Great Western Coffee Shop

Trains cancelled between Swindon and Chippenham because, according to RTT, “animals on the line.”

Logically, even going slowly it wouldn’t take more than an hour or so to get errant livestock out of the four foot, but on Wednesday the 0902 ex-PAD was RT at Wootton Bassett and 158 late passing Dauntsey, and normal service didn’t apparently resume until 2000.

What happened?

Even later than that ...

The perfect storm.  Sadly, livestock was hit by train(s?) which incurred damage.  Part of the damage wasn't a brake system which locked the train on the track, and from what I can gather at the worst possible location both in terms of what it blocked and how to get at it. If you take a look at the slipping re-opening times, getting the (?)train(s) moving and the line re-opened proved to be far harder than expected.

I first saw "disruption until 13:00" but that slipped in stages and the last I saw on Journeycheck was "disruption until 20:00" and issues carried on later than that; the 20:45 to Chippenham and Westbury was cancelled. Report from passengers (even for Chippenham) sent on a Temple Meads train diverted via Parkway and then back by train in an almost-circle as there was no alternative road transport even after all that time to set it up(or was it stood down too early).

Sadly, a person hit by a train at Starcross in the early evening caused further disruption ... the day concluded with the 22:00 Paddington to Bristol being 53 minutes late (awaiting the incoming train from the South West at Paddington) as the end to a day that the railways would rather forget.

It would have no doubt been quite a big story had there been more than a small trickle of passengers travelling.

Indeed - one of the trains had to be evacuated but it only needed a handful of taxis to convey them from the scene.

Him indoors was the one who hit the cows...... 10 taken out in one go.  He was on the way down towards Chippenham and took them out at 125mph.

funnily enough, it was not his train that was disabled.  It carried on to Temple Meads with numerous faults at 40mph - it was the up train that only hit the arse end of one that was stranded.

The butcher of bridgwater is holding a massive BBQ next weekend - everyone invited.

Each to their own I guess, but I struggle to see the humour in such an incident.

There’s always one who doesn’t get gallows humour.

As it is, it’s for those affected to decide if they can see the lighter side.

And in this case, I toned it down a lot from what he was telling me to put

Well there are at least two on this forum.

Add me to that as well.  It could have turned out to be a very serious incident indeed, and very fortunate that one of the two trains wasn't derailed at (very) high speed.  I don't see any humour at all in that.

Yes it does remind me of Polmont, perhaps the lessons learnt there were put into the 800's design, wonder how an HST would have faired?

Having watched the forward facing CCTV it was lucky that there wasn’t a derailment, one cow was stood in the 4’.  That said, I certainly understand the black humour.  Total of 6 cows dead.  The up train had to be propelled past WB Junction and back down the badminton line to Stoke Gifford, due to being unable to drive from the London end.

It could have been very, very much nastier than it was.  Driver, for sure, would have been rather shaken; should he and his family be helped through that with.a bit of dark humour, that's fine by me.  Thinking of you, Drive.

Whilst those who are so inclined are allowing themselves a chuckle, perhaps some thoughts could also be spared for the animals, the feelings of the Farmer and his family, those who were left to clean up the mess, and any witnesses to the incident or the scene afterwards, which, having been involved in a similar incident some years ago, I know would have been horrific.

I absolutely "get" gallows humour if it's in the right place, but like so many things it's subjective and in the eye of the beholder - to some a particular line is humorous, to others it's simply crass or in poor taste. That's just a personal observation,as I said in my first post, each to their own.

I hope all involved swiftly recover from the experience, and that GWR/NR put measures in place to minimise the chances of a recurrence.

By coincidence, there was an incident of cows on the line in last nights Paddington/GWR documentary on C5.

On gallows humour, in the military it's a way of life and a way of dealing with things. If the driver involved in yesterdays incident dealt with it by way of a bit of dark humour, then fine by me (accepting also that it might not have been so funny for others, as TG points out).

In my experience it was often deployed when something that could have been really serious wasn't. Or when something not very pleasant happened but even the victim could see the funny side of it.

An example I can think of....a colleague lost the end of a finger when it got in the way of a heavy pallet rolling into the back of a C130 in Kosovo.
He was from then on known as "digit" and didn't mind one bit.

I have a pal called Richard Hart who was diagnosed with a (later successfully treated!) defective heart valve - needless to say he has since invariably been referred to as "Dicky Hart" - it even got to the stage where the Doctors and nurses were joining in!!!

My views are very similar, although I’m rather more concerned about any cattle that weren’t quite killed rather than those killed outright – at least they wouldn’t have known much about it...

There will also be quite an insurance claim for someone to deal with, depending on whose fault it was that they were there in the first place.

On the wider matter of humour, as I worked as a guitarist/ comedian for 25 years i have some experience of this! If I had £1 for every punter who didn’t get the joke I’d probably be writing this from the Cayman Islands.

Humour is subjective – what makes one person roll on the floor with laughter will get another throwing tomatoes. It’s even more stark where the written word is involved, because facial expression, timing and intonation of delivery makes up a large part of the gag, and when any of those are absent it is much easier to take something the wrong way.

I am equally as guilty myself. We had a thread a few weeks ago where the possibility of sharing sleeping cars with our Commonwealth brethren post-Brexit was raised. The idea was absolutely preposterous of course, but the trouble was I could see arch-dangerous nits like Rees Mogg delivering that sort of drivel as gospel in an interview (he has promoted dafter things before now...). It was only after I got a personal message from my “adversary” in that thread that the penny dropped...

Some of my readers might think that I have a rather bombastic and arrogant writing style at times, but in fact most of it is written tongue-in-cheek and trying to introduce humour into the thread. Such as, for example, a recent reference to finding somewhere to stick an umbrella in the absence of bus shelters. As I wrote it I was imagining Kenneth Horne delivering the line. Luckily I think Graham saw the funny side of that, but it could have gone down like a lead parachute by those who took it seriously.

Finally, an example from my past. Following an incident with a heavy late fall of snow in Tredegar in April 1984, I started my set with “White Christmas.” It went down a storm and I introduced it as a regular feature of the act during the Spring and Summer. I did it at the Hewlett Arms in Cheltenham one Sunday evening in July that year with a suitable big build up: “There’s a song coming next that you all know but nobody – absolutely nobody else in the country - will be singing it tonight.” As usual it went down very well.

On the Monday morning the landlord complained to my Agent about “that bloody idiot you sent last night who sang White Christmas in July”

You can’t win ‘em all...  ;D

Obviously very unfortunate, to say the least, for all concerned but I am more interested in why 'animals on the line' still keeps happening with apparent monotonous regularity when it shouldn't.

Some questions, to which I don't know the answers, therefore arise:
Is Network Rail (NR) always solely responsible for the maintenance of lineside fencing or are there instances where the landowner might be (partially) liable?
Either way is there a process by which landowners can quickly inform NR of lineside fencing damage?
Similarly can landowners make direct contact with the signallers if they become aware that their animals have strayed onto a line?
Do NR have a routine lineside fencing inspection programme which could identify issues, and get them fixed, before they result in a major issue such as this one?
Is it possible that the old concrete post & wire fencing is life expired and should be replaced in all 'at risk' locations by more robust palisade fencing?

Or did someone perhaps leave an occupation crossing gate open?

All of those things, and no doubt more, are possible; only factual information will tell you if they are.

But what you want is the "Analysis of the risk from animals on the line – Issue Issue 2" produced by the RSSB in 2014. It is available to download from Spark, so I can't give a link to it (but anyone can register). Oddly the current version (PB027137) isn't issue 2 and is dated 2013!

I don't know of any occupation crossings on that section but I am happy to be corrected - I can't see any on the OS, don't know of any, and was on first name terms with blades of grass in the Dauntsey area when I worked for North Wiltshire District Council!

As regards boundary responsibility, it is common convention that when a new boundary is created (eg if only part of an existing parcel of land is sold) the purchaser will have responsibility for that new boundary written into the conveyance. Clearly on that basis, if a railway comes along and runs through an existing field, two new boundaries are created so the purchaser (the fledgling railway company) will be responsible for them.

There may be many cases wher the railway has sold off a redundant site such as s staion or goods yard which would bring with it another new boundary, and in that case the new owner may be responsible. That said, I can see a potentiasl safety issue with any Tom Dick or Harry having responsibility for a boundary with a railway line, so it could be that there would be a legally-enforceable clause whereby NR could do the work and charge the new owner for it. That last bit, I emphasise, is merely speculation on my part.

I remember that in NZ the railways in rural areas were mostly unfenced. Whether this led to many incidents of animals on the line, I don't know.

Some info about boundary fencing here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/living-by-the-railway/fencing/

Key part to an earlier question is this bit though:


and this bit:

There answers to most of them.

From the RSSB report cited earlier:

What is more difficult to deal with is when livestock escape but not to the railway, either to a road or to land not fenced for livestock.

From the NR web site:


I doubt there is a direct number, only lineside phones at crossings - not intended for that, but unlikely to lead to objections.

More from the RSSB report:

The above continues:

should be known to all observant passengers and people who work, live, relax or undertake other activities within sight of a National Rail line.   For "once in a lifetime" use ...

I once had a gentle warning from a moderator about a comment I had posted about a civil servant which was perceived as a personal attack too far, although it was milder than that above.  I hope that the Forum rules will be applied consistently whoever the poster is targeting, whether they be a civil servant or a politician of the "wrong" (in the opinion of the poster) sort.  So I look forward to the moderators intervening regarding Robin's comment about Jacob Rees-Mogg.

The forum guidelines have consistently allowed a greater degree of opinions about those who seek positions of power and influence than they have allowed for those who find themselves thrust through no choice of their own into the limelight.   Comes down to some extent to the "invasive of privacy" thing in the forum agreement - http://www.passenger.chat/1761 - where (to confirm) members agree that they are responsible for the contents of their own posts.

I've reread my original post again very carefully, and I don't see the name "Jacob" in it. You appear to have added that in your response.

I understand that there is more than one child of that union, including at least one other parliamentary candidate, and the head of that particular family was himself a well-known figure in journalism.

I have now also read Graham's response, but I'm still not going to tell you which member of the family I had in mind   ;D

Well, I admit to being less clear than I was about the Forum guidelines, but I’ll happily leave it there. 

Robin, having re-read a few of your post I support your general attitude to humour and your frustration that it sometime backfires or gets misinterpreted.  So I accept your RM comments in that context.  Don’t change your style – I like a little stir myself sometimes.