Two rail workers killed in collision with train, near Port Talbot - Wed 3 July 2019

[whole diary]

[didcotdean]

The RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) published its report on this today here.

"The accident occurred because the three track workers were working on a line that was open to traffic, without the presence of formally appointed lookouts to warn them of approaching trains. They were carrying out a maintenance activity which they did not know to be unnecessary. All three workers were almost certainly wearing ear defenders, because one of them was using a noisy power tool, and all had become focused on the task they were undertaking. None of them was aware that the train was approaching until it was too late for them to move to a position of safety. Subsequent acoustic measurements have shown that they would not have been able to hear the train?s warning horn.

"The system of work that the controller of site safety had proposed to implement before the work began was not adopted, and the alternative arrangements became progressively less safe as the work proceeded that morning and created conditions that made an accident much more likely."

[ellendune]

A quote from the recommendations of the report with potentially far reaching consequences:

10 The intent of this recommendation is to explore ways of reducing the risk
to staff who work on or near the track by creating more opportunity for
safe access to the track when trains are not running.
Network Rail, in consultation with the Department for Transport, relevant
transport authorities, ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) and other railway stakeholders, should
investigate ways of optimising the balance between the need to operate
train services and the need to enable safe access to the track for routine
maintenance tasks. Options for consideration should include:
a) the provision of gaps in the train service, during daylight off-peak
hours, to enable timely and safe access for maintenance staff
b) greater use of alternative routes or bidirectional lines to achieve the
above
c) increased availability and utilisation of weekend and night time
possessions for cyclical maintenance tasks.
Any reasonably practicable measures that are identified should then be
implemented in accordance with a timebound plan (paragraph 359b).

[MVR S&T]

Should and must have different meanings in this context. there are no musts in this quote, so only a sugestion to change anything.

[ellendune]

Should and must have different meanings in this context. there are no musts in this quote, so only a sugestion to change anything.

Hence potentially

[Electric train]

A quote from the recommendations of the report with potentially far reaching consequences:

10 The intent of this recommendation is to explore ways of reducing the risk
to staff who work on or near the track by creating more opportunity for
safe access to the track when trains are not running.
Network Rail, in consultation with the Department for Transport, relevant
transport authorities, ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) and other railway stakeholders, should
investigate ways of optimising the balance between the need to operate
train services and the need to enable safe access to the track for routine
maintenance tasks. Options for consideration should include:
a) the provision of gaps in the train service, during daylight off-peak
hours, to enable timely and safe access for maintenance staff
b) greater use of alternative routes or bidirectional lines to achieve the
above
c) increased availability and utilisation of weekend and night time
possessions for cyclical maintenance tasks.
Any reasonably practicable measures that are identified should then be
implemented in accordance with a timebound plan (paragraph 359b).

There is a big drive to do more work on nights, however there are knock on effects, some are.

There has been an increase in slip, trip, fall injuries to staff due to night work (apparently is dark at night ....... who knew!! )
Less staff available during to day to react to faults and failures 
Increased complaints from lineside neighbours due to noise and light pollution from the work lights

Passengers may see a reduction in late night services

[broadgage]

On electrified routes, it should be possible to provide night time work lighting affixed to the OHLE gantries. A permanent installation but only turned on when needed. This would greatly reduce the risk of trips and falls.
In extreme weather it might be worth turning on the lights in order that the infrastructure and surroundings may be kept under close observation.

[Electric train]

On electrified routes, it should be possible to provide night time work lighting affixed to the OHLE gantries. A permanent installation but only turned on when needed. This would greatly reduce the risk of trips and falls.
In extreme weather it might be worth turning on the lights in order that the infrastructure and surroundings may be kept under close observation.

Whilst it sounds like a good idea there are a number of issues.

OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") structures on the GW^▸ (Great Western) am 100 metres apart, therefore quite powerful lighting would be required, this could be hazardous to train drivers on adjacent open lines.
The OLE structures are not high enough with the 100 metre spacing and would cause shadows in the middle area which would increase the slips trips and fall hazards
Where fixed light has been installed at junctions, even with correct direction of the light fittings and shielding complaints from lineside neighbours due to the light pollution almost renders them useless.
The maintenance of the lights is problematical.

The reason I am sceptical .................. it has already been tried on the West Coast Mainline at a number of junctions and was remove quite quickly because of the issues above and few more.

With battery and LED technology we have today site lighting is easier to deal with.

Most staff slip trips and falls are actually getting in and out of the van or off loading the vans and walking down access stairs and paths to the line side
 

[eightonedee]

From my experience as a passenger passing works for nearly two decades - aren't the works at night usually lit by temporary site lighting at a low level that seems to illuminate track works quite well?

[ellendune]

On electrified routes, it should be possible to provide night time work lighting affixed to the OHLE gantries. A permanent installation but only turned on when needed. This would greatly reduce the risk of trips and falls.
In extreme weather it might be worth turning on the lights in order that the infrastructure and surroundings may be kept under close observation.

Lighting will need a voltage significantly below 50/25kV. This will require a step down power supply which essentially means an additional low voltage power supply in parallel with the traction power.  This would be an additional cost with the only offset being that it could presumably be supported on the OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") infrastructure. The cost would therefore be significant.  Far better to take power from the 650V signalling power supply where that is present. 

[Electric train]

From my experience as a passenger passing works for nearly two decades - aren't the works at night usually lit by temporary site lighting at a low level that seems to illuminate track works quite well?

The portable / mobile lighting provides both task lighting (200 Lux plus) and general illumination 10 / 20 Lux).  The one thing that fixed lighting on columns cannot provide easily in task lighting portable / mobile is able to provide the task lighting.

On electrified routes, it should be possible to provide night time work lighting affixed to the OHLE gantries. A permanent installation but only turned on when needed. This would greatly reduce the risk of trips and falls.
In extreme weather it might be worth turning on the lights in order that the infrastructure and surroundings may be kept under close observation.

Lighting will need a voltage significantly below 50/25kV. This will require a step down power supply which essentially means an additional low voltage power supply in parallel with the traction power.  This would be an additional cost with the only offset being that it could presumably be supported on the OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") infrastructure. The cost would therefore be significant.  Far better to take power from the 650V signalling power supply where that is present. 

The 650V signalling supplies generally do not have the capacity to provide site lighting loads.  Signalling Power Supplies are also a safety critical system using them for general supplies would pose a risk to the safety critical system.  Also the transitory nature of track works means the cost of modifying the 650V system against the times it would be used probably would not have the cost saving benefit.

NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are trialling portable tower lighting with LED lights that are battery powered that have sola / wind generation which means at night they run on battery during the day when not in use the sola and wind charge the batteries, they also have a small generator to charge the batteries.  The great thing about these is they are silent at night, the generator only runs is need during the day

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Network Rail fined £4m after workers killed by train


Rail workers Gareth Delbridge and Michael Lewis died when a train crashed into them while they were on a job in July 2019

Network Rail has been fined nearly £4m after two workers were struck and killed by a train following safety failures.

Gareth Delbridge, 64, and Michael "Spike" Lewis, 58, were hit by a Great Western Railway train travelling from Swansea to London Paddington in July 2019.

The two men had been working for Network Rail at Margam, near Port Talbot, at the time and a third track worker also came close to being hit, with a previous report describing him as "severely traumatised".

Network Rail said it continued to "transform the safety of our workforce" following "the tragic deaths".

At Swansea Crown Court on Friday, Recorder Christian Jowett fined Network Rail £3.75m, saying the company had failed to put in place proper measures to protect the workers.  The judge said issues surrounding safety policy had been known for some time and the firm had failed to make improvements.

Network Rail previously admitted its role in the men's deaths.

The court heard that, in the absence of technological solutions, the only protection workers had was a lookout, which Mr Jowett described as the "lowest level of protection".

"Visibility towards Port Talbot at the site was restricted due to a curve in the track, so the need for two lookouts was identified, with four men carrying out the work," he said.  "But what happened was the group split into two, one to carry out the maintenance work and the other to carry out [other] work - no one was available to be the second distant lookout.  The task was noisy because of the type of machine being used."

The judge said none of the workers were aware of the approaching train "until it was too late".

Issues surrounding Network Rail's track safety policy had been known since 2017, but the judge said by 2019 the steps taken had "not resolved the concerns".

Mr Jowett said the policy - called Standard 19 - for how track work should be carried out was "substantially based on a number of unsuccessful initiatives since 2014", following previous deaths in 2011 and 2012.  "I find that Network Rail therefore must have had a good understanding of why these initiatives failed," he said.  "However, I also find that it didn't learn from these experiences because the design and rollout of Standard 19 repeated a number of mistakes and introduced further mistakes."

Contrary to its own policy, Network Rail did not consider it necessary for the rollout of Standard 19 to be delivered by qualified trainers, with the amount of training reduced from eight hours to two and a half, with a video, "which may have added further confusion".

The judge also said track workers had narrowly avoided being struck by trains in July 2018 and April 2019, and in December 2018 the regulator indicated that it was "minded to serve improvement notices".

Nick Millington, route director at Network Rail Wales and Borders, said the "tragic" deaths of Mr Delbridge and Mr Lewis "should never have happened on our railway".  "Since this tragedy, we have continued to transform the safety of our workforce through the development of new technology and planning tools, which have almost entirely eliminated the need to work on the railway when trains are running," he said. "Today's judgement reinforces why safety must always be our first consideration, and we will continue to do all we can to make our railways the safest they can be."

Mark Phillips, chief executive of the independent organisation Rail Safety and Standards Board, said the incident was a "catalyst to completely rethink track worker safety".

[TaplowGreen]

Fine to be paid by the taxpayer.

[Electric train]

Fine to be paid by the taxpayer.

When NR^» (Network Rail - home page) is fined it is actual loss of capital that the company no longer has available, NR is still obligated to its CP7 renewals, levels of maintenance etc therefore the £3.75m has to be found by internal cost cutting / savings, NR cannot go back to the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) / DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and ask can we have more money.

[ChrisB]

Fine to be paid by the taxpayer.

By way of less improvement spend in the period