Incident Croydon tram

[anonymous-user]

Awful situation, suspect there are lots of injuries because the tram interior is covered in hard surfaces, the only soft bits are the seat covers. From a passenger safety view it is a very unfriendly interior if you are getting thrown around, a car interior is very different and has much softer impact absorbing materials used and seat belts.

[MX51ROD]

paolow said:

MX51ROD said:

I would be surprised if there were not CCTV cameras showing the view inside and outside the tram , this will give a good indication as to what went on prior to the derailment . It is likely the recordings have been reviewed , and that is why the driver has been charged with manslaughter

Once again:

BBC said:

The 42-year-old driver, from Beckenham, has been released on police bail following his arrest on suspicion of manslaughter.

He's not been charged with anything

My mistake , going by radio reports

[V8Matthew]

12TS said:

Not to trivialise this accident in anyway, but there was only one death at Penrith. So these are the first passenger rail deaths in nine years.

Modern rolling stock is also very safe - the Pendalinos at Penrith were travelling at ~100mph when the accident happened - much faster than Croydon. It will be interesting why so many were killed in what is a relatively low speed accident - people standing, sudden deceleration, falling out of windows? The RAIB accident report will be have to make recommendations, I doubt it would go down the full signalling route, maybe some form of signal / speed protection system like TPWS?

I'd second the window comment. On a Pendolino they're quite small and from what I can remember there weren't any/many broken when the train came down the embankment at Lambrigg (about 20 minutes south of Penrith). Tram windows are large and if you got ejected as it went over you're in deep trouble! There have been rail accidents in the UK where people have been crushed in the same manner.

[saaby93]

Lucky another tram didnt come the other way too

[FairfieldSteve]

carinaman said:

Jimmyarm said:

12TS said:

You can very easily apply speed limiters. It's just applying them in the right place that's more difficult, and that's where signalling comes in.

It's common practice in tram design not signal them - many European systems are like this, also Manchester and Nottingham.

Why is applying them in the right place difficult ?

I'm not a tram designer but given GPS, the fact the tracks don't move and it would be fairly trivial for a piece of software to work out where the tram was on the track, it seems there are a myriad of fairly simple solutions to applying varying limits. There should even be a failsafe that is blinking and blaring away (and autobraking) when the tram is approaching a corner/turn at a greater speed than is 'safe'.

IMO it just comes down to money, which is quite frankly unacceptable.

The Clarkson Top Gear test of the GTR Skyline R35 points out that the GPS SatNav knows when the car is on a circuit so enables features to be used, or electronic nannies to be switched off.

Trams using that stretch couldn't have a similar GPS SatNav that says 'Right we're on that nasty downhill section heading to East Croydon, followed by a tight angle bend - if speed is over 20Kmh apply brakes and alert Tram Controller HQ'?

A tram cannot have a feature available to us in car showrooms?

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 10th November 17:21

It doesn't need to be electronic. As I understand it, certain stations on the Underground have mechanical "trips" that are triggered if a train is coming in too fast. These could be installed before major curves.

[Jimmyarm]

12TS said:

Its not that simple. If you're going to use it as a safety system on a passenger railway then it has to work and fail safe.

There are lots of railway systems that could have prevented the accident, they're not all used in a tram application for various reasons, amongst which is cost. I'm sure there are lots of people who think that cost shouldn't come into it, but it does and it's an accepted part of legislation.

The simple answer to that is the legislation needs changing.


I thought we were long past the days where profit > human life.

If the tram is not profitable or viable because of safety requirements then frankly it shouldn't exist.

ETa I am coming across as a bit of a safety sally but I strongly believe that a business thats core is to transport peolple from a to b promptly and safely should have those priorities first and foremost.

Those values should be an enforced requirement.

When the systems exist already that could of prevented this it is ridiculous that it isn't.

We aren't exploring uncharted territory or taking people to mars.

Edited by Jimmyarm on Thursday 10th November 21:20

[Chrisgr31]

W124Bob said:

and the industry goes along to police proper train dispatch,

Off-topic which is why the head long dash to DOO is so odd.

[12TS]

It's not about profit, its just about knowing when to stop.

I know it sounds an awful when fatal accidents happen, but as a method it generally works. It allows money to be spent where it's most effective and since it came into legislation safety has improved.

[Tryke3]

Jimmyarm said:

12TS said:

Its not that simple. If you're going to use it as a safety system on a passenger railway then it has to work and fail safe.

There are lots of railway systems that could have prevented the accident, they're not all used in a tram application for various reasons, amongst which is cost. I'm sure there are lots of people who think that cost shouldn't come into it, but it does and it's an accepted part of legislation.

The simple answer to that is the legislation needs changing.


I thought we were long past the days where profit > human life.

If the tram is not profitable or viable because of safety requirements then frankly it shouldn't exist.

Bullocks, tram is very safe, i dont understand how this happened tbh

[kiethton]

Tryke3 said:

Jimmyarm said:

12TS said:

Its not that simple. If you're going to use it as a safety system on a passenger railway then it has to work and fail safe.

There are lots of railway systems that could have prevented the accident, they're not all used in a tram application for various reasons, amongst which is cost. I'm sure there are lots of people who think that cost shouldn't come into it, but it does and it's an accepted part of legislation.

The simple answer to that is the legislation needs changing.


I thought we were long past the days where profit > human life.

If the tram is not profitable or viable because of safety requirements then frankly it shouldn't exist.

Bullocks, tram is very safe, i dont understand how this happened tbh

This, until everything is fully automated (and even then!) accidents can and will happen, no amount of cash could prevent it, as said there needs to be a point where the marginal benefit is considered. Given these are first tram deaths since 1959 (IIRC, of occupants not pedestrians) there is an arguekent to say they are more than safe enough

[Jimmyarm]

kiethton said:

This, until everything is fully automated (and even then!) accidents can and will happen, no amount of cash could prevent it, as said there needs to be a point where the marginal benefit is considered. Given these are first tram deaths since 1959 (IIRC, of occupants not pedestrians) there is an arguekent to say they are more than safe enough

I would love to hear you say 'marginal benefit' to a family member of one of the deceased.

It is much more likely to be an 'incident' from what I read, we will wait for some more facts to appear.

If there are available systems that could have prevented this, then they should have been a requirement that they were introduced as an ongoing principle of 'safety first'.

[MarshPhantom]

For the trams are safe people...

Hard to find info at present but man killed in Manchester after being hit by a tram, that was june this year.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manch...

[V8Matthew]

MarshPhantom said:

For the trams are safe people...

Hard to find info at present but man killed in Manchester after being hit by a tram, that was june this year.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manch...

Trains are pretty safe too but if you get hit by one you're fked.

[valiant]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yeah, but he deserved it after what he did to poor old Rita.

[Gareth1974]

Jimmyarm said:

kiethton said:

This, until everything is fully automated (and even then!) accidents can and will happen, no amount of cash could prevent it, as said there needs to be a point where the marginal benefit is considered. Given these are first tram deaths since 1959 (IIRC, of occupants not pedestrians) there is an arguekent to say they are more than safe enough

I would love to hear you say 'marginal benefit' to a family member of one of the deceased.

It is much more likely to be an 'incident' from what I read, we will wait for some more facts to appear.

If there are available systems that could have prevented this, then they should have been a requirement that they were introduced as an ongoing principle of 'safety first'.

This article http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2000/10/rail-394-... on the merits of TPWS vs ATP on the main railway network has some interesting information on "cost per life" decisions that have to be made.

[MarshPhantom]

Done a fair bit of work around Croydon, the trams certainly don't hang around.

[Europa1]

V8Matthew said:

MarshPhantom said:

For the trams are safe people...

Hard to find info at present but man killed in Manchester after being hit by a tram, that was june this year.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manch...

Trains are pretty safe too but if you get hit by one you're fked.

Yep, and many car/pedestrian interfaces don't work out too well for the person outside the vehicle. Another classic MarshPhantom post.

[MarshPhantom]

Europa1 said:

V8Matthew said:

MarshPhantom said:

For the trams are safe people...

Hard to find info at present but man killed in Manchester after being hit by a tram, that was june this year.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manch...

Trains are pretty safe too but if you get hit by one you're fked.

Another classic MarshPhantom post.

Sorry for not being too happy about people getting killed.

[Shakermaker]

Tryke3 said:

Bullocks, tram is very safe, i dont understand how this happened tbh

At this stage, none of us. All we have is speculation and snippets of information from some of those involved in the accident who can give a description of what happened, but not necessarily an informed description of how/why/ it happened or what should have happened.

Tragically, 7 people have died. We don't know why, and so to just say "put in more legislation" is at this stage, far too early.

Once the investigation is complete, it will be known what could have been done to prevent this, if anything. That might be that speed control is put in place, it might be driver error and/or driver malice towards the situation so remove that driver from the equation (arrest/charge/training?) or it may be another factor that we don't know yet.

[MarshPhantom]

Europa1 said:

V8Matthew said:

MarshPhantom said:

For the trams are safe people...

Hard to find info at present but man killed in Manchester after being hit by a tram, that was june this year.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manch...

Trains are pretty safe too but if you get hit by one you're fked.

Yep, and many car/pedestrian interfaces don't work out too well for the person outside the vehicle. Another classic MarshPhantom post.

I posted it as a response to the numerous posts on this saying thread saying trams haven't killed anybody for a long time. That isn't true, this is.