Boy critical after crash on Suffolk level crossing. BBC News 04/07/2010

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

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

A 10-year-old boy was critically injured when a car he was in was hit by a train on a level crossing in Suffolk.

The collision happened on the East Suffolk line between Beccles and Oulton Broad at 2037 BST, British Transport Police (BTP^▸ (British Transport Police)) said.

Suffolk Fire Service were called to the scene as it was feared some of the 60 people on board the National Express East Anglia train were trapped.

Crews found there were no injuries and everyone was led to safety.

The boy, who was a passenger in the car believed to have been driven by his grandfather, received serious head injuries and was taken to the James Paget Hospital in Gorleston.

His condition is described as critical but stable.

A BTP spokeswoman said: "An investigation into the circumstances of the incident is now under way and BTP would like to hear from anyone with information about the collision."

Passengers from the train were taken by buses to their destinations.

[Chris from Nailsea]

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

Network Rail appeal over Beccles crossing fine rejected


A telephone has been fitted since the accident happened at the crossing in 2010

A rail firm has been told a ^500,000 fine imposed after a boy was seriously injured in a crash on a Suffolk level crossing could have been much higher.

James How, 10, was in a pick-up truck which was hit by a train on an unmanned level crossing near Beccles in 2010.

Network Rail challenged the level of the fine as no-one had died.

Appeal Court judge Lord Chief Justice Thomas said there were no grounds for overturning the fine imposed in July 2013, and it could have been higher.

Lord Thomas was sitting in the Court of Appeal with Mr Justice Mitting and Mrs Justice Thirlwall. He said the actual harm caused by the accident was serious and it could have been worse. "We reject the submission made on behalf of Network Rail that a fine of ^500,000 was appropriate only where there had been a fatality."

He hoped the fine would cut criminal offences of the kind committed by Network Rail and that it would reform and rehabilitate the firm as an offender, and protect the public. He said Network Rail's record revealed how prevalent accidents were at level crossings and it was necessary for all the directors to "pay much greater attention to their duties in this respect".

"Bonuses of the directors had been adjusted downwards to a minor - though inadequate - extent in part because of the poor level crossing safety record to which we have referred," Lord Thomas said. "Plainly the bonuses should have been very significantly reduced. If the judge had imposed a materially greater fine, there would have been no basis for criticism of that," Lord Thomas added.

[JayMac]

From the Ipswich Star:

Rail bosses should lose bonuses for Beccles level crossing failings that left a young boy with serious injuries ^ MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament)

Bosses at Network Rail should have their bonuses withheld after the government-funded firm^s failings left a young boy with serious injuries, MPs have said.

Last year the company was fined ^500,000 for ignoring safety risks for a decade at an East Anglian level crossing where James How suffered serious injuries in a collision between a train and a car.

Following a parliamentary inquiry in which the youngster^s grandfather, Richard Wright, gave evidence, Transport Select Committee chairman Louise Ellman said: ^Given that Network Rail has recently been held responsible for the serious accident at Beccles in July 2010 we do not believe executive directors should get any bonuses this year.^

Three executives are all due six-figure bonuses in April on top of their annual and long-term bonuses. Network Rail said both annual and long-term incentive schemes had been approved by the company^s independent members at recent AGMs^▸ (Annual General Meeting), although the firm^s remuneration committee had full discretion to adjust bonuses or indeed to rescind bonuses altogether.

The report also warned that hundreds of level crossings could be exceeding official death-risk limits and on ^too many occasions^ and stated that Network Rail (NR^» (Network Rail - home page)) had shown a ^callous disregard^ for families bereaved by accidents at crossings.

The committee said Network Rail^s chief executive ^owes each of the families it let down a full, public apology^ a move Network Rail made today.

Network Rail chief executive Mark Carne apologised, saying: ^Nothing we can say or do will lessen the pain felt by the families of those killed or injured at a level crossing. Today Network Rail is a very different company to the one which existed at the time of these tragic accidents.^

The committee also said it was concerned that the Office of Rail Regulation might not have enough appropriately qualified and experienced staff to provide adequate inspection of the rail network or to adequately challenge Network Rail^s signalling work plans.

Mrs Ellman said: ^NR has lowered the risk of death at a level crossing by 25pc since 2008, but when suicides and trespass are excluded, level crossings still account for one half of all fatalities on the railway in recent years including nine people who died in 2012-13.^


^ THE INCIDENT THAT CHANGED A YOUNGSTER^S LIFE FOREVER

James How was a passenger in his grandfather Richard Wright^s car when it was hit by a train travelling at 55mph at an unmanned level crossing known as Wright^s Crossing on a private road in Barnby, between Beccles station and Oulton Broads South station, on July 3, 2010, a court heard.

The car was spun round by the collision and the schoolboy was thrown out of the window on to the track and suffered serious head injuries which left him on a life-support machine for a week.

Following the accident his parents, Matt and Petra How, were told he had a 5pc chance of survival and he had been left with serious injuries.

A report ten years before had flagged up that the crossing, which was used by 19 trains a day, was unsafe.

An investigation by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)) found the accident was caused by poor visibility of trains when approaching the crossing from the south side and that Network Rail failed to act on information over a ten-year period.