Network Rail apologises over level crossing deaths

[Kingston Flyer]

Network Rail has offered a "full and unreserved apology" to families bereaved by level crossing accidents.

Chief executive Mark Carne apologised for "failings" in managing public safety and for "failing to deal sensitively" with affected families.

Looking at the picture on this article makes me just a might bit annoyed mind you but this seems to be more about a lack of sensitivity on NR's count.

I'd be interested to know your opinions on this though. Just public pressure leading to an apology or what?

 

[High Dyke]

Link here for those that haven't seen the story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26478145

Yes i agree about the picture used. Once again it doesn't truly represent the story it is portraying. The cyclist has wilfully disobeyed the level crossing lights and barriers.

I believe they also apologised in 2012. So why the need to apologise again?

The report from the Transport Select committee is here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/680/68002.htm

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just listening to this item of news on Radio 4.

 

[balne-wonderer]

That picture is incredibly poor. Like has been said, the cyclist was totally at fault in that clip. Of course, cyclists are never at fault for anything so the the BBC probably came to the conclusion that the railway is no place for trains.

I just wonder, how many of these deaths, as horrific and tragic as they are, are down to user error. How many times was NR actually at fault?

 

[Greenback]

Although the question of user error is at the heart of this story and the NR apology, it seems to be more about the way NR has handled matters after an incident. If they have described victims as 'trespassers' this may be technically correct but shows a lack of sensivity that is bound to upset the relatives of the deceased, particularly when they are still battling to come to terms with losing a loved one.

People make mistakes. This has often been compunded by deficencies in local ways of working, information to passengers on what to do and how to behave. NR really has to apologise again for its past failings, not to do so when a critical report is published would be wrong. What should they do? Say nothing and be criticised for being aloof and uncaring?

Mind you, I do think the picture used on the BBC website is inappropriate. It is one that should be used to highlight the dangers of level crossings, but not for this sort of report.

 

[PG]

Firstly I've not read the MPs report.

It is very,very sad that anyone should loose their life while attempting to cross the line at an authorised level crossing. It is also doubtless very distressing for all those involved when these incidents occur, indeed life changing for some, who though no fault of their own may find they are no longer able to carry on doing something they have done for a living.

In answer to the OPs question I do get the feeling that the tide of public opinion has changed from what was once the case and that NR has just been told "You will apologise" by its Lords and Masters.

This is not in any way an attack of the families of those who have died as nothing can replace their loved one(s) no matter where the cause of their death may have stemmed from, but it seems society now needs someone to be held accountable ie NR. Have the MPs considered, I wonder, that it was parliament itself who authorised the same crossings some time in the past and that perhaps they themselves or their predecessors should also apologise if apologies are being demanded?

I wonder what kind of view the societies of other countries take on this sort of matter, is it just a British thing?

 

[jopsuk]

Most of the deaths are pedestrian. The UK's rate of crossing deaths is second only to Luxembourg within the EU- in the good sense

 

[Greenback]

It is very,very sad that anyone should loose their life while attempting to cross the line at an authorised level crossing. It is also doubtless very distressing for all those involved when these incidents occur, indeed life changing for some, who though no fault of their own may find they are no longer able to carry on doing something they have done for a living.

True.

In answer to the OPs question I do get the feeling that the tide of public opinion has changed from what was once the case and that NR has just been told "You will apologise" by its Lords and Masters.

We live in a far more sensitive society today than when I was a boy. People are far more likely to lambast organisations via Twitter and Facebook than used to be the case when the only option to air a complaint was That's Life or a letter to the papers, and the only way to express an opinion was to go down the local pub.

My feeling is that all organisations need to be a lot more media savvy than perhaps they were in the past. This includes being ready and able to say sorry as soon as the negative spotlight of the media starts to point in your direction, even though an apology would probably not have been thought necessary or even appropriate as little as ten or fifteen years ago.

This is not in any way an attack of the families of those who have died as nothing can replace their loved one(s) no matter where the cause of their death may have stemmed from, but it seems society now needs someone to be held accountable ie NR. Have the MPs considered, I wonder, that it was parliament itself who authorised the same crossings some time in the past and that perhaps they themselves or their predecessors should also apologise if apologies are being demanded?

Yes, I agree. Society is also looking to apportion blame these days, and the traditional institutions are no longer held in the same sort of respect as they once were, just look at the way politicians and bankers are regarded!

I am sure that there are many people who have been involved in decisions about all forms of crossings in the past, and who might, now, regret some of the choices that were made. I wouldd efinitely include politicians in that.

I wonder what kind of view the societies of other countries take on this sort of matter, is it just a British thing?

I caught an old episode of Bombay Railways in the early hours the other night when I couldn't sleep. A driver said he had run over 65-70 people in his career, and it was his and the guards duty to remove the body to the track, proceed to the next station and report the situation and location via memo.

Apparently there are 3000 odd deaths in the Mumbai area alone in a year, but crossing the track is so endemic there that it seems impossible to change things.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Most of the deaths are pedestrian. The UK's rate of crossing deaths is second only to Luxembourg within the EU- in the good sense

I;m glad but not surprised. It seems far more likely to see the public on and crossing the tracks in parts of Europe, and the UK insists on having lineside fencing which helps.

 

[PG]

My feeling is that all organisations need to be a lot more media savvy than perhaps they were in the past. This includes being ready and able to say sorry as soon as the negative spotlight of the media starts to point in your direction, even though an apology would probably not have been thought necessary or even appropriate as little as ten or fifteen years ago.

The thing is once someone apologises it seems these days almost inevitable that the media can then stir things up into a frenzy leading to resignations being demanded and legal action following. Once upon a time an apology was accepted as being a sincere and genuine expression of regret...

 

[Greenback]

The thing is once someone apologises it seems these days almost inevitable that the media can then stir things up into a frenzy leading to resignations being demanded and legal action following. Once upon a time an apology was accepted as being a sincere and genuine expression of regret...

Yes, I think apologies have been devalued. It all seems to go alongside the lower levels of respect for others, and the dumbing down of the printed media.

Scapegoats need to be found, and massive amounts of compensation paid out for mistakes. It is no longer enough for something to happen, an investigation undertaken, apologies made and lessons learnt to ensure the same thing never happens again.

Of course, where lessons haven't been learnt, that is a different kettle of fish...

 

[PG]

Scapegoats need to be found, and massive amounts of compensation paid out for mistakes. It is no longer enough for something to happen, an investigation undertaken, apologies made and lessons learnt to ensure the same thing never happens again.

That should be what it's all about - learn the lessons and improve safety.

 

[Greenback]

That does seem to be the message alongside the apology, that improvements have been made. And if an apology helps to get messages like that across in the current climate, I don't mind it at all!

 

[MarkyT]

From that graph it puzzles me why Greece has such high casualties. In the last few years they've curtailed almost their entire rural passenger network, and it was never that big or busy before anyway.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Slow news day?

I can only think of one incident in recent years where a death on a crossing was caused by an error/lapse by NR staff (somewhere in Herefordshire if I remember rightly) rather than pedestrians or motorists ignoring lights/alarms/barriers.

It seems to me that the issue here is down to compassion (or lack of) shown by NR staff in their liaisons with the bereaved. Regardless of how stupid a person might have been when they misused a crossing, they don't 'deserve' to be killed- but then if they take that risk they should know what they're gambling with. Obviously it's a terrible thing for those left behind to deal with and they deserve sympathy, but rail staff are the ones who have to pick up the pieces when accidents happen. NR has put a lot of money into preventing the misuse of crossings in terms of adverts and education programmes in schools (and based on the graph posted by jopsuk, this has been pretty effective).

If there has been issues with families feeling that they've not been dealt with sympathetically then it's only right that NR review their procedures, but given that crossing abuse by motorists especially can and will lead to derailments and injuries/deaths to rail staff and passengers, we don't want to end up in a situation where NR staff are required to bow down and kiss the feet of the family of poor Wayne who was willfully and maliciously mown down in his boy-racer-mobile by an 'evil' train! :roll:

From that graph it puzzles me why Greece has such high casualties. In the last few years they've curtailed almost their entire rural passenger network, and it was never that big or busy before anyway.

Given the state of the Greek economy, suicides possibly.

 

[Greenback]

I can only think of one incident in recent years where a death on a crossing was caused by an error/lapse by NR staff (somewhere in Herefordshire if I remember rightly) rather than pedestrians or motorists ignoring lights/alarms/barriers.

It doesn't matter who is to blame, the relatives of those who died should not have to read that NR (or any other official body) considers them a criminal, or a trespasser.

It seems to me that the issue here is down to compassion (or lack of) shown by NR staff in their liaisons with the bereaved.

I agree, but it also seems to include poor communication by NR in other areas apart from liaising.

Regardless of how stupid a person might have been when they misused a crossing, they don't 'deserve' to be killed

Indeed, but there may not have been a great deal of stupidity at play. The systems used at some crossings where fatalities have occurred were demonstrably unsafe in the first place. I seem to recall instances were sight lines were not good enough due to vegetation growth, poorly maintained signs, insufficient information.

Yet the initial messages that seem to come have come out from NR were defensive. Stuff like we are confident that the crossing warning systems were working correctly, and the implication being before any real investigation has taken place that the deceased simply should not have been where they were.

- but then if they take that risk they should know what they're gambling with. Obviously it's a terrible thing for those left behind to deal with and they deserve sympathy, but rail staff are the ones who have to pick up the pieces when accidents happen. NR has put a lot of money into preventing the misuse of crossings in terms of adverts and education programmes in schools (and based on the graph posted by jopsuk, this has been pretty effective).

I agree that misuse of crossings has been targetted, and it;s a horrible for those dealing with the incident. But all too often people do not realise the danger that they are in when using a crossing of any description. I have read a several RAIB reports about accidents involving foot crossings, quite apart from the Elsenham tragedy. And I have been shocked by some of the complacency on the part of NR that has been revealed in these reports. Known issues have been deliberately left unaddressed, findings from earlier inspections and reviews ignored, and sometimes fatalities have resulted that could have bene avoided.

If there has been issues with families feeling that they've not been dealt with sympathetically then it's only right that NR review their procedures, but given that crossing abuse by motorists especially can and will lead to derailments and injuries/deaths to rail staff and passengers, we don't want to end up in a situation where NR staff are required to bow down and kiss the feet of the family of poor Wayne who was willfully and maliciously mown down in his boy-racer-mobile by an 'evil' train! :roll:

I don't think that NR apologising again for its failings can or should be construed as 'kissing the feet' of anyone, let alone a hypothetical young person.

The issues with road crossings and deliberate misuse are quite different to the issues that have emerged from Elsenham and other incidents. It would be wrong to confuse the two.

 

[maniacmartin]

The Metro got confused when printing the story today, with the title and most of the story mentioning "National Rail" instead of "Network Rail".

It's also no surprise to see a quote from Bob Crowe heavily in favour of getting rid of all level crossings. Isn't he supposed to represent crossing-worker union members?

 

[L&Y Robert]

Part of the problem as I see it is that it is now possible to evade modern barriers with ease, and then cross the track. Even easier with half barriers - just walk round the ends.Then, on top of that, the trespasser will unconciously assume that crossing the railway is just like crossing the road - road traffic runs at slower speeds and drivers can, to some degree, evade obstacles. In addition, pedestrians recognise road vehicles, understand what they are, what they might do, how they sound. The front end of a fast-moving train has a different and unfamiliar set of visual and audio cues, so once you've jumped the barrier, embarked on your journey across, that distant image of the front of a train is NOT going to approach like, say, Occaido's van. But unconciously you think it will. Bang! And there's an element of bravado - "Watch me, folks, I'm real cool and can easily get across - oops! - that was close, and I've lost my shoe". Only your shoe, pal - lucky!
When I was a little boy we used to go down to the level crossing at Brierfield. The signal-box was right there, next to the road. The signalman looked out, up and down the road, then pulled some levers which lowered the gate stops. Then he would wind a big wheel and the gates closed across the road, all the time with the road in view. Another lever locked them there, and yet another locked the little pedestrian wicket gate in the closed position. All the gates were substantial structures, robust, weighty, and would have been awkward to climb over, if one was crazy enough to try, right there under the eye of the signalman. But modern barriers are flimsy by comparison, there is no signalman, just (if you're lucky) a camera on a pole and an observer miles away, who might be doing other things - certainly not taking a look up and down the road before winding a big wheel. Why did we do away with the big gates? Are they too expensive to work? - to maintain? Or just "not trendy" enough – ‘old technology must go!’ type of thing. It looks to me (but I have no calibrations for this) that the modern barrier, its machinery, the TV, the associated track-circuitry and wot-not would come close to the cost of maintaining the man and the signal box and the big gates.

 

[edwin_m]

From that graph it puzzles me why Greece has such high casualties. In the last few years they've curtailed almost their entire rural passenger network, and it was never that big or busy before anyway.

I'm thinking the graph has been normalised in some way (for example against number of crossings or train-miles). It may also be historic data from before the Greek services were reduced.

Perhaps jopsuk would enlighten us with a link to the source?

 

[Llanigraham]

The Metro got confused when printing the story today, with the title and most of the story mentioning "National Rail" instead of "Network Rail".

It's also no surprise to see a quote from Bob Crowe heavily in favour of getting rid of all level crossings. Isn't he supposed to represent crossing-worker union members?

Bros Bob seems to be ignoring most of the signalling grades nowadays!! Probably why lots are leaving the RMT!!

And L & Y Robert, even when there is a signalman present at the crossing, such as mine, people still treat them with contempt!

 

[carriageline]

The problem is, the old crossing keepers style crossings where labour intensive if anything, employing 5 people to open and close gates (so that's at least 160k a year, not including overtime, sick pay etc) plus maintenance of the barriers. Do that along a whole route, say 10 level crossings, and that soon adds up. Whereas with CCTV crossings, you could have, for arguments sake, 5 people watching all 10 barriers over the year, nevermind if they get turned to OD/AHBC. The yearly saving on it's own must be worth it.

I do not agree with job losses, but something has to give. This is the 21st century.

 

[GB]

The problem is, the old crossing keepers style crossings where labour intensive if anything, employing 5 people to open and close gates (so that's at least 160k a year, not including overtime, sick pay etc) plus maintenance of the barriers. Do that along a whole route, say 10 level crossings, and that soon adds up. Whereas with CCTV crossings, you could have, for arguments sake, 5 people watching all 10 barriers over the year, nevermind if they get turned to OD/AHBC. The yearly saving on it's own must be worth it.

I do not agree with job losses, but something has to give. This is the 21st century.

The maximum number of crossings a single person can monitor is I believe 5. Not sure where you got the 160k figure from. A single crossing on an 8hr roster is covered by 4 people and although I do not know what the pay is these days, a few years ago you were lucky to be on £18k pa for a grade 1 crossing keeper.

Wooden gates are also relatively maintenance free accept for the odd adjustment here and there.

 

[freelander]

I wonder how many of the families who have lost a member of their family through a rail incident apologised to the driver of the train? it works both ways.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I realise my earlier post sounded as if I was saying ALL crossing incidents are down to misuse, for that I apologise. The Elsenham tragedy was terrible of course, and I believe there were certain conditions there at the time which made such a tragedy more likely- It's only right that NR learn lessons from such things and invest in improving safety at similar locations.

BUT there are a large number of motorists who seemingly see the flashing lights as a challenge rather than a warning. I will never be able to understand that mindset. Obviously the education programmes need to be targeted specifically at those most likely to jump crossings (typically with motoring offences, I imagine this is likely to be 17-30year-old males) and coupled with more severe penalties (an instant 12month driving ban if caught on CCTV at crossings perhaps).

In terms of pedestrians, this is rather more tricky. Obviously some deaths are down to suicides and preventing these needs an intervention way before the railway is even involved. As for the others, the key again is education coupled with a phased programme of improvement or replacement of both road and foot crossings.

One thing I have observed in recent years is the attitude of EU migrants to railway safety- very different to what we're used to here. One particular incident I witnessed was a Polish man with 2 young lads who, having arrived at Honley just after the train to Huddersfield had left, decided to walk into town down the line! I guess they'd have got to Lockwood viaduct before having to get out of the way of the train on its return journey... :roll:

 

[carriageline]

I just put it down as a 5 person roster, so it's a 4 person roster. So 4x 30k (a grade 1 crossing keeper can easily earn that, basic they earn 22-23 I believe) is still 120k!

 

[Greenback]

I wonder how many of the families who have lost a member of their family through a rail incident apologised to the driver of the train? it works both ways.

What on earth do the families of the girls involved at Elsenham have to apologise for? I really can't believe you typed that without realising how wrong it is.

 

[Llanigraham]

The maximum number of crossings a single person can monitor is I believe 5. Not sure where you got the 160k figure from. A single crossing on an 8hr roster is covered by 4 people and although I do not know what the pay is these days, a few years ago you were lucky to be on £18k pa for a grade 1 crossing keeper.

Wooden gates are also relatively maintenance free accept for the odd adjustment here and there.

Doesn't matter if it is a 8 or 12 hour roster, the staffing levels are still the same, normally 4 permanent and part of one of the relief staff.
Most crossing keepers are Grade 1 signallers so on around £24k pa, but depending on the number of crossings they control or if they are also a "block" post then can be Gr 2 or 3.

If in an "electronic" box then it can be different, but no-one is supposed to deal with more than 5 CCTV crossings.

Wooden gates seem to need much more maintenance than lifting barriers.

 

[Greenback]

I realise my earlier post sounded as if I was saying ALL crossing incidents are down to misuse, for that I apologise. The Elsenham tragedy was terrible of course, and I believe there were certain conditions there at the time which made such a tragedy more likely- It's only right that NR learn lessons from such things and invest in improving safety at similar locations.

No problem, but we need to be clear what NR is apologising for and not be guilty of tarringevery type of fatality with the same brush. An apology from mNR is not going to be relevant to or appropriate for all fatalities or incidents.

Ufton was clearly a very different scenario to Elsenham, and different again to Great Heck

BUT there are a large number of motorists who seemingly see the flashing lights as a challenge rather than a warning. I will never be able to understand that mindset. Obviously the education programmes need to be targeted specifically at those most likely to jump crossings (typically with motoring offences, I imagine this is likely to be 17-30year-old males) and coupled with more severe penalties (an instant 12month driving ban if caught on CCTV at crossings perhaps).

Yes, I agree. In the majority of incidents with road vehicles, there does appear to be some element of blame attached to the driver of the vehicle.

In terms of pedestrians, this is rather more tricky. Obviously some deaths are down to suicides and preventing these needs an intervention way before the railway is even involved. As for the others, the key again is education coupled with a phased programme of improvement or replacement of both road and foot crossings.

Again, I agree in general. This does relate to NR's history with crossings, where much evidence came to light at various times about they and their predecessors indifference to safety issues where an improvement had been recommended but not implemented for a variety of reasons.

One thing I have observed in recent years is the attitude of EU migrants to railway safety- very different to what we're used to here. One particular incident I witnessed was a Polish man with 2 young lads who, having arrived at Honley just after the train to Huddersfield had left, decided to walk into town down the line! I guess they'd have got to Lockwood viaduct before having to get out of the way of the train on its return journey... :roll:

Yes, the culture in other parts of Europe, and indeed the world, is to cross the line, walk along the tracks and in some places it even appears to be compulsory due to a lack of any other means of accessing platforms!

 

[High Dyke]

If in an "electronic" box then it can be different, but no-one is supposed to deal with more than 5 CCTV crossings.

Wooden gates seem to need much more maintenance than lifting barriers.

Indeed Graham. I've been supervising 6 cctv crossings all morning, in a non-controlling gatebox. Then again i am a grade 3 signaller.

However your point about rostering is correct. The location i'm at has 4 resident staff, but is also covered by 3 relief staff.

 

[edwin_m]

The problem is, the old crossing keepers style crossings where labour intensive if anything, ...

Not only that, increased road traffic means that method of working would be unviable even if it was affordable. The road is blocked for a lot longer if the gates need to be swung manually in time to clear the signals for the train to have a clear run, than for an AHB crossing which closes at the minimum safe time before the train arrives. That's before you consider that many such crossings were closed across the road and each vehicle had to wait until the attendant came out, checked no trains were approaching and opened the gates. Even a MCB or CCTV crossing has shorter closure times than a gated crossing, as the barriers move more quickly and the signals can be cleared more quickly too.

If you browse through the accident reports, there are plenty of serious accidents at attendant-worked crossings even though there were far fewer road vehicles at the time. It would be difficult to find statistics to assess it, but it may well be that when normalised by number of events when road vehicles cross a crossing, things are safer today than they have ever been.

 

[ComUtoR]

What on earth do the families of the girls involved at Elsenham have to apologise for? I really can't believe you typed that without realising how wrong it is.

He isn't wrong.

Firstly he hasn't specifically stated that the families of Elsenham or any other specific incident should apologise. He does raise a very good point in that the Driver is always forgotten when such tragedies occur. Being in a job where every single day you are merely seconds away from killing someone must be a worrisome experience.

IMHO Almost all level crossing incidents are preventable. I just watched the BBC news report into their apology and once again the stock footage used shows misuse of the crossings. Where a crossing has been misused or there has been other incidents where a Driver has been put into a situation where he has killed someone then I would wholly agree that they should be apologised to just as much as the victims.

I know drivers who have been involved in such incidents and a couple have handed back their "keys" because its proven to stressful to return to the driving grade. I can also state that whilst they are given counselling and generally treated sympathetically an apology is certainly last on the list. Network Rail have a responsibility to ALL those involved.



I have read various RAIB reports into level crossing incidents and it is very clear that Network Rail are failing in their responsibilities with regard to safety and rightly so should apologise.

However an apology just doesn't cut it. The railway is being dragged kicking and screaming from antiquated victorian infrastructure and out of date procedures and policies. What I do find disgusting about Network Rail and in fact almost the entire railway is that everything is reactive. Why does someone have to die before issues such as level crossings are addressed.

Frankly I am stunned that people are just to lazy to use the correct procedures when using a crossing and are prepared to put their lives at such risk. However; that's a whole different issue.