Woman dies after cars struck by train at Moreton-on-Lugg in Herefordshire (16 January 2010)

[whole diary]

[bobm]

This is a few days old but doesn't seem to have been picked up.  The trial opened a fortnight ago.

From the Daily Mail

Hairdresser died at level crossing after signalman wrongly lifted the barrier when he became distracted by phone call

• Jane Harding, 52, was killed when train smashed into her car
• Her husband, who was driving, escaped the crash unharmed
• Signalman Adrian Maund had been taking a call from a farmer
• Court told a ^40,000 safety device might have prevented the tragedy

By Andy Dolan
 
PUBLISHED:14:34, 7 February 2013| UPDATED:10:18, 8 February 2013
 
A mother died when her car was hit by a train on a level crossing because a signalman mistakenly raised the barriers after becoming distracted by a phone call, a court heard.
 
The car that hairdresser Jane Harding, 52, was in was struck by a passenger train at 61mph and dragged 150 yards down the track.
 
A jury was told that moments before the crash, signalman Adrian Maund ^panicked^ when a local farmer called for a second time seeking clearance to guide his sheep over another crossing further up the track.

While he was distracted, Maund lifted the barriers, believing the Manchester to Milford Haven train had already passed the crossing, the court heard.
 
Maund, 43, only realised his fatal  mistake when he saw it approaching at 80mph around a corner ^  and frantically tried to lower the barriers and change the signal at the Moreton-on-Lugg, Herefordshire, crossing.

Mrs Harding^s husband, Mark, who was driving their Volkswagen Touareg, survived the incident with shoulder and pelvic injuries.
 
Birmingham Crown Court heard that although human error was a factor in the crash, the tragedy could have been prevented if Network Rail had not declined to spend ^40,000 on a simple safety device which could stop signals being changed when a train was approaching.
 
He was distracted by a call from a farmer asking if he could herd sheep across the tracks at Moreton-on-Lugg
 
The company, which owns and operates rail infrastructure, allegedly refused to install the approach-locking system during improvement works a year earlier because of cost concerns.
 
This decision made the firm equally culpable, according to Philip Mott QC, prosecuting. Mr Mott added: ^Network Rail took the decision not to install this device because it would cost ^40,000 ^ that device could have saved a life.
 
^An approach-locking system has been around since the 1960s and can be used to stop signals being changed when trains are still coming through. In 2009 there was quite a lot of work done at the Moreton crossing and the barriers were replaced. There were discussions to have an approach-locking device which were rejected. Why not put in this device? The reason was money. Was the cost too great to avoid the cost of a human life?^
 
In a police interview in January 2010, Maund said he lifted the barriers because he thought the train had already passed as cars were waiting at the crossing. But train driver Andrew Robins had too little time to slow down and struck the Hardings^ VW and a second vehicle, a Vauxhall Astra.
 
Mother-of-one Mrs Harding, from Marden, Herefordshire, died after being taken to hospital. Carol-Anne Thornewell and her 12-year-old daughter, who were in the Astra, walked away from the crash.
 
Maund, from Leominster, Herefordshire, has pleaded not guilty to failing to take reasonable care for the health and safety of railway and railway crossing users.
 
The maximum penalty he could face is two years in prison, and/or an unlimited fine.
 
Network Rail has also denied a separate charge of failing in its duty of care of the health and safety of railway and railway crossing users. It faces a maximum penalty of a ^20,000 fine.
 
The trial, which is expected to last three weeks, continues.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks for picking up that news item, bobm.

A further update, from the Hereford Times:

Jury considers verdict in Moreton-on-Lugg level crossing trial

The jury are still deliberating whether a signalman and Network Rail should have done more to prevent the death of a woman at a Herefordshire level crossing.

Jane Harding died after the car she was travelling in was in collision with a train travelling at 61mph through Moreton-on-Lugg in January 2010. The 52-year-old^s husband Mark, who was driving, survived.

Jurors at Birmingham Crown Court have heard that signalman Adrian Maund lifted the barriers after he thought that a train heading from Leominster had passed the crossing.

Mrs Harding, a hairdresser from Marden and a mother of one, was airlifted to Hereford County Hospital, but died from her injuries.

Carol Anne Thornewell and her 12-year-old daughter, were also involved in the collision, but survived.

But Maund, who had worked at the Moreton-on-Lugg signal box for 19 years, said that there were extenuating circumstances which led to his fatal error.

The court heard that a farmer had phoned Maund on two separate occasions asking if he could take his sheep across the line, only to be told that it was unsafe to do so because two trains travelling in opposite directions were shortly expected to arrive.

The distraction meant that Maund thought that the initial train had passed because he could still see cars waiting at the crossing and heard their engines revving.

Maund, who regularly worked 12 hour shifts on his own, dealing with up to 40 trains a day, added that he deeply regrets that the accident happened and said it had affected him badly during the past three years.

His defence barrister James Ageros even described his methodical way of working as ^like a robot^ and the enemy of a signaller is distraction.

But prosecutor Philip Mott said that Maund should still have made extra checks to see if the train had passed and Network Rail should have had an approach locking system installed as a back-up safety measure.

He said that the device, costing less than ^40,000, would have prevented the signals being changed and the barriers going up.

The court heard that Network Rail declined to install the locking system during renewal works at the Moreton crossing in 2009, despite them being considered at earlier meetings with the Office for Rail Regulation (ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)).

But Prashant Popat, a defence barrister representing Network Rail, said that there were was no requirement for the system to be fitted and said the device would cost up to ten times more.

Marcus Beard, who assesses the risks at level crossings, added that the Moreton-on-Lugg crossing was calculated as being fairly low risk.

Maund, aged 43, from Caswell Crescent, Leominster, denies failing to take reasonable care for the health and safety of railway and railway crossing users by raising the level crossing barriers when it was unsafe to do so.

Network Rail has pleaded not guilty to a separate charge of failing in its duty of care for the health and safety of railway and railway crossing users by not installing an approach locking system.

The jury, consisting of seven women and five men, have been deliberating the case since Tuesday afternoon.

[JayMac]

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

Signalman guilty over Herefordshire crossing death

Network Rail and a signalman have been found guilty of failing to ensure the safety of a woman who was killed at a level crossing.

Jane Harding, 52, died when the car she was in was hit by a train at Moreton-on-Lugg, Herefordshire, in 2010.

Birmingham Crown Court heard safety barriers had been raised before the collision on 16 January.

Network Rail and 43-year-old Maund are due to be sentenced at the same court on 10 April.

Both had denied breaching health and safety regulations.

'In a dither'

During the two-week trial, the prosecution told the court that Maund from Caswell Crescent, Leominster, Herefordshire, had put down the barriers as normal for a passing train.

Moments later, the jury heard the 43-year-old "got himself into a dither" when a farmer rang his signal-box for a second time asking if it was safe to walk his sheep over another crossing further up the track.

As he did not want the farmer to wait any longer, prosecutor Philip Mott QC said Maund had "panicked" and lifted the barriers, but failed to see the Manchester Piccadilly to Milford Haven train approaching around a bend.

Jurors were told the crash caused the car, which was being driven by Mrs Harding's husband Mark, to flip over.

She later died in hospital, while her husband suffered pelvic and shoulder injuries.

The Arriva Trains Wales service also hit another car being driven in the opposite direction, although the two passengers escaped with minor injuries.

Mr Mott told the court although it may be a case of "human error", Maund's former employer Network Rail was equally culpable for Mrs Harding's death because it had not fitted an automatic-locking device at the Moreton-on-Lugg crossing as part of improvement works there.

He said: "Network Rail took the decision not to install this device because it would cost ^40,000. That device could have saved a life."

The court heard the company decided not to install the safety device as part of a ^1.2m project at Moreton-on-Lugg three months before the crash.

[stebbo]

I gather the signalman has now been found guilty.

[Chris from Nailsea]

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

Level crossing death: Signalman and Network Rail fined

Network Rail and one of its signalmen have been fined for failing to ensure the safety of a woman killed when a train hit a car at a level crossing.

Jane Harding, 52, died when the car she was in was hit at Moreton-on-Lugg, Herefordshire, in January 2010.

Birmingham Crown Court heard Adrian Maund, 43, from Caswell Crescent, Leominster, had raised safety barriers shortly before the crash.

He was fined ^1,750, while Network Rail was given a ^450,000 fine.

Maund was also ordered to complete 275 hours of unpaid work.

Both were found guilty following a three-week trial in February, after denying breaches of health and safety regulations.

The court heard Network Rail had failed to install an automatic barrier locking system.

The company was also ordered to pay ^33,000 towards prosecution costs, while Maund was told to pay ^750.

[thetrout]

Whilst I feel that maybe it's slightly inappropriate in this thread... I am rather confused as to the understanding of how the Daily Mail (Why should I be surprised...) in one breath say unharmed:

Her husband, who was driving, escaped the crash unharmed

Yet in the article detail:

Mrs Harding^s husband, Mark, who was driving their Volkswagen Touareg, survived the incident with shoulder and pelvic injuries.

Not really unharmed is it...?!

[SandTEngineer]

Would it not have been better for the court to order NR^» (Network Rail - home page) to spend the fine on improving other LCs^▸ (Level Crossing)...........

[trainer]

S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) is right, and I'm sure this is not the first time it's been said, but fining what is in effect a nationalised company is only recycling public money and actually hurts only the tax-payer and the rail passenger.  NR^» (Network Rail - home page) carry on as normal, except they cut back on investment.  The law is indeed 'a ass' (sic).




(sic: a term to note that the quotation contains an error known to the quoter - hope that's helpful and not patronising)

[grahame]

Would it not have been better for the court to order NR^» (Network Rail - home page) to spend the fine on improving other LCs^▸ (Level Crossing)...........

But then what's to stop Network Rail simply pulling half a million out of its normal level crossings budget, leaving the fine having no effect at all?

S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) is right, and I'm sure this is not the first time it's been said, but fining what is in effect a nationalised company is only recycling public money and actually hurts only the tax-payer and the rail passenger.  NR carry on as normal, except they cut back on investment.

Agreed - that's not the solution either.   And I don't know what is the solution; presumably the court found failure at some point within NR such that a penalty of that magnitude was justified, but I can't see (can anyone?) how to ensure that the penalty is applied to those who were at fault, rather than their customers or the taxpaying community in general, or simply turning the whole thing into an accounting exercise!