Submission to the Staysafe Committee - Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety’s review of railway level crossing safety in NSW
Posted: 30 October 2001 Author: Mark Morey Position: Special Projects Officer
Summary
This submission provides a snapshot of safety issues and system failures that contribute to injuries and fatalities on NSW rail crossings.
SUBMISSION TO THE STAYSAFE COMMITTEE - JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ROAD SAFETY'S REVIEW OF RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSING SAFETY IN NEW SOUTH WALES
Prepared by: Labor Council of New South Wales
October 2001
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 SAFETY ISSUES 2
1.1 Safety Concerns in Metropolitan Areas 2
1.2 Safety Concerns in Regional and Rural Areas 3
1.3 Additional Issues of Concern 4
1.4 Impacts On Train Drivers 5
2.0 SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS: INADEQUATE RESPONSES TO SAFETY CONCERNS 6
2.1 Slowing Train Speeds 6
2.2 The Systemic Failure to Have Safety Concerns Addressed 8
2.3 Problems with Occupational Health and Safety System in Relation to Level Crossings 9
3.0 SOLUTIONS 10
3.1 A Coordinated Approach to Safety 10
3.2 Research 10
3.3 The Need for an Extensive Public Education Campaign 11
3.4 The Use of Double Boom Gates 11
3.5 Better Policing of Crossings 12
3.6 Level Crossings On Private Land 12
INTRODUCTION
This submission provides a snapshot of safety issues and system failures that contribute to injuries and fatalities on NSW rail crossings.
The two most disturbing aspects of this submission are the ability of train drivers to detail the regularity at which "near misses" occur each week on NSW rail level crossings and secondly, the level of train driver frustration in relation to having safety concerns addressed.
The most significant systemic problem is that no one entity is wholly responsible for level crossing safety. There appears to be no coordinated strategy other than transferring the onus for safety onto train drivers in lieu of developing and funding informed safety strategies.
In preparing this submission, the Labor Council of New South Wales interviewed key rail personnel including RTBU train drivers from the Flemington Maintenance Centre, Junee XPT Country Link and Freightcorp Enfield, and the Occupational, Health and Safety Co-ordinator from the Rail, Tram and Bus Union's Locomotive Division (NSW).
1.0 SAFETY ISSUES
The major level crossing safety concern was the constant disregard by motorists and truck drivers of the laws and safety warnings governing level crossings.
"...people ignore stop signs, they just go straight through...any [train] driver can tell you of the near misses any day of the week."
"...a car saw the stop signs but drove through...every day of the week we are having near misses. And what I mean by a near miss is there are lights going and the car has gone through."
1.1 Safety Concerns in Metropolitan Areas
Safety at metropolitan level crossing was considered to be poor. For example, the speed of trains passing through the level crossing at Fairfield was reduced to 20 kph for freight trains and 40 kph for suburban trains in both directions, because if the trains came through any faster they would beat the boom gates down. A second problem was long trucks "fouling the line", that is, sitting across or moving slowly across train lines, as they waited to turn out of a local street 24 hours a day. To address this issue two people were assigned to monitor the crossing and stop vehicles from doing right hand turns out of the local street.
There are two level crossings on the Carlingford line, Liverpool and Parramatta. Parramatta was considered well managed despite having the boom gates intermittently knocked out. The freight crossing at Sandown, which has petroleum products and containers move across it, was also identified as a safety concern.
There was substantial concern in relation to the Carlingford line. The key areas of concern included the two unprotected pedestrian crossings going up the hill at Rosehill where pedestrians regularly walked in front of oncoming trains. One train driver noted there have been a substantial number of near misses in this location with both racehorses and people wandering onto the track as they went to and returned from the races. As one participant stated:
"When I walk on the track, I get my arse kicked if I haven't got an orange vest on. They're allowing people with no rail knowledge whatsoever to be walking across the track in front of trains."
The area heading up the hill to Carlingford where there are two level crossings was considered a safety concern. At Telopea and Dundas, pedestrians continue to walk straight across the tracks despite lights flashing because they know the train will stop at the station, however this might not always be the case.
The Richmond line was considered one of the worst lines in the metropolitan area. The level crossings at Vineyard, Riverstone meatworks and Riverstone were all identified as problem crossings. A number of level crossings along this line tended to be regarded "bush crossings" with little or no rail traffic passing through. The level crossing near the Sandown is a crossing of concern despite there being people with lights and lollie pop signs patrolling the area.
"The blokes who work out there with their vests on and their lollipops that say stop, and at night shine the red torch, are actually taking their lives in their hands. They don't stand in the middle lane anymore they stand in the gutter as they've nearly been run down. The people who work around there, especially at Sandown think 'that's a slow old freight train, I'll beat it'. And all the trucks around the area, including those coming from Shell think the same thing. They're not real fast either but they'll try it, kangarooing across the level crossing and getting in front of you while you're blowing your train whistle."
1.2 Safety Concerns in Regional and Rural Areas
The train drivers identified Albury as one of the worse crossings in New South Wales. One train driver stated:
"Once a week I'll have a near miss at Albury without a worry. Going in and out of Albury all the time. It won't be one or two, it might be maybe three straight out in front of you."
The train drivers stated that at the Gerogery level crossing, where five young people died, there are continually near misses as a result of people not heeding the warning signs and the law.
"[The crossing] looks like a big Z. The railway line goes straight down...and...the road goes up. [At the first bend]...that's 20kmph in a truck, no more. So cars are coming along, its all flat, no worries, headlights, and all that sort of thing with the trains. But we are still nearly hitting cars there everyday. They turn around, 'look at that, they say, he's a way away' because he can see the headlights in the distance. He starts going over, even the road freighters are crossing in front of us every day there."
The point the train drivers stressed was that this crossing is not what they would consider a dangerous crossing. There is easy sight from both directions and the road is not only safe but lends itself to slowing motorists down upon approaching the crossing.
The trip to Werris Creek, especially through Muswellbrook where there are two crossings that were considered to be problem areas:
"...one's on the New England Highway and a little one further down in town which is the worst one. At New England they tend to slow down a bit but the city side of Scone crossing they don't stop at all."
1.3 Additional Issues of Concern
There is a definite issue in the way motorists and truck drivers approach level crossings. Both groups in many cases simply ignored warning signs, flashing lights and even boom gates. One train driver detailed how he has seen motorists manoeuvre their cars around single boom gates in order to beat the train.
"The number of [train] drivers that were in fatalities have the opinion now that the car saw [them]...it wasn't a case he didn't see me, he saw me an thought he could get across the crossing."
There was a consensus that the main issue in relation to safety was that motorists were uneducated and prepared to take what they thought to be "calculated risks" despite all the warnings signs and in a number of cases even the presence of closed boom gates.
The train drivers stated that motorists were continually unable to effectively estimate the speed at which trains were travelling as they attempt to beat the train across a level crossing. It was thought that this was one factor that significantly contributed to accidents on level crossings.
"They [motorists] might see an XPT and think that it's travelling along at 80 - 100 kph, but he's [the motorist] doing 115 kph and the XPT is actually doing 150 kph."
1.4 Impacts On Train Drivers
It is worth noting that there is little if any understanding in the public mind of the implications of accident such as that at Gerogery on individual train drivers. Train drivers involved in fatal accidents are psychologically affected in a variety of ways. However, there is no doubting that the failure of motorists to obey the laws associated with level crossings and the inadequate internal mechanisms dealing with safety in rail have contributed to a number of train drivers never being able to return to work as a result of accidents they have been involved in.
2.0 SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS: INADEQUATE RESPONSES TO SAFETY CONCERNS
2.1 Slowing Train Speeds
The train drivers were adamant that there was a lack of a comprehensive strategy to deal with level crossing safety. In lieu of a comprehensive safety strategy, the train drivers believed they were simply directed to drive slower through areas of concern. For example, rather than addressing a visibility problem at a crossing train drivers were directed to drive slower.
"Instead of doing something about the crossings... they slow the trains down because of poor visibility. You'll have a crossing in one direction at one speed and another in the other direction...because from that end there are trees. Instead of trimming the trees or making the visibility better, they just slow the trains down. Instead of educating the public that this is a rail crossing and trains come along here, they slow us down to, well for want of a better term to make up for the stupidity of the public."
There was a very strong sense that the slowing down of trains was an inappropriate response to safety that is now excessively used across NSW.
"There was a problem with one siding [the sight of one track] but they reduced both tracks back to 100 kph. And that's only a farmer's crossing. So they've gone that far overboard really it's just ridiculous and people...don't always take notice of it."
The slowing of trains at private crossings in rural and regional areas was seen as an inadequate response to safety. Such a strategy was seen to be placing the responsibility for safety solely onto the train drives.
"...they've lowered the speed so if we hit some idiot and we happen not to be doing that speed, well they are going to blame us. They are going to say you hit that idiot because you were doing 8 kilometres over the recommended speed when you know that they've only dropped that [the speed] because people keep pulling out [in front of our trains]. That's the way train drivers look at it. It's not achieving anything by dropping that speed...They are dropping that speed so they're looking for some way to blame us, not the individual that's pulled out in front of us."
The strategy absolves the general public and landowners from having to take any responsibility for their actions in relation to adhering to the laws governing level crossings.
"I think he [the general public] needs to be better educated. He needs to be told, look mate the railway's been here for a hundred and something years, you've got your crossing there. When you're going in and out the law state, the RTA regulations or the traffic law states that you must stop at that crossing, look both ways, make sure the track is clear before you proceed."
The concern to train drivers is not the speed at which they travel but the fact that people ignore the laws, signs and flashing lights at crossings and continue to drive straight through level crossing in order to beat the trains.
"There's a crossing at Mascot and I was coming down the hill from Botany. That crossing is set up so we have to stop at a red signal and then the lights flash and the boom gates would come down. We don't get the signal to proceed until it's all down. The lights are flashing and off we go from a standing start. A State Transit bus crashed straight through the barrier. I couldn't believe it. I thought, it's a bus! Because it's a wooden barrier it just splinters. People are not paying any attention."
Slowing the trains down was seen as "protecting the public from themselves", but it was seen as ineffective because it provided motorists with an extra couple of seconds to think about whether they were going to try to beat the train across the crossing.
"They're slowing the trains down and saying you're blowing on the whistle and you slow down mate. All that means is that they [motorist] get longer to see you coming and a longer time to say, 'Well he's a fair way away, and I'm going.' And a lot of them are more likely to jump because they know he [the train] is slowing down."
Another participant agreed stating that slowing trains down had the adverse affect of making people wait longer for the trains to pass. He felt that people do not like to have to wait and this would increase some people's desire to try to beat the trains across crossings.
They're slowing the trains down - I'm going back to Fairfield...But can you imagine one train on the down and one train on the up...The bells ding and I come down and reduce speed to 40 I dribble through the crossing, and I've gone and cleared the crossing. The other train has departed Fairfield. The bells go ding and he comes down to 40 and he dribbles across. It might take 10 minutes. So the next time that person is caught he says, "I'm going to make a dash for it so I don't have to sit here for 10 minutes".
2.2 The Systemic Failure to Have Safety Concerns Addressed
Participants identified a lack of willingness to address level crossing safety. For example, in relation to the previous safety issues associated with the Rosehill crossing one participant stated:
"I have continually pursued it [crossing safety] but they don't want to do anything about it. They don't want to have any protection."
This individual had pursued this issue with the Rail Access Corporation (now Rail Infrastructure Corporation) and with his Crew Area Manager (CAM) on a number of occasions. He also raised the issue at consultative forums where the response was that it was "being looked into".
Participants were extremely frustrated about safety and rail crossings. One commented that the accident at Gerogery only brought safety to a head because it became a media issue. Many train drivers have spent years attempting to get safety issues addressed with little or no success.
In another example, one train drivers stated he had been trying since 1994 to address safety issues in the Enfield area. He informed the RTA that the area was an accident waiting to happen but there was no response. He even went as far as getting the safety regulations for that area in order to prove it did not meet safety regulations.
2.3 Problems with Occupational Health and Safety System in Relation to Level Crossings
There were concerns that issues would only be addressed after a fatality. Participants stated that there is an Occupational Health and Safety system known as the "Green Forms" which are used to highlight safety concerns. In this case, the "Green Form" is completed by a train driver in relation to a safety issue at a level crossing and is then submitted to the OH&S Committee. The OH&S Committee is required to respond in writing as to whether any action is to be taken.
However, the system in relation to level crossings was seen to have "died a natural death" because people were reporting safety issues but they felt no action was being taken. As a result, although the system is still available the frustration of seeing no responses to level crossing safety issues once they have been raised, has meant train drivers no longer see this as a legitimate or effective process of addressing level crossing safety. Subsequently, the majority of train drivers do not fill out "Green Forms" in relation to level crossing issues anymore.
3.0 SOLUTIONS
"Unless you make boom gates out of concrete, reinforced steel or spikes that come out of the road, people are going to continue to risk it."
3.1 A Coordinated Approach to Safety
There was a consensus for the need to develop a coordinated approach to increasing level crossing safety. Ownership of the problem continues to be the main issue. That is, who is responsible for which parts of the level crossings and the safety requirements attached to those parts. The tracks are rail responsibility, the RTA is responsible for the signs and local government is also involved. This complicates the issue as in the case of Fairfield Council where one participant stated:
"They [Fairfield Council] knew that our outcome was to close the crossing and to them it's a cost factor, so they use it as a lever to get money off the RTA which was $600,000 or something."
To close the crossing would mean diverting the traffic through the central business district, which would cause various problems both socially, economically, and politically for a wide variety of local interests. Yet there is no money to build an overpass, so the problem remains.
The issue is often two fold. Firstly, who is actually responsible for what part of the crossing, and secondly, does the responsible party have the money to undertake the appropriate maintenance required. For example, the train drivers felt the RTA was reluctant to become involved in maintaining roads that were not classified as class one or class two roads and were the responsibility of local government authorities.
3.2 Research
There is a need for more research on the causes and the ways of preventing accidents at level crossings. There is a need to identify the conditions that contribute to, or increase the likelihood of accidents occurring at level crossings.
The outcomes and responses to previous accidents need to be documented along with an examination of whether the safety response was effective in reducing or eliminating further accidents. For example, a sign was erected at the level crossing at Warwick Farm only after the crossing had been closed.
3.3 The Need for an Extensive Public Education Campaign
Those interviewed stated there was a dire need for a public education campaign as people generally had no regard for the laws governing the use of railway crossings. Such a campaign should be similar to that used for speed cameras or red light cameras. A specific education campaign targeting motorists and truck drivers, as well as property owners with private crossings on their land was also necessary.
There is a considerable misapprehension by motorists that train drivers are easily able to stop the train in order to avoid hitting a car or truck. It is the experience of participants that motorists do not realise that trains need a substantial distance before they are able to come to a complete standstill. This perception needs to be addressed within any education campaign.
There was a substantial concern in relation to the belief by the general public that it was the train driver's responsibility to stop and give way to motorists and that in some way whistle boards and caution boards indicated that onus was only on train drivers to stop. This perception needs to be addressed through an education campaign.
3.4 The Use of Double Boom Gates
The train drivers stated that boom gates were effective as people:
"...tend to worry about scratching the paintwork on their vehicles. The ones without boom gates, they don't give a rats about. You get the ones that hesitate. They pull up, 'Have I got time? Yeah, I've got time.' By this time you're coming right down on top of them."
Boom gates installed at level crossings must be double boom gates as motorists will drive around single boom gates in order to beat the trains.
3.5 Better Policing of Crossings
Participants thought that the use of red light cameras activated once the bells start sounding would assist in deterring people driving through the crossings. The train drivers felt people take more notice of laws and directions when a financial disincentive is attached. The standard applied to level crossings should be the same as that applied at any set of traffic lights.
There is a need for police blitzes in conjunction with this strategy and an education campaign to enforce the laws governing the use of level crossings. Cameras should also be used in rural and regional areas. These cameras did not necessarily have to be permanent and could be rotated around a number of crossings in any one area.
Participants felt strongly that the money raised through such strategies should not go into consolidated revenue but should be used to fund further education campaigns and to improve the safety of level crossings.
A number of the train drivers also raised concerns with regard to the policing and fining of motorists who disobeyed the laws governing level crossing. The train drivers gave a number of examples, specifically in rural areas, where motorists had ignored level crossing laws in front of police officers and no action was taken by the police officers. They felt there was a culture in rural areas where ignoring, or at best, disregarding level crossing laws was allowed to occur. There is a need for police, especially those in regional and rural New South Wales to be diligent in enforcing the laws that govern level crossings.
3.6 Level Crossings On Private Land
Landholders with crossings on their land should be sent information on the laws of level crossings such as the need to stop before crossing. Landowners need to be advised that they have a responsibility to maintain safety around the crossing. That is, there is an onus on them to maximise visibility in both directions by trimming bushes and trees a substantial distance around the crossing.
It was seen as useful to provide landowners with timetables of regular and irregular passenger and freight trains passing over their property. There was a strong feeling that Government authorities were not eager to address these issues with landowners preferring to inappropriately address safety issues by regulating train drivers and slowing down trains.
href="#_Toc528722918">1.1Safety Concerns in
Metropolitan Areas.
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>2
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
href="#_Toc528722919">1.2Safety Concerns in
Regional and Rural Areas.
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>3
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
href="#_Toc528722920">1.3Additional Issues of
Concern.
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>4
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
href="#_Toc528722921">1.4Impacts On Train
Drivers.
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>5
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
href="#_Toc528722922">2.0
style='mso-tab-count:1'> SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS: INADEQUATE
RESPONSES TO SAFETY CONCERNS
style='mso-tab-count:1'>
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>6
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;font-weight:normal'>
href="#_Toc528722923">2.1Slowing Train Speeds
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>.
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>6
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
href="#_Toc528722924">2.2The Systemic Failure
to Have Safety Concerns Addressed
style='mso-tab-count:1 dotted'>.
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>8
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
href="#_Toc528722925">2.3Problems with
Occupational Health and Safety System in Relation to Level Crossings
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>9
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
href="#_Toc528722927">3.1A Coordinated Approach
to Safety.
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>10
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
href="#_Toc528722928">3.2Research
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>.
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>10
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
href="#_Toc528722929">3.3The Need for an
Extensive Public Education Campaign
style='mso-tab-count:1 dotted'>.
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>11
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
href="#_Toc528722930">3.4 The Use of Double Boom Gates
style='mso-tab-count:1 dotted'>.
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>11
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
href="#_Toc528722931">3.5Better Policing of
Crossings.
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>12
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
href="#_Toc528722932">3.6Level Crossings On
Private Land.
style='color:windowtext;display:none;mso-hide:screen;text-decoration:none;
text-underline:none'>12
style='font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>
This submission provides
a snapshot of safety issues and system failures that contribute to injuries and
fatalities on NSW rail crossings.
The two most
disturbing aspects of this submission are the ability of train drivers to
detail the regularity at which "near misses" occur each week on NSW rail level
crossings and secondly, the level of train driver frustration in relation to
having safety concerns addressed.
The most
significant systemic problem is that no one entity is wholly responsible for
level crossing safety.There appears to
be no coordinated strategy other than transferring the onus for safety onto
train drivers in lieu of developing and funding informed safety strategies.
In preparing this
submission, the Labor Council of New South Wales interviewed key rail personnel
including RTBU train drivers from the Flemington Maintenance Centre, Junee XPT
Country Link and Freightcorp Enfield, and the Occupational, Health and Safety
Co-ordinator from the Rail, Tram and Bus Union's Locomotive Division (NSW).
The major level
crossing safety concern was the constant disregard by motorists and truck
drivers of the laws and safety warnings governing level crossings.
lang=EN-AU style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>"...people ignore stop signs, they
just go straight through...any [train] driver can tell you of the near misses any
day of the week."
lang=EN-AU style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>"...a car saw the stop signs but
drove through...every day of the week we are having near misses.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> And what I mean by a near miss is there are
lights going and the car has gone through."
Safety at
metropolitan level crossing was considered to be poor.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> For example, the speed of trains passing
through the level crossing at Fairfield was reduced to 20 kph for freight
trains and 40 kph for suburban trains in both directions, because if the trains
came through any faster they would beat the boom gates down.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> A second problem was long trucks
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"fouling the line", that is, sitting
across or moving slowly across train lines, as they waited to turn out of a
local street 24 hours a day.To address
this issue two people were assigned to monitor the crossing and stop vehicles
from doing right hand turns out of the local street.
There are two
level crossings on the Carlingford line, Liverpool and Parramatta.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Parramatta was considered well managed despite
having the boom gates intermittently knocked out.The freight crossing at Sandown, which has petroleum products and
containers move across it, was also identified as a safety concern.
There was
substantial concern in relation to the Carlingford line.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> The key areas of concern included the two
unprotected pedestrian crossings going up the hill at Rosehill where
pedestrians regularly walked in front of oncoming trains.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> One train driver noted there have been a
substantial number of near misses in this location with both racehorses and
people wandering onto the track as they went to and returned from the
races.As one participant stated:
lang=EN-AU style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"When I walk on the track, I get
my arse kicked if I haven't got an orange vest on.They're allowing people with no rail knowledge whatsoever to be
walking across the track in front of trains."
The area heading
up the hill to Carlingford where there are two level crossings was considered a
safety concern.At Telopea and Dundas,
pedestrians continue to walk straight across the tracks despite lights flashing
because they know the train will stop at the station, however this might not
always be the case.
The Richmond line
was considered one of the worst lines in the metropolitan area.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> The level crossings at Vineyard, Riverstone
meatworks and Riverstone were all identified as problem crossings.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> A number of level crossings along this line
tended to be regarded "bush
crossings" with little or no rail
traffic passing through.The
level crossing near the Sandown is a crossing of concern despite there being
people with lights and lollie pop signs patrolling the area.
lang=EN-AU style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"The blokes who work out there
with their vests on and their lollipops that say stop, and at night shine the
red torch, are actually taking their lives in their hands.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> They don't stand in the middle lane anymore
they stand in the gutter as they've nearly been run down.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> The people who work around there, especially
at Sandown think 'that's a slow old freight train, I'll beat it'. And all the
trucks around the area, including those coming from Shell think the same
thing.They're not real fast either but
they'll try it, kangarooing across the level crossing and getting in front of
you while you're blowing your train whistle."
The train drivers
identified Albury as one of the worse crossings in New South Wales.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> One train driver stated:
lang=EN-AU style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"Once a week I'll have a near
miss at Albury without a worry. Going in and out of Albury all the time.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> It won't be one or two, it might be maybe
three straight out in front of you."
The train drivers
stated that at the Gerogery level crossing, where five young people died, there
are continually near misses as a result of people not heeding the warning signs
and the law.
lang=EN-AU style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"[The crossing] looks like a big
Z.The railway line goes straight
down...and...the road goes up.[At the
first bend]...that's 20kmph in a truck, no more.So cars are coming along, its all flat, no worries, headlights,
and all that sort of thing with the trains. But we are still nearly hitting cars there everyday.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> They turn around, 'look at that, they say,
he's a way away' because he can see the headlights in the distance.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> He starts going over, even the road
freighters are crossing in front of us every day there."
The point the
train drivers stressed was that this crossing is not what they would consider a
dangerous crossing.There is easy sight
from both directions and the road is not only safe but lends itself to slowing
motorists down upon approaching the crossing.
The trip to Werris
Creek, especially through Muswellbrook where there are two crossings that were
considered to be problem areas:
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"...one's on the New England Highway and a little one
further down in town which is the worst one. At New England they tend to slow down a bit but the city side of Scone
crossing they don't stop at all."
There is a
definite issue in the way motorists and truck drivers approach level
crossings.Both groups in many cases
simply ignored warning signs, flashing lights and even boom gates.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> One train driver detailed how he has seen
motorists manoeuvre their cars around single boom gates in order to beat the
train.
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"The number of [train] drivers that were in
fatalities have the opinion now that the car saw [them]...it wasn't a case he
didn't see me, he saw me an thought he could get across the crossing."
There was a
consensus that the main issue in relation to safety was that motorists were
uneducated and prepared to take what they thought to be "calculated risks" despite all the warnings signs and in a number
of cases even the presence of closed boom gates.
The train drivers
stated that motorists were continually unable to effectively estimate the speed
at which trains were travelling as they attempt to beat the train across a
level crossing.It was thought that
this was one factor that significantly contributed to accidents on level
crossings.
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"They [motorists] might see an XPT and think that
it's travelling along at 80 - 100 kph, but he's [the motorist] doing 115 kph
and the XPT is actually doing 150 kph."
It is worth noting
that there is little if any understanding in the public mind of the
implications of accident such as that at Gerogery on individual train
drivers.Train drivers involved in
fatal accidents are psychologically affected in a variety of ways.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> However, there is no doubting that the
failure of motorists to obey the laws associated with level crossings and the
inadequate internal mechanisms dealing with safety in rail have contributed to
a number of train drivers never being able to return to work as a result of
accidents they have been involved in.
name="_Toc528722922">2.0SYSTEMIC
PROBLEMS: INADEQUATE RESPONSES TO SAFETY CONCERNS
The train drivers
were adamant that there was a lack of a comprehensive strategy to deal with
level crossing safety.In lieu of a
comprehensive safety strategy, the train drivers believed they were simply
directed to drive slower through areas of concern.For example, rather than addressing a visibility problem at a
crossing train drivers were directed to drive slower.
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"Instead of doing something about the crossings...
they slow the trains down because of poor visibility.You'll have a crossing in one direction at one speed and another in
the other direction...because from that end there are trees.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Instead of trimming the trees or making the
visibility better, they just slow the trains down.Instead of educating the public that this is a rail crossing and
trains come along here, they slow us down to, well for want of a better term to
make up for the stupidity of the public."
There was a very
strong sense that the slowing down of trains was an inappropriate response to
safety that is now excessively used across NSW.
lang=EN-AU style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>"There was a
problem with one siding [the sight of one track] but they reduced both tracks
back to 100 kph.And that's only a
farmer's crossing. So they've gone that far overboard really it's just
ridiculous and people...don't always take notice of it."
The slowing of
trains at private crossings in rural and regional areas was seen as an
inadequate response to safety.Such a
strategy was seen to be placing the responsibility for safety solely onto the
train drives.
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"...they've lowered the speed so if we hit some idiot
and we happen not to be doing that speed, well they are going to blame us.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> They are going to say you hit that idiot
because you were doing 8 kilometres over the recommended speed when you know
that they've only dropped that [the speed] because people keep pulling out [in
front of our trains].That's the way
train drivers look at it.It's not
achieving anything by dropping that speed...They are dropping that speed so
they're looking for some way to blame us, not the individual that's pulled out
in front of us."
The strategy
absolves the general public and landowners from having to take any
responsibility for their actions in relation to adhering to the laws governing
level crossings.
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"I think he [the general public] needs to be better
educated. He needs to be told, look mate the railway's been here for a hundred
and something years, you've got your crossing there.When you're going in and out the law state, the RTA regulations
or the traffic law states that you must stop at that crossing, look both ways,
make sure the track is clear before you proceed."
The concern to
train drivers is not the speed at which they travel but the fact that people
ignore the laws, signs and flashing lights at crossings and continue to drive
straight through level crossing in order to beat the trains.
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"There's a crossing at Mascot and I was coming down
the hill from Botany.That crossing is
set up so we have to stop at a red signal and then the lights flash and the
boom gates would come down.We don't
get the signal to proceed until it's all down. The lights are flashing and off we go from a standing start. A State
Transit bus crashed straight through the barrier.I couldn't believe it. I thought, it's a bus!
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Because it's a wooden barrier it just
splinters.People are not paying any
attention."
Slowing the trains
down was seen as "protecting the public
from themselves", but it was seen
as ineffective because it provided motorists with an extra couple of
seconds to think about whether they were going to try to beat the train across
the crossing.
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"They're slowing the trains down and saying you're
blowing on the whistle and you slow down mate. All that means is that they [motorist] get longer to see you coming and
a longer time to say, 'Well he's a fair way away, and I'm going.'
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> And a lot of them are more likely to jump
because they know he [the train] is slowing down."
Another
participant agreed stating that slowing trains down had the adverse affect of
making people wait longer for the trains to pass.He felt that people do not like to have to wait and this would
increase some people's desire to try to beat the trains across crossings.
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>They're slowing the trains down - I'm going back to
Fairfield...But can you imagine one train on the down and one train on the up...The
bells ding and I come down and reduce speed to 40 I dribble through the
crossing, and I've gone and cleared the crossing.The other train has departed Fairfield.The bells go ding and he comes down to 40 and he dribbles
across.It might take 10 minutes.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> So the next time that person is caught he
says, "I'm going to make a dash for it so I don't have to sit here for 10
minutes".
Participants
identified a lack of willingness to address level crossing safety.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> For example, in relation to the previous
safety issues associated with the Rosehill crossing one participant stated:
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"I have continually pursued it [crossing safety] but
they don't want to do anything about it. They don't want to have any protection."
This individual had
pursued this issue with the Rail Access Corporation (now Rail Infrastructure
Corporation) and with his Crew Area Manager (CAM) on a number of
occasions.He also raised the issue at
consultative forums where the response was that it was "being looked into".
Participants were
extremely frustrated about safety and rail crossings.One commented that the accident at Gerogery only brought safety
to a head because it became a media issue. Many train drivers have spent years attempting to get safety issues addressed
with little or no success.
In another
example, one train drivers stated he had been trying since 1994 to address
safety issues in the Enfield area.He
informed the RTA that the area was an accident waiting to happen but there was
no response.He even went as far as
getting the safety regulations for that area in order to prove it did not meet
safety regulations.
name="_Toc528722925">2.3Problems
with Occupational Health and Safety System in Relation to Level Crossings
There were
concerns that issues would only be addressed after a fatality.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Participants stated that there is an
Occupational Health and Safety system known as the "Green Forms" which
are used to highlight safety concerns. In this case, the "Green Form" is completed by a train driver in
relation to a safety issue at a level crossing and is then submitted to the
OH&S Committee.The OH&S
Committee is required to respond in writing as to whether any action is to be
taken.
However, the
system in relation to level crossings was seen to have "died a natural death" because people were reporting safety issues
but they felt no action was being taken. As a result, although the system is still available the frustration of
seeing no responses to level crossing safety issues once they have been raised,
has meant train drivers no longer see this as a legitimate or effective process
of addressing level crossing safety. Subsequently, the majority of train drivers do not fill out "Green
Forms" in relation to level crossing issues anymore.
lang=EN-AU>"Unless you make boom gates out of concrete, reinforced steel or
spikes that come out of the road, people are going to continue to risk it."
There was a
consensus for the need to develop a coordinated approach to increasing level
crossing safety.Ownership of the
problem continues to be the main issue. That is, who is responsible for which parts of the level crossings and
the safety requirements attached to those parts.The tracks are rail responsibility, the RTA is responsible for
the signs and local government is also involved.This complicates the issue as in the case of Fairfield Council
where one participant stated:
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>"They [Fairfield Council] knew that our outcome was
to close the crossing and to them it's a cost factor, so they use it as a lever
to get money off the RTA which was $600,000 or something."
To close the
crossing would mean diverting the traffic through the central business
district, which would cause various problems both socially, economically, and
politically for a wide variety of local interests.Yet there is no money to build an overpass, so the problem
remains.
The issue is often
two fold.Firstly, who is actually
responsible for what part of the crossing, and secondly, does the responsible
party have the money to undertake the appropriate maintenance required.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> For example, the train drivers felt the RTA
was reluctant to become involved in maintaining roads that were not classified
as class one or class two roads and were the responsibility of local government
authorities.
There is a need
for more research on the causes and the ways of preventing accidents at level
crossings.There is a need to identify
the conditions that contribute to, or increase the likelihood of accidents
occurring at level crossings.
The outcomes and
responses to previous accidents need to be documented along with an examination
of whether the safety response was effective in reducing or eliminating further
accidents.For example, a sign was erected
at the level crossing at Warwick Farm only after the crossing had been closed.
Those interviewed
stated there was a dire need for a public education campaign as people
generally had no regard for the laws governing the use of railway
crossings.Such a campaign should be
similar to that used for speed cameras or red light cameras.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> A specific education campaign targeting
motorists and truck drivers, as well as property owners with private crossings
on their land was also necessary.
There is a
considerable misapprehension by motorists that train drivers are easily able to
stop the train in order to avoid hitting a car or truck.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> It is the experience of participants that
motorists do not realise that trains need a substantial distance before they
are able to come to a complete standstill. This perception needs to be addressed within any education campaign.
There was a
substantial concern in relation to the belief by the general public that it was
the train driver's responsibility to stop and give way to motorists and that in
some way whistle boards and caution boards indicated that onus was only on
train drivers to stop.This perception
needs to be addressed through an education campaign.
The train drivers
stated that boom gates were effective as people:
style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>"...tend to worry about
scratching the paintwork on their vehicles. The ones without boom gates, they don't give a rats about.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> You get the ones that hesitate.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> They pull up, 'Have I got time?
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Yeah, I've got time.'
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> By this time you're coming right down on top
of them."
Boom gates
installed at level crossings must be double boom gates as motorists will drive
around single boom gates in order to beat the trains.
Participants
thought that the use of red light cameras activated once the bells start
sounding would assist in deterring people driving through the crossings.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> The train drivers felt people take more
notice of laws and directions when a financial disincentive is attached.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> The standard applied to level crossings
should be the same as that applied at any set of traffic lights.
There is a need
for police blitzes in conjunction with this strategy and an education campaign
to enforce the laws governing the use of level crossings.
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Cameras should also be used in rural and
regional areas.These cameras did not
necessarily have to be permanent and could be rotated around a number of
crossings in any one area.
About Unions NSW
