their hands to save a few yards' walk, or to save waiting a minute or two" (I thoroughly recommend anyone interested in safety to read at least the first few pages, it hits home much better than today's approach where it feels people are too scared to admit that not everyone always follows the rules everytime).

The skill is finding the balance between what is theoretically safest on paper and what is safest when taking the foibles of human nature into account. That shouldn't, however, be something that is left down to individual signallers to decide.

 

[LOM]

Personally I think that’s where it’s gone a bit bonkers, shifting and quite possibly increasing the overall risk (by increasing your workload) rather than reducing it. It was creeping in when I left, contractors being forced to use additional protection even where it was clearly unnecessary (which means higher workload, more conversations, more people involved) and the regular gangs taking their booked line blocks yet carrying on working (safely) once they’d given them up.

There is a national signaller workload assessment project ongoing which is likely to result in drastic reductions in the number of line blockages and possessions that can be granted and time restrictions on when they can be taken. Quite how that fits in with the aim of doing away with red zone working altogether has not yet been explained.

 

[Spartacus]

Thankfully my position was never really put to the test but I think it likely that they'd have tried to stick the delay to me if I'd had to caution because a user crossing with just a car had failed to call back!

Don’t worry, the delay would sit firmly in the ‘Crossing Misuse’ XING INCDT category, along with cautioning due to a phone being left off the hook by a user.

 

[Tom Quinne]

There is a national signaller workload assessment project ongoing which is likely to result in drastic reductions in the number of line blockages and possessions that can be granted and time restrictions on when they can be taken. Quite how that fits in with the aim of doing away with red zone working altogether has not yet been explained.

It’s already been radically overhauled by our new LOM, much better now they’ve actually sat down with the maintenance side and thrashed out the Best way forward for both sides.

 

[Tom Quinne]

Really? I had the understanding it only applied to blocks over 5 minutes in length. Or has it changed again...?

Back on topic, this is the vital thing:



It's easy to say that the public should do as their told, but the reality is that people cut corners. They get complacent. They always have and always will. As the old 1914 The Safety Movement book frankly says "men will take their lives in their hands to save a few yards' walk, or to save waiting a minute or two" (I thoroughly recommend anyone interested in safety to read at least the first few pages, it hits home much better than today's approach where it feels people are too scared to admit that not everyone always follows the rules everytime).

The skill is finding the balance between what is theoretically safest on paper and what is safest when taking the foibles of human nature into account. That shouldn't, however, be something that is left down to individual signallers to decide.

Route special instruction.

 

[Deepgreen]

The crash seems to have been at the user worked crossing just east of the former Buttington Jn, according to this account and location map.
There are 4 level crossings over a bit more than a mile on this stretch, all marked UWC in the NR Sectional Appendix, except the one across the main A458 in Buttington which is AHBC.
Line speed is 120 km/h.

Driver seriously injured as van hit by train at level crossing near Welshpool

A driver has been left seriously injured after the van they were in was hit by a train at a level crossing near Welshpool.

www.shropshirestar.com

When did Wales adopt Km/h as its standard speed unit?

 

[Bald Rick]

When did Wales adopt Km/h as its standard speed unit?

It’s for the ETCS

 

[Deepgreen]

It’s for the ETCS

Interesting - so mph and kph are simultaneously in official use on different elements of the railway?

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting - so mph and kph are simultaneously in official use on different elements of the railway?

Yep!

 

[Taunton]

One question from above somewhat lost is how did the organisation get planning permission for change of use from a farm to a commercial kennels business with members of the public now coming direct to the premises. This appears to be a Change of Use under planning law, for which planning permission would be required, and given the access arrangements would be surprising to be granted, even on appeal.

 

[edwin_m]

Would NR be a consultee on such an application if the property was accessed via a UWC?

 

[gsnedders]

Interesting - so mph and kph are simultaneously in official use on different elements of the railway?

HS1 is also all km/h, and Tyne & Wear Metro is all km/h with the Network Rail sections signed in both km/h and mph. Several sections near HS1 are also dual-signed (Dollands Moor most obviously).

 

[Llanigraham]

One question from above somewhat lost is how did the organisation get planning permission for change of use from a farm to a commercial kennels business with members of the public now coming direct to the premises. This appears to be a Change of Use under planning law, for which planning permission would be required, and given the access arrangements would be surprising to be granted, even on appeal.

It's been a kennels for years, so perhaps the Permission was granted long ago.

 

[Llanigraham]

Would NR be a consultee on such an application if the property was accessed via a UWC?

According to the LXM I know, yes they would be consulted.

 

[alxndr]

One question from above somewhat lost is how did the organisation get planning permission for change of use from a farm to a commercial kennels business with members of the public now coming direct to the premises. This appears to be a Change of Use under planning law, for which planning permission would be required, and given the access arrangements would be surprising to be granted, even on appeal.

Looks like they initially might not have, they applied for a certificate of existing use in 2012 which was rejected, but then a second application was accepted in 2014.

 

[Purple123]

I'm sure that was essentially what happened in another similar accident a few years ago, but can't remember the crossing name in that one.

To me it seems obvious not to stop on the middle of a railway line, but seemingly not everyone thinks like that?

Can I just say that a family are going through absolute heartbreak due to this incident. Absolute hell. Please can you all consider this before commenting

 

[moggie]

Maybe a degree of perspective is required first before we get more 'pie in the sky' GPS style solutions. COST!

The reason the signalling system might, not does, provide an inadequate amount of information for the signaller to judge proximity of trains to UWC is not because rail signalling technology is incapable of doing so! Far from it. It's simply because no one has made what would now be called a business case no doubt, to pay for enhancing the appropriate signalling provision, or indeed in the case of some rural lines, providing any form of signalling tech over and above a token system. So why air industry GPS locating tech is needed, no doubt at exorbitant cost to implement across the whole area rail system when all is needed is appropriately configured train detection apparatus of a type understood by those who would be tasked with it's maintenance is unclear. The question isn't about novel tech (in a rail safety system context) but funding to provide or enhance what the railway already has at its disposal. It's not difficult. Doesn't require costly safety approvals which introduction of novel systems such as the use of the equivalent of SIL4 GPS would require and is wholly compatible with integrating within existing rail systems.

And being as NR and it's predecessors have never been funded to remove UWC, automate them of even provide a simple phone connection for users FFS why do some think a GPS for Rail solution suddenly becomes is affordable? No doubt GPS could (eventually) provide a (expensive) solution but that's not the issue. It's funding - as always based on the cost / benefit of safety enhancement. Only when safety incidents at low use UWC rise to the top of the pile will the funding be found and no doubt at the cost to other safety related programmes.

To summarise, UWC safety is not a question of available rail technology or limitations. It's a question of paying to provide better / more of what we already have so that for example specific train detection is provided solely for the purposes of providing the signaller with the necessary information, or automating the crossing with R/G lights, whatever is the more appropriate cost / benefit outcome - if that's what ORR eventually conclude.

 

[tspaul26]

Would NR be a consultee on such an application if the property was accessed via a UWC?

On a planning application, generally yes.

Looks like they initially might not have, they applied for a certificate of existing use in 2012 which was rejected, but then a second application was accepted in 2014.

On this type of s191 application there is no statutory requirement for consultation because the safety of the access route will not normally be a relevant consideration.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Can I just say that a family are going through absolute heartbreak due to this incident. Absolute hell. Please can you all consider this before commenting

Welcome to the Forum.

As you are a New Member and have, so far, only posted on this particular thread, it would perhaps not be totally unreasonable to assume that you may possibly have some connection with someone who has been directly affected by this unfortunate incident, whether this be train crew, signalling staff, the owners/occupiers of the premises adjacent to the crossing, or, of course, the actual road vehicle driver who it is understood has serious, and quite possibly, life changing injuries.

Sadly, in recent years, the interaction of road vehicles with trains has been a significant cause of accident/injury on the railway system.

In the fullness of time, there will be a full official investigation into what has actually happened. In the meantime, idle speculation can, of course, be unhelpful as well as insensitive. This forum is quite well moderated, so if you consider any particular post to be inappropriate, it can be reported to one of the forum moderators.

It can, however, often be informative to discuss, in a respectful manner, the possible contributory factors that may have led to the incident in question.

In the meantime, may I wish a full and speedy recovery to all those who have been affected by the incident.

Clearly, lessons need to be learnt from the incident to minimise the possibility of something similar ever happening again at the same location, or indeed, elsewhere on the network.

 

[Purple123]

Welcome to the Forum.

As you are a New Member and have, so far, only posted on this particular thread, it would perhaps not be totally unreasonable to assume that you may possibly have some connection with someone who has been directly affected by this unfortunate incident, whether this be train crew, signalling staff, the owners/occupiers of the premises adjacent to the crossing, or, of course, the actual driver who it is understood has serious, and quite possibly, life changing injuries.

Sadly, in recent years, the interaction of road vehicles with trains has been a significant cause of accident/injury on the railway system.

In the fullness of time, there will be a full official investigation into what has actually happened. In the meantime, idle speculation can, of course, be unhelpful as well as insensitive. This forum is quite well moderated, so if you consider any particular post to be inappropriate, it can be reported to one of the forum moderators.

It can, however, be informative to discuss, in a respectful manner, the possible contributory factors that may have led to the incident in question.

In the meantime, may I wish a full and speedy recovery to all those who have been affected by the incident.

Clearly, lessons need to be learnt from the incident to minimise the possibility of something similar ever happening again at the same location, or indeed, elsewhere on the network.

Thankyou,I totally understand that these events need to be discussed, fornthenright reasons and respectfully. All I want, is for those calling my family member 'idiots who misuse crossings" to realise that the person they are discussing is someones brother, son, uncle, and that mo matter what mistakes may have been made, his injuries are horrific. Absolutely horrific and we are all in agony with no hope in sight. I also understand it from the train drivers perspective, but to google my family member, as I cannot be bear him due to covid 19, and see him being called an idiot, and it be suggested that he will face prison etc, I can assure you that the way he is now is worse than any prison.
Thankyou

 

[InOban]

Maybe a degree of perspective is required first before we get more 'pie in the sky' GPS style solutions. COST!

The reason the signalling system might, not does, provide an inadequate amount of information for the signaller to judge proximity of trains to UWC is not because rail signalling technology is incapable of doing so! Far from it. It's simply because no one has made what would now be called a business case no doubt, to pay for enhancing the appropriate signalling provision, or indeed in the case of some rural lines, providing any form of signalling tech over and above a token system. So why air industry GPS locating tech is needed, no doubt at exorbitant cost to implement across the whole area rail system when all is needed is appropriately configured train detection apparatus of a type understood by those who would be tasked with it's maintenance is unclear. The question isn't about novel tech (in a rail safety system context) but funding to provide or enhance what the railway already has at its disposal. It's not difficult. Doesn't require costly safety approvals which introduction of novel systems such as the use of the equivalent of SIL4 GPS would require and is wholly compatible with integrating within existing rail systems.

And being as NR and it's predecessors have never been funded to remove UWC, automate them of even provide a simple phone connection for users FFS why do some think a GPS for Rail solution suddenly becomes is affordable? No doubt GPS could (eventually) provide a (expensive) solution but that's not the issue. It's funding - as always based on the cost / benefit of safety enhancement. Only when safety incidents at low use UWC rise to the top of the pile will the funding be found and no doubt at the cost to other safety related programmes.

To summarise, UWC safety is not a question of available rail technology or limitations. It's a question of paying to provide better / more of what we already have so that for example specific train detection is provided solely for the purposes of providing the signaller with the necessary information, or automating the crossing with R/G lights, whatever is the more appropriate cost / benefit outcome - if that's what ORR eventually conclude.
[/QUOTE

Cost? Any small boat owner will have a GPS which sends data to their electronic chart, and in an emergency will relay their exact position to the coastguard.
To link a GPS to the GSM-R and hence to a map in the box would be a doddle.
Only the UK railway industry would make it cost millions, because they would insist on reinventing it from scratch.

 

[Dr Hoo]

And being as NR and it's predecessors have never been funded to remove UWC, automate them of even provide a simple phone connection for users FFS why do some think a GPS for Rail solution suddenly becomes is affordable? No doubt GPS could (eventually) provide a (expensive) solution but that's not the issue. It's funding - as always based on the cost / benefit of safety enhancement. Only when safety incidents at low use UWC rise to the top of the pile will the funding be found and no doubt at the cost to other safety related programmes.

To be fair, the ORR Periodic Review for Control Period 5 (2014-2019) did include £99,000,000 of funding to reduce level crossing risk. Admittedly this was across all level crossing types but quite a lot has been done at UWCs and a fair few have been eliminated entirely.

 

[Taunton]

The railway really must get away from thinking GPS is a hugely expensive solution. It's not.

How is the phone done at the crossing? Mobile technology or wired all the way to Machynlleth?

 

[Bald Rick]

The railway really must get away from thinking GPS is a hugely expensive solution. It's not.

How is the phone done at the crossing? Mobile technology or wired all the way to Machynlleth?

Almost certainly plugged into the fibre optic that will run along the track.

 

[Llanigraham]

The railway really must get away from thinking GPS is a hugely expensive solution. It's not.

How is the phone done at the crossing? Mobile technology or wired all the way to Machynlleth?

I can confirm it's standard fibre optic to Machynlleth.

Do any of you realise how many UWC's Machy has to deal with? And that is after there has been a move to reduce them by building new roads in some areas.

 

[Spartacus]

The railway really must get away from thinking GPS is a hugely expensive solution. It's not.

It’s not simply the cost of it, it’s that cost/benefit analysis will show that x amount spent on GPS would save more lives elsewhere, such as suicide prevention or trespass, and that the majority of incidents at UWCs wouldn’t be prevented by it as they’re caused by MOPs having no intention of following the rules for a variety of reasons.

 

[DerekC]

It’s not simply the cost of it, it’s that cost/benefit analysis will show that x amount spent on GPS would save more lives elsewhere, such as suicide prevention or trespass, and that the majority of incidents at UWCs wouldn’t be prevented by it as they’re caused by MOPs having no intention of following the rules for a variety of reasons.

An enhanced GPS-based system of locating trains precisely would have many benefits to the railway, not just in the UWC area. RSSB did a lot of work on this about five or six years ago. Unfortunately the reports are on SPARK so not public domain (which makes me cross since the work was publicly funded).

 

[hwl]

An enhanced GPS-based system of locating trains precisely would have many benefits to the railway, not just in the UWC area. RSSB did a lot of work on this about five or six years ago. Unfortunately the reports are on SPARK so not public domain (which makes me cross since the work was publicly funded).

It is very easy to register for Spark access.
The most annoying think about Spark is that you can't stay permanently logged in. (I'm a frequent user and also an author of some of material on spark)

 

[OxtedL]

This article on GPS vs ERTMS feels highly relevant to this discussion.

Signalling: Verifying train position by satellite

The ERSAT-Galileo Game Changer research project, which concluded last November, has laid the foundations for GNSS satellite location technology to support train positioning on secondary railways, potentially reducing the cost of ERTMS deployment.

www.railwaygazette.com

...

One catalyst for this is finding ways to reduce the cost of ERTMS. There has been a lot of discussion about the scope for using satellite positioning as a way to avoid the need for expensive fixed infrastructure, particularly on regional lines, and this is one of the ‘game changers’ currently under investigation.

The broad idea is to integrate ERTMS with the location tools provided by the two Global Navigation Satellite Systems: GPS and Galileo. However, it has so far proved difficult to realise the potential of this combination, partly because GNSS is a service provided by entities that lie outside the control of the railway sector.

Integration would require the creation of a ‘bridge’ between the GNSS world and the railway one. Work has been underway for several years to define a common understanding and language, agree on the functional requirements, and allocate responsibility for safety assurance between the two sides.

...

So it's an active area of research, and it sounds like it's being seriously considered.

The main difficulty as highlighted on the thread seems to be integrating GPS in a safety critical way.

Further down the article there's some discussion of trials that have been collecting data to prove the concept.