HL Deb 24 October 1968 vol 296 cc1583-96

4.53 p.m.

THE EARL OF KINNOULLrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the deep concern over the recent level crossing accidents, and what further action the Railways Board intend to take. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of my Unstarred Question to-day on level crossing accidents is not intended in any form as a criticism of neglect by either the Government or the Railways Board in their concern and responsibility for the safety of public and private level crossings. The very fact that Clause 121 of the Transport Bill specifically sets out the Board's obligations and the Minister's powers to insist on those obligations in regard to level crossings is proof enough of awareness of the problem.

The purpose of the Question is to express what I believe is a growing concern as to exactly what is being done, what modifications to automatic crossings, what modifications to manned crossings, what modifications to unmanned crossings are taking place following the Hixon Report and its recommendations. The concern. I believe, is based on good grounds, particularly in view both of the fatal accidents which have occurred since the Hixon Report and also of the known policy of the Railways Board to step up their number of automatic level crossing installations to something like 150 new installations every year.

There is, I believe, at the present time some confusion in many people's minds, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, will correct to-day. as to the numbers of public and private level crossings that exist to-day. The figures, which I have obtained—and perhaps he would confirm them later—are that there are some 2,425 public level crossings and approximately 13,000 private level crossings, or what are termed occupation and accommodation level crossings. In both these groups there are really three types of level crossing: there are the manned level crossings in the public sector; there the the unmanned level crossings, gated or ungated. in both the private and the public sectors, and there are the automatic crossings, which were started, I believe, in 1961. As the House knows, the trend to-day is to convert as many as possible of the manned crossings to automatic crossings, on the grounds of cost of operation, so long as the safety factor is satisfactory.

May we turn briefly to the private level crossings? Although the protection and safety required at public level crossings is of course of paramount importance, the safety of the private level crossingsis, I believe, of equal importance, not only for the farmer who crosses with tractor and trailer but also for the express train that maybe thundering down with many passengers and which may well hit the trailer. In view of the large percentage of private, as compared with public, level crossings, it is perhaps not surprising to learn that accidents at the private crossings are far more frequent than at the public crossings. I believe I am correct in saying that since the Hixon Report was published there have been three fatal accidents, all suffered by persons in motor vehicles—none suffered, luckily, by those in the trains that struck them. Had there been fatal accidents to the train passengers, I am sure the concern would be a great deal more and would be expressed a great deal more loudly. I hope to-day the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, will have some information to give us on the future steps that the Minister, or in Particular the Railways Board, intend to take to increase and ensure the safety of private crossings, as well as tell us the progress they are making on the automatic crossings.

If one looks at the public level crossings, one finds that there are to-day 207 automatic crossings, or just 10 per cent. of the total number of public level crossings. The Railways Board, one understands, intend to increase this number to a further 1.500 crossings. I do not think many people doubt the great advantage that will be obtained by the Railways Board with these new installations, both in traffic movement and cost of operation, particularly as one noticed evidence given at the Hixon Inquiry that indicated that a single manned and gated crossing could cost in some cases over £3,000 a year. However, it is the safety factor that I am sure outweighs the advantages of the reduction in costs in many people's minds. I am not sure that the argument that the more automatic crossings there are, the more familiar they are to us, the less danger they will be, is really valid, and a comparison with the Continent must surely also be misleading. We have in Britain a far greater density of population, a far greater density of cars and a great many more level crossings per million acres than on the Continent, in France, Holland or Germany.

The whole question of the safety factor of level crossings was gone into in great detail in the excellent Report on the Hixon disaster, and this was published last July. On July 25, now more than three months ago, the Minister announced in another place that he accepted entirely all the main recommendations of that Report, including the one for increasing the time cycle from 24 seconds up to 32 seconds before the arrival of the fastest train on that crossing. He went on to say that many of the additional safeguards proposed involved a great deal of complicated technical work which would fall on the shoulders of the Board, and that consultations between his officials and the Board had already taken place. That was last July. I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, to-day if he could tell us how far those consultations have reached.

In addition to those consultations, I understand that the Ministry of Transport have recently engaged a firm of consultants to advise them on the steps they should take to implement the recommendations of the Hixon Report. If this should be so, perhaps again the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, can tell us what terms of reference this firm was given and how soon they arc expected to report. At the time of the publication of the Hixon Report the Minister said in another place that modifications of the existing 207 automatic crossings would be carried out as early as possible. Could the noble Lord tell us to-day whether this work has already been started, particularly on the time cycle expansion? Can he also say whether a halt has been called to installing any new automatic crossings until all the technical problems of modification have been sorted out by the Railways Board?

The final question I have for the noble Lord is to ask what is the latest figure for accidents on both the public and the private level crossings over the past year, and the number of accidents that have occurred on the automatic level crossings since their inception in 1961. My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for asking so many questions in such a short space of time, but I believe that this is the purpose of an Unstarred Question. Knowing his mastery of his brief I am sure he will be good enough to give us as many answers as possible, because it is, as I said at the beginning, the lack of information as to what is happening that is causing the greatest concern

5.2 p.m.

LORD POPPLEWELL

My Loris, I think the noble Earl has done a service in asking this Question this afternoon. It is fortunate that the procedure of this House is such that we are enabled to raise a matter of this description when it is so difficult to do so in another place. Accidents at level crossings are so infrequent that the Press naturally highlights teem, and rightly so; television and radio draw the attention of the nation to these difficulties, and again rightly so. It is up to us who safeguard the public conscience in Parliament to probe and to see that every possible step is taken with aview to reducing the accident risk involved in the many level crossings which we low have; and it is well that we should approach this matter not in an entirely unemotional atmosphere, but bringing to emotion common sense and reason and practical application.

We have a large number of level crossings. The numbers have been given by the noble Earl. What can we do at out them? We all know that there is a perfect answer: we should do away with the level crossings altogether and build bridges or underpasses. Of course, that is absolutely impossible. The expense involved makes it absolutely impracticable for it to be done. Therefore we are faced with the question, how can we test deal with this situation? A lot of controversy has taken place about the Continental electric and automatic type of level crossings which have replaced the man in the signal box whose chief duty was to turn the wheel and open the gates for oncoming traffic. That was the reason why the box was built there. As a relief signalman of many years ago, I have worked in nearly all kinds of railway signal boxes, including this type of signal box, and I know how soul-destroying is the job and how expensive it can be.

Naturally, when we take away the manned crossing and replace it with the automatic crossing, particularly the type with the pole coming only halfway across the road, no matter what safeguards arc provided by the flashing lights, there is a reaction, and will be until this type of crossing has seen a long period of service and has demonstrated how effective it can be. It can be extremely effective, and it is effective provided the ordinary people using the roads take normal care. With most of the accidents that have taken place we find that there has been some neglect by the ordinary citizen in carrying out the duties that one would expect of him when he goes through a railway crossing of this particular description. On the other hand, in this present experimental stage it may be necessary to consider whether the flashing light warning gives sufficient time to enable proper clearance of the crossing. Again, if there is too long a time intervening it encourages people to dash across the crossing. It is a matter of trying to find the correct measure in this particular direction.

In regard to some crossings out in the countryside I wonder whether it might be feasible—I am not entirely advocating this—to have an audible warning system attached to the two flashing lights. I say this quite diffidently, because I know that the general desire to-day is to reduce noise in the countryside and elsewhere. If this could be provided as an added safeguard. and is attractive to the normal motorist and the normal person using the roads, it might well be worthy of further consideration. I wonder whether my noble friend, when he comes to reply, can say whether this line of thought is being pursued.

Then we turn to the unmanned crossings. There have always been accidents at these crossings; but because that is so it does not mean that due attention should not be given to them. Exactly what can be done is indeed difficult from the point of view of practical application. These accommodation or unmanned crossings which give access to agricultural land or to the farmhouse are used simply with a view to carrying out necessary agricultural husbandry. What can be done? Is it feasible and practicable for the railways to go to the expense of establishing some kind of audible warning when a train is coming into a section on one of these hundreds of crossings? The noble Earl said that there were something like 13,000 accommodation crossings. I accept his figure. Is it feasible to do that?

Again, it was all very well when we had steam trains if the person using the crossing carried out the ordinary instructions which were usually exhibited alongside these crossings— that he ought to open the further gate first and then get his vehicle straight across, and there would be less risk of accident. That was all very well in those days. You could hear the steam train coming along. Today, we have a much more silent train, the diesel engine or the electric train, which may be coming along in fog. This creates additional difficulties. One knows that a tractor on a farm has not quite the speed of pick-up that a motor car has. It would be extremely interesting to see what device could be found to get over this genuine difficulty which has been increased with the more silent running of the trains that we have to-day. Therefore, on this side of it I do not know whether my noble friend can give us any further information. But I am sure we should appreciate some indication, first, on how far the talks have got between the National Farmers' Union and the representatives of British Rail (I understand that talks are taking place in this particular direction) and, secondly, whether there has been any indication from research establishments of other more modern devices which might be applicable to this particular problem.

These are real and genuine problems. I hope that by this very short debate we shall reduce the temperature a little, reduce the sensationalism a little which the Press adopt when these accidents do occur. Many of them, as I have indicated earlier, are due to human faults not attached to the railways; and very often it is the human fault of the individual, in not exercising the necessary care or not having a vehicle under proper control on these particular crossings. These arc important factors. We know that there is only one really effective solution, and that is to build a bridge or a subway—something which is a totally impracticable proposition. But I should welcome my noble friend's remarks on this particular question.

5.12 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and to voice my own personal concern on two points arising originally from the disaster at Hixon and the subsequent public inquiry. There is, of course, national concern over these accidents: first, over their number, and over the accidents in general—not all of them, mercifully, so serious as that at Hixon; and secondly (and this gives me personally the most concern), because of an apparent lethargy on the part of the Railways Board to alleviate what is a clear public anxiety in this matter. I have no doubt that the Railways Board are, in fact, taking the necessary steps, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, when he replies, will be able to confirm that. Nevertheless, the public at large, no doubt as a result of the misrepresentations alleged by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, are concerned that the Railways Board are not taking the steps necessary to secure adequate safety on these crossings.

When the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, was speaking a moment or so ago he seemed to ask (perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, by answering for him) whether it was reasonable to expect the Railways Board to go to the great expense involved in modifying these crossings, and he also mentioned how soul-destroying it was for the signalman to have to wind the handle all the time. He asked if it was reasonable for the Railways Board to have to take steps to prevent these disasters by making this expenditure and relieving the signalmen of their boredom. My Lords, surely it is. Surely it is the responsibility of the Railways Board to take such steps as may be necessary, so that even the most stupid citizen when using the crossing is not subjected to the possibility of being hit by a train. If, for example, the interval before the descent of the boom on these automatic crossings is too short, so that slightly stupid people tend to rush across, then steps must be taken to prevent them from rushing across. It is no good anybody saying—and I do not think that the Railways Board do say this—that it is up to the citizen not to dash across when the boom is about to come down, or is just coming down: because it is the responsibility of the Railways Board to make their installations as safe as can be.

On a particular technical point, I wonder whether the noble Lord Lord Hilton, when he replies, will confirm that since the Hixon disaster no further automatic crossings have been installed incorporating the short 24-second delay in the descent of the boom, as distinct from the 32-second delay recommended in the Hixon Report. Finally, let me say how grateful I am to the noble Earl. Lord Kinnoull, for raising this matter, and how much I look forward to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Hilton.

5.17 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, once upon a time I used to be a director of a South American railway, and there we went to the opposite extreme. Precautions at level crossings in the country were a no ice to the engine driver to whistle, and then everybody jumped for his life. You knew where you were then; you had to look out for the train. Now, with these more sophisticated automatic crossings, the onus seems to be distributed. The railway ought to stop people getting r cross, and people ought to see that they do not go across. But the blame for an accident can almost always be laid on either party.

Recently a crossing has been opened fairly near me: I have to go over it, and I never like it very much. Is certainly gives an audible warning: there are bells and there are flashing lights. However, it is up a slope; and I am always frightened that the day may come when one will be on the slope, letting a train from one direction goby, and engaging gear and going forward, and perhaps stalling the engine in so going, and getting caught by a train coming up the other way. That is a very real danger. I do not think that the danger as so much of actual ignorance or carelessness, as of failure to keep cool. The ordinary person, under conditions of danger—there is danger—can get flustered; and if that happens he may stall the engine of his vehicle. It is the presence of two trains, one after the other, going each way, that seems to me to be so extraordinarily difficult to cope with. One could suggest, of course, that there might be an ordinary road red light, 50 yards down the road, as well as the red lights on the gate; but even that would not deal with the double danger.

When one turns to private crossings, I must say that they fill me with the most appalling alarm. I know one where my children have on occasion taken ponies across. The visibility is not very good, but normally there are only four trains an hour. But what about these smaller crossings where the line is heavily trafficked, where there maybe trains practically every five minutes each way? I cannot see how that problem can be effectually solved. How is a farmer, or anybody else, going to deal with a private crossing on a really heavily trafficked main line? That will be extremely difficult without underpasses, and so on. I am looking forward with great interest to the Government reply, because I do not believe that this problem is anything near solved, although I am grateful to hear that a longer interval is being provided, because that is an elementary precaution which should be taken.

5.20 p.m.

LORD HILTON OF UPTON

My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this matter this afternoon. It is something which causes everybody concern, and I hope to give a fairly full reply to his Question. Obviously I shall not be able to give answers to all the questions which have been posed in such a short time. I will do my best, however, and if I leave questions unanswered I will write to the noble Lords who have asked them. I should also like to thank the other noble Lords who have taken part so far in this debate.

It is always very sad to hear of accidents where someone is killed or injured, and perhaps especially so where young people are concerned. I know that my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, is as saddened as I am, and as other noble Lords are, by the recent accidents at level crossings. I am thinking particularly of the case of little Julie Brendt, 11 years old, who was killed by a train at a footpath crossing on the Isle of Sheppey the weekend before last. And also of the three people who died when their car was struck by a train at an occupation crossing near Hull in the early hours of a Sunday morning at the end of September. I am sure that we all sympathise deeply with those who have been bereaved as a result of these and other similar accidents. In both of these cases my right honourable friend is waiting to hear from the Railways Board the results of the Board's inquiry into the accident. There have been other accidents, too, at level crossings this year, but while I am not for a moment trying to minimise the distress which these accidents cause, I think we must place them in some sort of perspective.

There are over 17,000 level crossings in England, Wales and Scotland. About 2,000 of these are manned crossings on public roads. Just over 200 others are guarded by automatic half-barriers. For the most part, the remainder are protected by gates which are operated by the crossing user. These are found on privately-owned roads, or acting merely as a connection between fields severed by the railway line. As your Lordships probably know, those on private roads are known as "occupation crossings "; those between fields are generally referred to as accommodation crossings. So far this year, on all of these 17,000 plus crossings, there have been 104 accidents reported where train movements have been involved. Last year, in the whole of 1967, there were 169 such accidents. But fortunately in by far the majority of these cases there were no casualties. In fact, out of the 104 accidents this year, there have been casualties in 23 of them. Five of these accidents happened at public crossings, 17 at occupation or accommodation crossings and one, as I have already mentioned, on a footpath crossing. Last year there were casualties in 51 accidents, but, of course, in some accidents there may be several casualties. We still have in our minds the very serious accident at Hixon earlier this year, to which noble Lords have referred, where a train was derailed and some of the passengers and the Railways Board's employees were killed or injured. But this has been the only accident last year and this year where those travelling on the train have been among the casualties.

The Railways Board have always been concerned with safety. Moreover, at level crossings they are required by law to provide a certain standard of protection. On public level crossings, the Board have to maintain gates or barriers and employ people to operate them unless the Minister makes an Order under Section 66 of the British Transport Commission Act 1957. Then the Board would have to comply with such new conditions as the Minister may lay down for the protection of the public—and it is by means of these Orders that the Minister has authorised automatic half-barriers at some 200 level crossings. On private level crossings, the situation is different. There, the Board are required by law to maintain only "good and sufficient" gates or stiles depending on the type of crossing; it could serve just a footpath. They are not required to employ anyone to operate these gates.

My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is concerned to see that the Railways Board comply with the safety requirements placed on them by law. In addition, from what I have said about varying the obligations placed upon the Board, your Lordships will see that the Minister has an even more particular interest where he has agreed to new arrangements being made on public crossings. The Minister's interest is generally watched over by his Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, to whom the Railways Board report immediately an accident occurs. The Board investigate every accident, and the Chief Inspecting Officer considers whether one of his own inspecting officers should also investigate the circumstances.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question on that particular point? He mentioned that accidents took place on level crossings at the rate of 104 a year, or two a week. Are all the accidents reported to the Chief Inspecting Officer? 'The human casualties were not numerous. Do the accidents involve mostly animal casualties?

LORD HILTON OF UPTON

My Lords, I have no information in my notes that the accidents actually refer to those in which animals are involved, but I will find out and let the noble Lord know. My information is that each accident is reported to the Chief Inspecting Officer, who investigates. The Board investigate every accident, and the Chief Inspecting Officer considers whether one of his own inspecting officers should also investigate the circumstances. Of course, in the case of a major disaster the Minister could order a public inquiry. But in the majority of cases the causes of the accident are relatively clear and the Board's investigation is sufficient to establish the facts and to indicate where remedial action should be taken. The results of the Board's investigation are always conveyed to the Railway Inspectorate, who are thus able to keep watch on safety at such crossings. But although unfortunately accidents do happen from time to time, level crossings are, in general, safe. No accident has only one cause, and equally there is no single solution to the accident problem—short of replacing all level crossings by bridges segregating road and rail traffic, a point which was made by my noble friend Lord Popplewell. But with over 17,000 crossings, this would involve the expenditure of millions of pounds which could undoubtedly be more effectively spent on safety measures elsewhere.

I think I should preface what I have to say about the steps being taken on a broad front to improve safety on level crossings by pointing out that even where crossings are manned, accident; do happen. Eighteen of the 51 accidents involving casualties which occurred in 1967 were at manned crossings prottected by gates or barriers. Perhaps the most important action that is being taken relates to automatic half barrier crossings following the Hixon accident. In regard to the question which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tregarne, as to how many similar barriers had been erected since the Hixon disaster, I am glad to inform him that none have been erected since that date. As your Lordships will know, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport accepted the main recommendations of the searching public inquiry into this accident conducted by Mr. E. Brian Gibbens, Q.C., and action to put these recommendations into effect is proceeding.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked quite properly what was being lone to make these crossings safer. The Railways Board, in conjunction with the Ministry, are reviewing the programme for future automatic half-barriers. Work on modification of existing crossings has started, and priority is being given to the modifications necessary to ensure that danger cannot be caused by a second train arriving immediately after the first train has cleared the crossing. This point was made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. These modifications will provide for the barriers to stay down until the second train has passed, but at many crossings the recommendations pose serious technical difficulties for the railway engineers, and it will necessarily be sometime before work is completed.

Work on the approaches to the crossings is starting, and my right honourable friend is arranging for extra road markings to be put down, such as double white lines to prevent overtaking near the crossings, yellow box markings to warn drivers not to go on the crossings unless their' exit is clear, and so on. An industrial designer has been appointed to advise on the whole design and presentation of the crossings to the road user. Where the movement of abnormally large loads is authorised by the Ministry, warnings are given of the automatic half-barriers on the route, and the need to telephone for permission to cross is stressed. But although much is being done, and is being done as quickly as possible, it is too early yet to say when the new look automatic half-barrier crossings will be fully operating.

However, as I have indicated earlier, by far the majority of crossings—some 12,500—are occupation and accommodation crossings at which the Board are required by law to provide only "good and sufficient gates". In actual fact, at some of these crossings the safety measures go further than is required by law. At some the gates are manned by railway employees. At others, miniature red and green lights give an indication to the person wishing to cross of the approach of a train, or telephones are provided. There are two problems at these crossings. On the one hand, we have certain crossings which, although built on reads which were privately owned when the railway was constructed, are now used to such an extent by the public that they are virtually public crossings. My right honourable friend has taken steps in the Transport Bill to provide himself with powers to require the Railways Board to carry out such measures as he thinks are justified in the light of the present public use of the crossings. It is not likely that many of them will need the sort of protective measures required at crossings on public highways, but at a good number of them extra protection of some sort is necessary for the benefit of the public who use them.

On the other hand, we have the crossings where there is no general use by the public but which are used by the owners or occupiers of the land, generally farmers, and people working for them. It is accepted on all sides that the unobtrusive approach of the modern railway train at speed, and the present-day heavy farm vehicle which is very often both slow and noisy, can present difficult problems at some of these crossings. Improvements are in the interests of both the Railways Board and the farmers, but my right honourable friend is aware that there have been real practical difficulties in arriving at a fair apportionment of the cost of carrying out these improvements. He has received representations from the National Farmers' Union on all these matters, and he is arranging for further discussions to start soon between his Ministry, the Railways Board and the N.F.U., with a view to arriving at some acceptable standard basis of apportioning the cost between the Board and the farmer. I can assure your Lordships that everything possible is being done to make level crossings acceptably safe, both in particular cases where the inquiry into an accident reveals particular measures that should be taken, and on a broad front.

I hope your Lordships will agree that I have tried to give a full Answer to the Question. But if the noble Earl or any other noble Lord wishes further information on other accidents, perhaps they will write to me and I will send it to them.