Eighteen hurt in train and lorry crash in Suffolk - 17 August 2010

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

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

Fourteen people have been hurt, three critically injured, as a train derailed in a crash with a lorry on a level crossing in Suffolk.

The two-carriage diesel passenger train collided with the heavy goods vehicle on Bures Road in Little Cornard, Sudbury, at about 1735 BST.

Network Rail said the train driver of the 1731 service from Sudbury to Marks Tey was one of the three seriously ill.

A 38-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving.

A sewage tanker hit the train on the level crossing at Sewage Works Lane.

Suffolk Police have described it as a "major incident". Fire crews are also at the scene.

A police spokeswoman said there were three casualties who could not be moved from the train and it is believed they have suffered spinal injuries.

A fire service spokeswoman said it had been the rear of the train's two carriages which derailed in the crash. Both train carriages remained upright.

Network Rail said the level crossing is on private land and has a locked gate on it.

It said anyone wanting to go across the level crossing needed to call the signaller to raise the gates. However, it said it had not received any calls prior to the crash.

A doctor and medical team went on board the train to provide triage for casualties.

The train was believed to be carrying more than 20 passengers, about 10 of whom were initially described as "walking wounded".

Sharon Smith, 49, who was in her nearby garden when the crash happened, said: "I heard a massive bang. Everybody in the area ran to see what happened. At first I thought it was a car accident. But when I ran up the road I could see two carriages had hit a tanker."

She said many passengers got out of the train and gathered at the sides of the road.

Ms Smith said she stood in the road to help clear traffic.

Network Rail said in a statement: "The crossing is a user-worked crossing with gates and telephone. The Network Rail signaller did not receive a phone call from the user of the crossing. British Transport Police are on scene and co-ordinating the response."

[inspector_blakey]

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

Network Rail said in a statement: "The crossing is a user-worked crossing with gates and telephone. The Network Rail signaller did not receive a phone call from the user of the crossing. British Transport Police are on scene and co-ordinating the response."

So, on the face of it another open-and-shut case of road user stupidity causing a rail accident then.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) press release:

LEVEL CROSSING INCIDENT - SUDBURY, SUFFOLK - UPDATE 20.05

British Transport Police (BTP) can confirm that a train has struck a large tanker, believed to be a sewage tanker, at an unmanned level crossing in Sudbury, Suffolk.

BTP was alerted at 5.37pm today, Tuesday, 17 August, and police and emergency services are attending the scene.  BTP has a senior detective on scene.

It is believed that there are at least 10 walking wounded and three more seriously injured.

A 38-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving following the collision.

The train, the 1731 National Express East Anglia service, was travelling between Sudbury and Marks Tey with around 20 passengers on board.

The crossing is a user-worked crossing with gates and telephone.

This press release will be updated as soon as more information becomes available.

[Chris from Nailsea]

An update to the BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) press release:

LEVEL CROSSING INCIDENT SUDBURY, SUFFOLK - UPDATE 20.15

It is believed that there were 18 casualties, two with life threatening injuries.  Two more are described as ^serious^ and there are 14 walking wounded.  All Casualities are being treated at either Colchester General or Addenbrooke Hospital.

An update to the report, from the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Eighteen hurt in train and lorry crash in Suffolk

Eighteen people have been hurt, four seriously injured, as a train derailed in a crash with a lorry on a level crossing in Suffolk.

Network Rail said the train driver of the 1731 service from Sudbury to Marks Tey was one of four seriously ill.

[eightf48544]

Rather than just "Dangerous Driving" there should be a more specific offence of "Abuse of a Level Crossing Causing an Accident with a Train" or something on those lines, to emphasise the unique seriousness of the of the offence.

[Electric train]

Rather than just "Dangerous Driving" there should be a more specific offence of "Abuse of a Level Crossing Causing an Accident with a Train" or something on those lines, to emphasise the unique seriousness of the of the offence.

A better one in this case, if the lorry driver is at fault, would be prosecution under the 1974 Health and Safety Act

[JayMac]

Whether the prosecution is for dangerous driving under The Road Traffic Act 1988 or a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the sentencing options are almost identical:

Unlimited fine and up to 2 years imprisonment upon indictment to Crown Court.

or

Up to 6 months (12 for HSaW conviction) and unlimited fine upon summary conviction in a Magistrates Court.

Conviction for dangerous driving also comes with an obligatory minimum 1 year driving ban.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

i know this is slightly off topic, however if there were any deaths would this be covered by section 1 of the road traffic act or manslaughter/murder charges

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thankfully, there aren't any deaths - but it would be a charge of 'causing death by dangerous driving', rather than murder: no intent. 

[paul7575]

There's also the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 32-34 dealing with 'endangering the lives of persons on the railway'.  Max sentence 2 years by neglect, life with intent. 

AIUI^▸ ('as I understand it') this is the offence quoted on Network Rail's 'Trackoff' scheme literature for parents and teachers...

Paul

[Ollie]

It's incidents like this that piss me off.

My thoughts to those that were on the train and the families.

[JayMac]

The BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) News story has been further updated with video and an eyewitness account from a passenger.

Also Sky News report including video can be found here.

[Chris from Nailsea]

In another incident, on the same day, in Germany - from the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

German train crashes into rubbish truck

At least 15 people were hurt, one seriously, when a train crashed into a truck after it slid down a hill and onto railway tracks.

The inter-city train travelling between Frankfurt and Paris partially derailed when it hit the lorry carrying bins, officials said.

The train was not travelling at high speed when the collision happened, 80 miles (130km) southwest of Frankfurt.

The driver of the truck was seriously injured. He was flown to hospital.

A British citizen and employees of the railway were among those lightly injured, reports said.

Trains were being re-routed via Strasbourg and the line will be closed for at least a day, police said.

[grahame]

Many of train / road vehicle collisions at level crossings do turn out to be the negligent fault of person in charge of the road vehicle,  and indeed that line of enquiry appears to be being actively followed in this case. However, whilst we may talk about the generallity of how negligent people in charge of vehicles show be dealt with, we cannot at this point link those generalities to the specific case.   

Should it turn out - in the case of any road / rail collision - that someone was criminally negligent, then - yes - the full weight of the law should be thrown at them.  But there isn't always a negligent road driver - I'm sure regulars here will recall at least one incident in the last couple of years where causes turned out to be very different.   I also note that there's a contradiction (perhaps just a technical one) even in the reports so far - it's even unclear to me if the train ran into the road vehicle, or the road vehicle ran into the train.

Whatever it turns out to be ... of course ... huge sympathies to everyone who has been injured, and a very careful look to see how this incident can be learned from / used to help reduce similar future incidents.  Be that appropriate system changes, or throwing "the book" at someone.

[158747]

 

Should it turn out - in the case of any road / rail collision - that someone was criminally negligent, then - yes - the full weight of the law should be thrown at them.  But there isn't always a negligent road driver - I'm sure regulars here will recall at least one incident in the last couple of years where causes turned out to be very different.   I also note that there's a contradiction (perhaps just a technical one) even in the reports so far - it's even unclear to me if the train ran into the road vehicle, or the road vehicle ran into the train.

It would appear that the train ran into the road vehicle due to the damage to the front cab of the train.