Three dead in level crossing collision at Halkirk, Caithness - discussion

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the John O'Groat Journal:

Network Rail rapped over Halkirk crossing barrier delay

Network Rail has been heavily criticised for not given enough priority to installing safety barriers at the Caithness village level crossing where three people lost their lives.

Former Caithness Highland Councillor David Flear claims Halkirk should have been the first on the list of the 20 crossings which are to have new safety barriers erected in the Highlands.

The ^4 million project was brought forward after the tragic death of pensioners Angus Mackay (81) his wife Margaret (81) and Angus^s brother Donnie Mackay (66), from Latheron, who were killed when their car was struck by a train at the rail crossing at Halkirk in September 2009. The accident happened when the car collided with a Sprinter train at the unmanned crossing on Bridge Street which had warning lights but no barriers.
Donald Mackay, a son of the couple, is currently pursuing a personal injury action against Network Rail.

The first stubby type barriers were installed this week at Corpach, near Caol in Lochaber, with three barriers also set to be installed iat crossings near Golspie and Brora.

Mr Flear said that given the tragic accident involving the Mackays, Network Rail should have made installing barriers at Halkirk its first priority. "You would have thought as the Mackay deaths stimulated the whole issue that Halkirk would have been the first location to have these barriers to be installed," said Mr Flear, who lives in Halkirk. "I am surprised that it is not the first on the list as the tragedy happened up here and it did accelerate the campaign to have barriers erected at these crossings. Given the history, I thought that it would be logical that this would be the location where there would be the greatest need to get it done right away."

Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch MSP^▸ (Member of Scottish Parliament) Dave Thompson has campaigned for barriers to be introduced throughout the Highlands since 2007. He yesterday said his understanding is that Halkirk was not the first location as the barriers being installed at Caol and the Sutherland crossings are not suitable for Caithness.

Network Rail, he said, had confirmed to him that suitable barriers will be installed at the Caithness crossing by next year. "Halkirk will be getting the full-size traditional barriers as the stubby barrier would not be suitable for the crossing," he said. "The full-size barriers, I understand, take a lot longer to prepare. They will enable the train to go through at high speed whereas the stubby barriers force the train to slow down as it passes. Despite not being the first place to have them installed, Halkirk in the long term will receive a better standard of barriers, but the stubby barriers are a huge improvement on what exists in the Highland at the moment. The planning process has already started for the barriers to be installed in Halkirk and should be in place by 2014."

A successful trial of the specially designed barriers at Ardrossan between April and July led to a decision to commission them in the Highlands over the next two years, it is believed Halkirk is the only Caithness crossing included in the list of 20 sites.

Network Rail were asked to comment but at the time of going to press had not responded.

[DavidBrown]

A couple of questions - firstly why is this particularly a Scottish issue? Surely there are numerous open crossings elsewhere, although it appears more emotive north of the border, possibly because of a couple of high profile incidents.     

Replying to an old post, I know, but a good number of open crossings in Scotland cross A-roads, albeit rural single-track roads, but A-roads nonetheless. In England, most open crossings are on quiet lines with quiet roads which might see one man and his dog use it in a day, so there seems to be less of a risk here.

[John R]

David

That's an interesting thought. Though I notice that the one in question at Halkirk is on a white road.

I notice that the son of the deceased is pursuing a claim against Network Rail. I think the following from the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) Report are interesting comments that I suspect will be key to whether his claim is successful.

The expert^s review of the car driver^s eyesight records concluded that, on the
balance of probabilities, the car driver^s eyesight did not meet the standard set by
the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Authority14. The evidence also indicated that he did
not have distance spectacles to correct this so he would not have been able to see
the road traffic light signals at the crossing as well as a person with vision that meets
the standard.
66 The car driver had been advised to obtain distance spectacles at an eyesight
examination in 2006, and then subsequently in 2009. The RAIB has concluded that
he did not do so but has been unable to establish why not.
67 His impaired eyesight would have significantly affected the car driver^s ability to
determine a hazard such as a level crossing in front of him. He was also susceptible
to glare (difficulty seeing in the presence of a bright light) and could have been
affected in this way by the sunlight reflected from the backboards (paragraph 18).
68 The expert^s view was that the car driver^s impaired eyesight would have resulted
in him being unable to read the signs warning of the approach to the level crossing
until at a third of the distance that a person with vision that meets the required
standard could read them.
69 The car driver^s impaired eyesight would have dulled the effect of the flashing road
traffic light signal; associated glare would have masked the flashing to some extent
and the uncorrected optical error would have blurred the lights, effectively reducing
the amount of light at the retina of the eye. It was not possible to determine the
exact effects of each of these.

[Rhydgaled]

Secondly, does this offer an opportunity to improve cost effective journey times on rural lines which are subject to heavy speed restrictions at open crossings? I'm particularly thinking of a recent trip on the Central Wales line where there appeared to be quite a few such crossings, but would it have any benefit for some of the south west branches? I would imagine each crossing could knock up to a minute off journey times.

South-west Wales or south-west England? In south-west Wales, there are some open crossings on the Pembroke Dock branch. Some say you could save enough time to allow an hourly service if they weren't open crossings, but I don't know. As for the Central Wales (assuming you mean HOWL), there are also rather a lot of very minor stations. I'd be interested to know how much faster it would be with only main stations served and open-crossings dealt with (I don't suggest closing the smaller stations, just that any extra services above the current 4 per day should skip some of them).

[John R]

I was thinking about SW England, but could also be applied to West Wales. 

And I'm afraid I'm old enough to remember when it was commonly known as the Central Wales Line, before they thought up the rather more attractive sounding HoWL. Though Quail Track Diagrams seems to imply that CWL is still used within the railway.

[Rhydgaled]

I was thinking about SW England, but could also be applied to West Wales. 

And I'm afraid I'm old enough to remember when it was commonly known as the Central Wales Line, before they thought up the rather more attractive sounding HoWL. Though Quail Track Diagrams seems to imply that CWL is still used within the railway.

I had a feeling that 'Central Wales Line' was the official name for it, at least at one point. The trobble with 'Central Wales Line' is that it has the potential to be confused with 'Mid Wales Line', which I think refers to part of the demolished north-south route between Merthyr Tydfil and Moat Lane Junction (near Caersws/Newtown).

[John R]

Maybe "had the potential". I don't think there will be much confusion nowadays with a route that ceased to exist 50 years ago.

[Chris from Nailsea]

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

Halkirk level crossing deaths: Victims' son awarded compensation

A man whose parents were killed in an accident at a railway level crossing in Caithness has been awarded tens of thousands of pounds in compensation.

Angus MacKay and his wife Margaret, both 81, from Inverness, and Mr MacKay's brother Donald, 66, of Latheron, died in the 2009 incident.

The MacKays' car collided with a train at an unmanned, gate-free crossing.

Donald MacKay sued Network Rail over alleged safety issues. The two parties reached an out-of-court settlement.

The exact figure which has been awarded to Mr MacKay, 51, from Inverness, has not been disclosed.

He told BBC Scotland that safety measures, such as barriers, at the crossing could have saved the lives of his parents and uncle.

A Network Rail spokesman said: "We have settled a legal action regarding the Halkirk incident, but it would not be appropriate to discuss the details with a third party."

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch)) published a report following the incident.

It said Network Rail "did not properly understand the risk" at the site because it had not taken a record of four previous accidents - one of them fatal - into account.

The RAIB said: "Had it done so, the level of risk might have justified more costly risk reduction measures, and risk reduction measures that had been identified might have been implemented more quickly and before the accident occurred."

Six recommendations were made on improving safety at the site.

However, the RAIB also said Mr MacKay may not have seen, or had misinterpreted, the warning lights at the level crossing and appeared not to have been wearing glasses to improve his distance vision.

[JayMac]

I suspect that the compensatory award is in some way related to the criticism of Network Rail in the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch)'s official report.

Some failings on Network Rail's part were identified. However the fact remains that the car driver did not react to the correctly functioning warning lights and drove onto the crossing. It was also subsequently identified that the car driver's eyesight was below the standard set by the DVLA^▸ (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) and he wasn't using corrective spectacles/contact lenses to meet DVLA requirements for a road vehicle license holder. On two occasions prior to the incident the driver had been advised to obtain distance spectacles. The car driver's poor eyesight was the first identified (and in my opinion, main) factor in the collision, according to the RAIB report.

The backboards for the warning lights were found to be in poor condition. However, the RAIB stated that this would only give rise to glare in a road vehicle driven by someone with sub-standard eyesight. The report cast some doubt on the significance of the the purported poor condition of the backboards. 

The RAIB stated:

...it is likely that the car driver^s sub-standard eyesight was the most significant factor.

Selectively quoted on my part, but I don't think it is out of context. Underlying factors were laid at the door of Network Rail, but I, speaking personally as a layman, am somewhat surprised that Network Rail have paid out 'tens of thousands of pounds' in compensation to the family of the deceased.

That said, there is no mention of liability in this out of court settlement. I just worry that there might be an uneasy precedent being set here. The DVLA need to bear a large part of the blame for allowing someone to continue driving with sub-standard eyesight. More rigorous checks and balances need to be in place when it comes to eyesight requirements for holding a driving license. Whilst it may be outside the remit of the RAIB to question DVLA policy and sanctions, I personally feel it is something they should have pursued further. It is very likely that this incident would never have occurred if the car driver's vision wasn't below the standard required to hold a driving license.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the Scotsman:

Network Rail urged to fight legal claims

Network Rail has been urged to fight legal action over motorists being killed or injured by jumping red lights at level crossings after it emerged the firm has made out-of-court settlements to save money.

In the latest incident, a relative of three pensioners killed when a train hit their car in Caithness has received a ^substantial^ sum, believed to be tens of thousands of pounds. The payout by Network Rail came despite an official report into the 2009 crash stating its most likely cause was the car driver^s poor eyesight.

Angus MacKay, 81, died along with his wife Margaret, 81, and his brother Donald, 66, when their Nissan Almera was hit by an Inverness-Wick train at the barrier-less crossing.

The UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Department for Transport^s rail accident investigation branch (Raib) report into the incident stated: ^The most likely cause was the car driver did not see and react to the flashing road traffic light signals because his eyesight was sub-standard.^

MacKay^s eyesight had not been up to driving test standard, despite him being twice advised to get suitable glasses. His son, Donald, sued Network Rail over alleged safety failings. Last year, the Crown Office said MacKay ^may bear some responsibility for the collision^.

In a previous case, also involving the Halkirk crossing, a woman received a similar payout after being seriously injured when her car was hit by a train in 2002. An investigation found Sarah Jappy had driven through the red light.

Jappy, who was pregnant, was in a coma for three months after suffering multiple fractures having been thrown through the sun roof of her car. She survived and gave birth to a healthy baby. She raised a ^500,000 legal action against Network Rail, arguing the crossing lights were difficult to see and there was no barrier.

Last year, Network Rail announced it would install barriers at all 23 such open crossings in Scotland.

In both legal cases, Network Rail made the payments without accepting liability. The firm said the cases had been settled as a ^pragmatic^ decision because of the likely legal costs involved. Those bringing the cases are believed to have on legal aid.

However, rail experts said the move sent out the wrong message about level crossing safety and called on Network Rail to stand its ground.

Richard Hope, consulting editor of Railway Gazette, said: ^As a matter of principle, they [Network Rail] should stick it out. It^s a bit weak-kneed. It will encourage other people to try it on.^

Rail author Christian Wolmar said: ^Network Rail should take a deep breath and defend their position, even if the other side are legally aided. Otherwise they are suggesting they are in the wrong. It is, after all, public money which funds most of their work, and by caving in they are wasting money that could be spent on improving the railways.^

Stan Hall, a former head of level crossing safety for British Rail, said: ^This is a new trend and I absolutely hate it. It^s a compensation culture and Network Rail is suffering for it.^

However, Hall said Network Rail might have feared lawyers seeking to exploit any level crossing deficiencies referred to in investigation reports.

The Raib report into the 2009 crash said an underlying factor had been that Network Rail ^did not properly understand the risk^ at the crossing because it had not taken the previous accident record - of four crashes since 1987 - into account. The report said if it had done, ^the level of risk might have justified more costly risk reduction measures^, such as barriers, which might have been implemented before the crash.

Aslef, the main train drivers union, expressed anger that its members were the ^unrecognised victims^ by no longer being eligible for compensation from such incidents.

General secretary Mick Whelan said: ^It is appalling that while Network Rail compensates relatives of people killed at crossings, the [UK] Government now refuses any compensation to train drivers who are traumatised by these incidents. The government has now declared train drivers to be ineligible, removing a provision which cost little and mattered much.^

Lawyer Cameron Fyfe, who represented the victims and their families in both cases, said he had been surprised Network Rail had made an offer so quickly in the MacKay case. He said he thought this was because of the earlier case, involving Sarah Jappy, in which the settlement had been reached after a series of court hearings.

Fyfe said: ^Network Rail made an offer after nine tenths of the expenses involved had been incurred.^ He added that it was usual for settlements not to include admissions of liability to avoid setting precedents.

A Network Rail spokesman said: ^We have settled a legal action regarding the [2009] Halkirk incident, but it would not be appropriate to discuss the details with a third party.^