Thirteen passengers were dead, over a hundred were injured, some seriously, in
what many have been calling a bizarre and freakish accident.
The events of this catastrophe, which have slowly emerged, are of Hollywood film
screenplay proportions.
The initial trigger for the incident was when a car driver, towing a trailer,
left the M62 motorway, slid across fields and ended stationary upon the main
GNER East Coast rail line.
As the driver frantically called the police on his mobile phone, a London bound
InterCity express piled into the obstruction at 125mph.
Although de-railed, the train continued upright for a half mile, until it was
slammed into by a 1200 tonne freight train, travelling in the opposite
direction, on an adjacent track.
The carnage was devastating and wreckage was strewn for yards around. Carriages
were crumpled and one rolled into a nearby field. The miracle is that not more
people were killed.
Once more the nation was shocked, but unlike the
Hatfield crash, many viewed this latest disaster as an
unfortunate accident, an unlucky combination of circumstances, and something
which no one could have foreseen.
In many ways, the incident is being shrugged off; that's the way things happen,
sometimes.
It looks very likely that the Selby crash will be swept under the carpet, and
dismissed as unfortunate, but unavoidable. This would be a terrible outcome, if
allowed to happen.
The first signs that Selby was not to have such a high prominence as the earlier
Hatfield crash came when the BBC's Teletext service, Ceefax, listed the
crash and huge death toll with third ranking, after a report that
Foot and Mouth Disease was spreading and an
article informing us that the Germans were worried over British imports.
Although this 'mistake' was rectified during the day, most media coverage
reflected the lackluster appearance that the crash had happened, and there was
little to do about it. The BBC shipped reporter Kate Addie up to Selby; perhaps
the only evidence that there were serious issues involved.
Rather than shrug our shoulders and make pathetic excuses for the deaths which
don't go beyond it being part of 'life's rich tapestry', it must be realised
that disasters such as these have causes, often more than one, and that if we
are to prevent similar incidents in the future we must analyse what happened,
what went wrong, and what we can do about it.
Perhaps there is little which can be done practically to prevent two trains
colliding when they aren't on the same track, but we should look at that
situation anyway.
Options such as increasing the spacing between adjacent tracks, and reducing
the speeds of approaching trains may have saved lives and may do so in future.
Major re-building work would be expensive and disruptive to the network, but
speed reductions come cost-free other than in increased journey times. They
may not be acceptable changes we wish to make, and they may not be that
effective anyway ( measured on a 'deaths per mile travelled' basis ), but that
shouldn't mean they are automatically discounted.
This incident may have resulted from a collision with a vehicle on the track,
but it is just luck that the derailment wasn't caused by a piece of masonry
which had fallen from a bridge or by something which had been deliberately
placed on the track. And there's always the chance of a catastrophic track
failure similar to that which caused the Hatfield crash.
That this particular incident involved a road vehicle which blocked the track,
followed by an impact of another train, has lead to many claims that this was a
one in a billion chance disaster.
I'm not so sure. There are hundreds of incidents of vehicles crossing, and
stopping, in the paths of trains on ungated rail crossings, and indeed there
was a similar incident within hours of the Selby crash itself.
It has only been luck that these incidents have not caused more fatalities. As
we now know, such vehicle incursions can cause the most awful consequences.
All road vehicle drivers are aware of the dangers of leaving a road when they
are travelling, although most ignore the issue, and assume that it won't happen
to them.
There are many cases though where vehicles do leave the road for one reason or
another; loss of control, ice, heavy rain, falling asleep at the wheel or
through impairment caused by drugs or drinks. Errors caused by distractions as
simple as adjusting the radio, eating or using a mobile phone, are also quite
common.
Vehicles leaving the road at inopportune places, over high banks or on bridges
themselves are not as rare as many believe.
In recent years, there have been 30 vehicles which have left the road and
landed on railway lines, four of these were vehicles which fell off bridges,
and two vehicles have been hit by trains.
In the Selby case, the driver left the road before the start of the safety
barrier in place to prevent a driver crashing over the bridge onto the line.
The existence of the barrier is an acknowledgement that such incidents can
and do occur, but it would appear that no one considered the fact that
it was possible to leave the road elsewhere and still be a major danger.
Cars travelling at 70mph, and they often travel much faster on the motorways,
may well stop in reasonably short distances on tarmac in good weather, but as
anyone who has driven off road at speed knows, trying to stop on wet grass or
gravel can be almost impossible. Forty ton articulated lorries would have a
particularly hard time. Trying to remain composed and act properly
in such a situation is something which most drivers would find difficult to
do.
Whilst Railtrack are claiming that there was very little they could have
done to stop this particular vehicle, blaming the Highways Agency for failing
to prevent the vehicle leaving the road, there is nothing to stop Railtrack
putting similar crash barriers along the side of their tracks.
Both the Highways Agency and Railtrack must look at what they do to prevent
similar accidents in future. Adding additional, and perhaps stronger, barriers
may be costly, but it may be a cost worth paying.
This tragic results developed from a very small incident; a car left the road.
We must look outwards from that position and see the whole scenario from a
greater perspective.
Putting the blame on the driver of the car, as appears to be happening, with
the media headlines announcing that the police are investigating whether or
not the driver had fallen asleep at the wheel, may identify the cause - although
the fact that it had been icy, windy, wet and had been snowing in the area may
explain the situation equally well - is to refuse to acknowledge that this was
more than a simple road incident, and something which was avoidable.
The sad truth is that this was not a one in a million incident, similar
situations have arisen regularly. It is not misfortune which killed and
injured so many, but fortune which has saved the lives of others. Selby was
not an Act of God, but a failure to act by man.
It is time to remove the risks which have been well known for so long. It is
more likely that, rather than action, we will see a bitter battle where blame
and responsibility is passed back and forth between Railtrack, the Highways
Agency and the Local Authorities; all denying that they are responsible for
ensuring safety in these matters.
Or those responsible will conspire to place the entire blame on the driver of
the vehicle involved. It is a burden he should not have to bear alone, no matter
how the original road-based incident arose.
