Network Rail apologises over level crossing deaths

[carriageline]

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.

The box I'm at, has 5! Same as the fringe box.

 

[Greenback]

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.

Here's the exact quote again

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.

The words used imply to me that Elsenham is included. It refers to a rail incident without further clarification, so can easily be read to include such tragedies as Potters Bar, Ladbroke Grove and Southall as well.

The final phrase implies that if NR apologise, so should families of the victims. Although it doesn't say in what circumstances, so we have to assume that the term 'a rail incident' applies again.

In that respect, he is definitely wrong, although I accept that it wasn't his intention to suggest that relatives of anyone killed in the places I mentioned should apologise to NR. That is, however, what could be read into it, given the wording used.

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 fail to see why the victim's relations should apologise to a driver for something done by someone else, particularly one who is now dead and can't be questioned or held to account in any case. I would hope that if the driver involved ever met up with one of the relatives, there would be suitable expressions of regret from both sides, that would only be proper.

A formal public aplology in the manne rof NR's is something different. The CE is apologising on behalf of his organisation, not as an individual with no control over or responsibility for the actions of a relative. It's quite different.

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.

Ah. Now if you mean that NR should apologise to drivers as well as victims relatives, I am in full agreement.

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.

Yes, I fully agree with all of that.

 

[ComUtoR]

Ah. Now if you mean that NR should apologise to drivers as well as victims relatives, I am in full agreement.

Absolutely

On the other points. Its truly difficult to be other than general. Whilst I don't like making generalisations I do feel that the Driver is forgotten. The media spin everything out of proportion and have a natural bias against corporations and very much against the railway.

Reading RAIB reports (jebus they are clinical) and watching relatives on the tellybox blame everyone else and not the victims actions. I heard one relative say that her daughter took a shortcut across the railway every day and in the same breath blame Network Rail for not preventing her doing so. Relatives and friends of victims demand apologies from Network Rail I do feel it works both ways. Just once I would like to hear something said about the Driver. Heaven forbid that either of my children are involved in an incident but as a parent I have a responsibility for my children. If they caused an incident then I would feel a need to apologise on their behalf.

All in all its a horrific time for all involved. I wish I had a solution or suggestions, but I don't. Being mindful of all parties involved is the best I can do.

Like you, I would love for Network Rail to be more specific in what they are apologising for and for the media to stop their incessant spin. The BBC never cease to amaze me when I see interviews deliberately choked off mid sentence to generate soundbites and bias.

I cannot say with any conviction about how Network Rail have treated individual families. However; I can say that they are failing the public. Without digressing too much some incidents aren't directly the fault of Network Rail. The subcontractors have a lot to answer for too.

 

[Greenback]

On the other points. Its truly difficult to be other than general. Whilst I don't like making generalisations I do feel that the Driver is forgotten. The media spin everything out of proportion and have a natural bias against corporations and very much against the railway.

I agree, though I think that this is part of the way that oru society has developed as I outlined in an earlier post. Everyone wants to blame someone, everyone wants an apology, compensation seems high on the agenda too. Whether the media has reacted to this or helped to cause it is difficult to say, it's a chicken and egg situation.

Reading RAIB reports (jebus they are clinical) and watching relatives on the tellybox blame everyone else and not the victims actions. I heard one relative say that her daughter took a shortcut across the railway every day and in the same breath blame Network Rail for not preventing her doing so. Relatives and friends of victims demand apologies from Network Rail I do feel it works both ways. Just once I would like to hear something said about the Driver. Heaven forbid that either of my children are involved in an incident but as a parent I have a responsibility for my children. If they caused an incident then I would feel a need to apologise on their behalf.

The reports are clinical. I think they have to be given the objective of the investigation - to find out what happened and identify areas of improvement which will hopefully help to avoid a repetition.

I would probably feel I would have to make an apology on behalf of a relative if it had been found that they caused death, injury or mental anguish to another person through their deliberate actions. But I think that is a matter for the individaul, and different to a situation where the leader in an organisation makes a public apology for historical failings that his company has been guilty of.

A bit like an alcoholic, being open and admitting to past mistakes is necessary before the culture of a company can change, and institutional problems be addressed.

All in all its a horrific time for all involved. I wish I had a solution or suggestions, but I don't. Being mindful of all parties involved is the best I can do.

Like you, I would love for Network Rail to be more specific in what they are apologising for and for the media to stop their incessant spin. The BBC never cease to amaze me when I see interviews deliberately choked off mid sentence to generate soundbites and bias.

I cannot say with any conviction about how Network Rail have treated individual families. However; I can say that they are failing the public. Without digressing too much some incidents aren't directly the fault of Network Rail. The subcontractors have a lot to answer for too.

Not much I can disagree with there. Although NR is ultimately responsible for work completed on its behalf by subcontractors. What you say is right, but it would be unwise for NR to state this themselves as it would look like they were trying to absolve themselves of any blame.

This is indeed a difficult topic, and having worked on the railway myself my initial thoughts are always very inclusive of the staff involved in any incident.

 

[petersi]

Some reports have the MP's saying that by 2020 there should be be zero level crossing accidents how achievable is this.

In an ideal world there would be no level crossings

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Greenback]

I don't think that any target that includes a zero is going to be realistically achievable. Unless all level crossings are abolished of course.

I doubt level crossings of any description would be allowed these days (if railways in their current form) had just been invented. Yet when railways first appeared there was hardly any road traffic, and trains were much slower than they are now.

As a result, there were many, many more interfaces between pedestrians, road vehicles and trains than there are these days. Close to where I live now, trains ran along the street, without any seperation at all from the carriageway. Trains ran, albeit slowly, not far from people's front doors!

But perhaps this made people more careful? It may sound a bit strange, but the proximity to the tracks and the steam engines might have made people more aware of the risks they pose?

 

[Darren R]

Some reports have the MP's saying that by 2020 there should be be zero level crossing accidents how achievable is this.

The BBC is reporting that the Transport Select Committee has set Network Rail a "deadline" of 'zero level crossing deaths by 2020.' They don't report how the TSC thinks this is either achievable or realistic. Nor is there any mention of what sanctions (if any) will be imposed if the target is not met, but of course the TSC has no such powers anyway. Setting this target - which is unachievable - without suggesting how it can be met may strike those of a cynical disposition as merely pandering to the gallery and somewhat pointless. It could only be met by closing every LC on the network.

 

[Lockwood]

Man walking with a red flag in front of every train?

 

[fsmr]

Some reports have the MP's saying that by 2020 there should be be zero level crossing accidents how achievable is this.

In an ideal world there would be no level crossings

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

The visionary Great Central route to Manchester had just one in Notts on the whole line from London. Even occupation crossings were mostly bridges although crossing the footpath at Birstall north of Leicester was scary in the 60s when it was still part of BR and trains passed at 60 mph or more on a curve albeit mostly steam so you could hear them we'll if not see

 

[jopsuk]

I don't think that any target that includes a zero is going to be realistically achievable. Unless all level crossings are abolished of course.

I doubt level crossings of any description would be allowed these days (if railways in their current form) had just been invented. Yet when railways first appeared there was hardly any road traffic, and trains were much slower than they are now.

As a result, there were many, many more interfaces between pedestrians, road vehicles and trains than there are these days. Close to where I live now, trains ran along the street, without any seperation at all from the carriageway. Trains ran, albeit slowly, not far from people's front doors!

But perhaps this made people more careful? It may sound a bit strange, but the proximity to the tracks and the steam engines might have made people more aware of the risks they pose?

I doubt it, I bet there were large numbers of deaths and serious injuries...

 

[455driver]

Some reports have the MP's saying that by 2020 there should be be zero level crossing accidents how achievable is this.

In an ideal world there would be no level crossings

Are these the same MPs responsible for reducing NRs funding every year?

Yes zero is possible!
Who pays?

 

[DT611]

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?

no, its an irish thing to, not all of us though thankfully, but their are many who believe that when something happens its someone elses fault or responsibility when actually, it isn't

 

[Greenback]

I doubt it, I bet there were large numbers of deaths and serious injuries...

I don't think we'll ever find out if, staistically, there were more accidents then than now per running mile. Though I suspect that given that there were a lot more railways, waggons and locos than there are now, the numbers of actual incidents would have been a lot higher.

 

[Andrewlong]

And will NR have to apologise when people are struck by trains? This creates significant disruption and happens regularly on the network. I feel sorry for the driver and those who arrive on the scene.

 

[Greenback]

And will NR have to apologise when people are struck by trains? This creates significant disruption and happens regularly on the network. I feel sorry for the driver and those who arrive on the scene.

I don't think that there is any suggestion that NR apologies will become an automatic thing to be given in any circumstances. They should not have to apologise for anything but their own failings; to do otherwise would render the apology meaningless.

 

[matchmaker]

I doubt it, I bet there were large numbers of deaths and serious injuries...

The two worst level crossing accidents (in terms of casualties) occurred in the 1940's....one of them (Balmuckety) happened on a lightly used single track branch line.

 

[Greenback]

The two worst level crossing accidents (in terms of casualties) occurred in the 1940's....one of them (Balmuckety) happened on a lightly used single track branch line.

Interesting. My line of thinking is that risk increases where trains are infrequent, as in Balmuckety.

None of the elderly residents that I have spoken to around here know or have heard of any accidents when the trains ran down the road. They have far more stories of death and injuries in the local works and factories than anything involving trains. According to their recollections, because the trains were frequent, everyone gave treated them with great respect and gave them a wide berth.

Of course, all of this is hearsay and dependent on the accurate memories of people now in their 80's and above. But it has certainly got me thinking.