Croydon tram overturns - many injured, some trapped

[leezer3]

Time for a rant against uninformed journalism and some of the commentators on this thread

First, let's take the RAIB interim report, which the BBC is quoting from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...file/569620/IR012016_161116_Sandilands_Jn.pdf

External circumstances
17 At the time of the accident it was dark and raining heavily

It's nowhere near as simple as the tram just travelling too fast. The stated external weather conditions mean two things here:
1. Raining heavily means that braking distances will be greatly increased. This effect is far greater than that in cars which we're all used to.
2. Being dark, combined with the rain means that there's a very decent chance of missing the speed limit board. Let's take a second quote from the RAIB report above:

15 The maximum permitted speed for trams approaching the area from Lloyd Park is 80 km/h (50 mph) until the curve near to Sandilands Junction, at which point it drops to 20 km/h (12.5 mph). A reflective board denotes the commencement of the 20 km/h speed restriction; it is located approximately 30 metres before the point where the derailment occurred.

Therefore, let's look at approximately what braking would normally be required under these conditions. Oddly enough, the RAIB quote these in the report:

A tram approaching the Sandilands Junction area from Lloyd Park at 80 km/h (50 mph) would need to brake at its full service rate of 1.3 m/s2
approximately 180 metres before the speed restriction board in order to be travelling at 20 km/h (12.5 mph) when the board was reached.

Assuming for a moment that the driver was distracted (I am *not* speculating on by what, and it's disengenous to do so), and was travelling at line speed until the brakes were applied when seeing the speed restriction board, the speed retardation provided by the brakes would be nowhere near enough to safely slow the tram for the curve.


Railway operations are far more complex than most posters on this thread realize.

Talking about set routes being safer is also idiotic- In many cases, a failure of a system/ incursion onto the tracks on a set route is *far* more dangerous than that of a system on a road veichle, simply because the driver is unable to take any sort of avoiding action, other than applying the brakes.

Demonizing the driver at this point in time is not the correct thing to be doing, and frankly people should wait for the outcome of the full investigation before assigning blame.

-Leezer-

 

[Em3bbs]

But it's fine for ASLEF to absolve the driver of all blame because the line wasn't automated enough (they hate automation usually, even something as simple as closing doors).

 

[PikeyPriest]

Time for a rant against uninformed journalism and some of the commentators on this thread

First, let's take the RAIB interim report, which the BBC is quoting from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...file/569620/IR012016_161116_Sandilands_Jn.pdf



It's nowhere near as simple as the tram just travelling too fast. The stated external weather conditions mean two things here:
1. Raining heavily means that braking distances will be greatly increased. This effect is far greater than that in cars which we're all used to.
2. Being dark, combined with the rain means that there's a very decent chance of missing the speed limit board. Let's take a second quote from the RAIB report above:



Therefore, let's look at approximately what braking would normally be required under these conditions. Oddly enough, the RAIB quote these in the report:



Assuming for a moment that the driver was distracted (I am *not* speculating on by what, and it's disengenous to do so), and was travelling at line speed until the brakes were applied when seeing the speed restriction board, the speed retardation provided by the brakes would be nowhere near enough to safely slow the tram for the curve.


Railway operations are far more complex than most posters on this thread realize.

Talking about set routes being safer is also idiotic- In many cases, a failure of a system/ incursion onto the tracks on a set route is *far* more dangerous than that of a system on a road veichle, simply because the driver is unable to take any sort of avoiding action, other than applying the brakes.

Demonizing the driver at this point in time is not the correct thing to be doing, and frankly people should wait for the outcome of the full investigation before assigning blame.

-Leezer-

I thought the drivers were highly trained and skilled individuals that need such a high salary for the demanding job they do....

This is the same principles as driving a car, you drive to the conditions and what you can see ahead. Barring a medical emergency, the driver wasn't driving to the conditions or keeping to the speed limit. As a doctor if I acted like this I'd be struck off and likely face a cps charge of negligent manslaughter, I'm not sure why the driver should be treated differently (again barring a medical cause of loss of conciousness)

 

[grudas]

Time for a rant against uninformed journalism and some of the commentators on this thread

First, let's take the RAIB interim report, which the BBC is quoting from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...file/569620/IR012016_161116_Sandilands_Jn.pdf



It's nowhere near as simple as the tram just travelling too fast. The stated external weather conditions mean two things here:
1. Raining heavily means that braking distances will be greatly increased. This effect is far greater than that in cars which we're all used to.
2. Being dark, combined with the rain means that there's a very decent chance of missing the speed limit board. Let's take a second quote from the RAIB report above:



Therefore, let's look at approximately what braking would normally be required under these conditions. Oddly enough, the RAIB quote these in the report:



Assuming for a moment that the driver was distracted (I am *not* speculating on by what, and it's disengenous to do so), and was travelling at line speed until the brakes were applied when seeing the speed restriction board, the speed retardation provided by the brakes would be nowhere near enough to safely slow the tram for the curve.


Railway operations are far more complex than most posters on this thread realize.

Talking about set routes being safer is also idiotic- In many cases, a failure of a system/ incursion onto the tracks on a set route is *far* more dangerous than that of a system on a road veichle, simply because the driver is unable to take any sort of avoiding action, other than applying the brakes.

Demonizing the driver at this point in time is not the correct thing to be doing, and frankly people should wait for the outcome of the full investigation before assigning blame.

-Leezer-

Lets not forget the fact that there's very little chance said driver never drove that route before. There are reports of people saying that a tram nearly flipped at same turn a week before the accident. We live in the area and all my rides on a tram are differentt, each driver treats the same route in a differentway.

 

[diamount]

I agree, he shouldn't be blamed but he shouldn't be absolved either. It raining and being dark is not abnormal, using your logic that the speed break sign being hard to see an accident shouldn't happen far sooner. I'm not sure when this particular route opened, but the Tramlink itself has been about since 2000.

Now the stated max speed when coming near the bend is 50mph but is that standard? Do drivers often do that? Doesn't sound like they do as again you would assume we would have had an accident happen sooner.

 

[leezer3]

Lets not forget the fact that there's very little chance said driver never drove that route before. There are reports of people saying that a tram nearly flipped at same turn a week before the accident. We live in the area and all my rides on a tram are differentt, each driver treats the same route in a differentway.

The driver will absolutely have to have driven the route before.
DISCLAIMER: I don't know Croydon Tramlink's procedures, so this is a generalization based upon standard practice.

Before driving a route (In railway parlance, 'signing' for it), a driver will have gone through three stages.
Stage 1 is a basic review of the route itself. This used to be done by simply riding in the cab of a train on the route & studying the appropriate documentation, but these days is more likely done mostly via DVD and some cab riding/ documentation. (~1 month)
Stage 2 is driving the route under supervision. Generally speaking, there would be a couple of turns with no passengers, then after that with passengers on board. (~1 month)
The final stage is an initial assessed drive over the route. After this, the driver will be let loose on their own. Periodic re-assessments are carried out, with a frequency probably every 6 months to a year.

If an incident occurs within service, the driver would usually be placed upon an improvement plan, which might entail repeating one or more of the stages, or liasing with outside medical/ support professionals in order to manage the condition as appropriate.

Finally, after probably 1-2 years, the route knowledge would have deemed to have lapsed, and a brief revisiting of stage 1, followed by a re-assessment would be necessary before driving solo.

As a doctor if I acted like this I'd be struck off and likely face a cps charge of negligent manslaughter, I'm not sure why the driver should be treated differently (again barring a medical cause of loss of conciousness)

What you're forgetting is that you (Likely, please don't take this the wrong way.....) have time to correct your mistakes.

80km/h works out to 22 meters per second.
This gives the driver a window of approximately 8 seconds before entering the 20mph speed reaction to react if the optimum braking point was missed.


Again, no-one really has enough data to go on at this point, and any speculation is disingenuous at best.
(This includes that from ASLEF, but they're only doing their job, so I can't really blame them. I suspect the BMA and many others in heavily unionized cultures would probably do the same)

-Leezer-

 

[PikeyPriest]

The driver will absolutely have to have driven the route before.
DISCLAIMER: I don't know Croydon Tramlink's procedures, so this is a generalization based upon standard practice.

Before driving a route (In railway parlance, 'signing' for it), a driver will have gone through three stages.
Stage 1 is a basic review of the route itself. This used to be done by simply riding in the cab of a train on the route & studying the appropriate documentation, but these days is more likely done mostly via DVD and some cab riding/ documentation. (~1 month)
Stage 2 is driving the route under supervision. Generally speaking, there would be a couple of turns with no passengers, then after that with passengers on board. (~1 month)
The final stage is an initial assessed drive over the route. After this, the driver will be let loose on their own. Periodic re-assessments are carried out, with a frequency probably every 6 months to a year.

If an incident occurs within service, the driver would usually be placed upon an improvement plan, which might entail repeating one or more of the stages, or liasing with outside medical/ support professionals in order to manage the condition as appropriate.

Finally, after probably 1-2 years, the route knowledge would have deemed to have lapsed, and a brief revisiting of stage 1, followed by a re-assessment would be necessary before driving solo.




What you're forgetting is that you (Likely, please don't take this the wrong way.....) have time to correct your mistakes.

80km/h works out to 22 meters per second.
This gives the driver a window of approximately 8 seconds before entering the 20mph speed reaction to react if the optimum braking point was missed.


Again, no-one really has enough data to go on at this point, and any speculation is disingenuous at best.
(This includes that from ASLEF, but they're only doing their job, so I can't really blame them. I suspect the BMA and many others in heavily unionized cultures would probably do the same)

-Leezer-

But the driver shouldn't be starting to break when he gets to the sign, he should be breaking when he sees the sign. He should be able to see and read that sign at around 200m and I'd expect he should be able to see there is a sign even further than that, even if he can't read the speed. Again if conditions are poor, he should never have been going so fast he couldn't see a speed sign until on top of it. I don't expect to begin breaking for a change in speed limit when I'm at the sign, then important factor is how visible the sign is. If it's a straight track with 500m visibility, then there would be no excuse that the driver didn't see the sign, whereas if it's on a blind bend there may be some credence. But just using the distance of the sign from the bend gives a false impression of the signage being dangerous and taking blame away from the driver.

 

[plasmahal]

Croydon tram crash: Passengers accidentally killed, jury finds

Not a great outcome for the victims families.

Croydon tram crash: Passengers accidentally killed, jury finds - BBC News

'Total farce'

Jean Smith, 64, mother of Mark Smith, said she was disappointed the inquest did not hear from TfL or the driver of the tram that crashed.

"I am bitterly disappointed as justice has not been done today. It has been a total farce as we have only heard half of the evidence and no-one who could potentially have been responsible for the crash has been called as a witness.

"It's morally wrong that we haven't been able to hear from anybody from TfL, TOL or the driver during the proceedings, whatever legal precedent says.

"It feels like they have been able to hide from giving evidence and it simply isn't fair or just. Justice has been suffocated because of the coroner's ruling."

Danielle Wynne, the granddaughter of another crash victim Philip Logan, said: "I'm so upset and angry. It's not an accident. Someone is to blame.

"We want lessons to be learned so that no other family has to go through this."

The families intend to call on the Attorney General Michael Ellis to apply to the High Court to grant a new inquest.