Written evidence from Deborah Scanlon (SLC 035)

Statement of Deborah Louise Scanlon(was Martin) widow of Driver Stanley Martin

killed at Ufton Nervet 2004

My life and that of my children, James aged 15 and Louise aged 13, changed unbelievably on Saturday 6th November 2004 when my Husband was needlessly killed whilst carrying out the job he loved. He was the train driver of the train which was derailed by Brian Drysdale at Ufton Nervet level crossing. From that point onwards, my sad grieving family were put into the spotlight and subjected to criticism and rumour and our every move was scrutinised by the press. My family’s world, as we all knew it, stopped on that day and although I have tried to move on my children, even though growing up, still dearly miss their Dad.

I understood that people take their own lives by putting themselves in the path of fast trains, normally with no detriment to the train itself, only to the train driver who could do nothing to stop it, but this was different. Brian Drysdale calculatedly manoeuvred his car onto the level crossing and positioned it within the closed barriers into a position where he would be hit by a fast moving train, in order to kill himself. Nothing could have prevented what occurred at the crossing and sadly there were other fatalities as well as Stan and as human nature shows, these circumstances sometimes bring out the worst in people.

It is a simple concept of how trains run; they run on a track, with no steering ability for the driver, they are driven to a timetable, there will be no ‘traffic’ hold ups, they run as directed by the signalling system, which ensures there are no other trains in their path and therefore they run at the correct running speed for the line they are on. It is frightening that so called cleaver, well educated and professionals in their own right, cannot comprehend this simple concept.

Myself and our children had to endure hostilities from the first ever contact with the other deceased passengers families, even from some of the Advocates at the Inquest into their deaths. They did not understand the simple concept on how a train runs, they only sought to blame the ‘railway’ for their loss, aided and abetted by their ‘professional’ Advocates, who either did not want to understand how railways operate or didn’t care, because they were in the ‘spotlight’ and just appeared to want to score points.

On any formal occasion, which necessitated the deceased families to come together, we were subjected to ridicule because we were seen as supporting the railway industry, who they so desperately wanted to blame. They had seemed to loose sight of the fact that the train was derailed as a direct result of Brian Drysdale’s selfish act of taking his own life, in the way he did. On one occasion a relative of someone else who died in the crash  telephoned my Family Liaison Officer and abused him and stated he was also working for the railway industry and made derogatory comments about me. Unfortunately for my FLO, were we in the car and he could not cover what this man said, therefore I heard it all. I still to this day find it hard to get over the fact that all concerned had lost someone dear to them and we should all be grieving their loss and not trying to blame an ‘industry’ as opposed to the person responsible.

From the time of the accident and to the end of the inquest, the British Transport Police were always professional and always gave me facts as they emerged, as I had insisted on from the outset. It is sad to think that as a professional police force responsible for policing the railways, they are not widely recognised for the professionals they are.

From the beginning of the inquest, I understood what the purpose of it was, that is to determine, who/where/when/how people died. I cannot say the same for the Advocates, who many a time appeared to be out of their comfort zone and saw the Coroners Court as a normal courtroom where it was their job to score points against their adversaries when in actual fact it was their job to listen and represent the families who had engaged them. Other Advocates saw the inquest as a public inquiry into the workings and corrections related to the rail industry and to the detriment of the families attending lost sight of the fact that those who they represented were still grieving for their loved ones. Perhaps there should be more emphasis during their pupilage put on the work of Her Majesty’s Coroner and what an inquest needs to prove and that a Coroner appointed by Her Majesty deserves some respect when sitting. I would like to see a better understanding of the railway system included in the qualifications for any Advocate who intends to represent a grieving family at an inquest involving a fatality on the railway.

It came to light that the person who had abused me was a hard campaigner for railway improvements and has spent many years prior to the inquest pushing these points through various groups and even the House of Lords, his main aim was to have laminated windows fitted to all passenger trains. This became abundantly clear as the inquest progressed and was also seized upon by other families Advocates and were it not for the strong leadership of Peter Bedford, the Coroner, the inquest could have become just a debate into the safety features the railway industry should adopt. Sadly for other families, their Advocates did not understand many of the railway experts therefore those experts were questioned about either matters which they did not have expertise in or they were asked to speculate as to a particular set of circumstances, all of which drew the proceedings out for the bereaved families. The family of the person who abused me were also responsible for supplying information to the press during the inquest which resulted in the Coroner having to instruct an Advocate to contact a lawyer and inform her that he did not expect to see any future articles about his conduct of the inquest.

On a personal level, I was pleased with the outcome of the Inquest as it brought no criticism of Stan or the railway industry, which I strongly believe disheartened other bereaved families who I suggest were looking for a monetary compensation package from the industry.

Subsequent to the inquest I believe that the crossing at Ufton Nervet is to be replaced by a bridge. In the interest of safety and even more so for the trauma caused to train drivers and members of the British Transport Police who have to deal with any fatality on the railway system, all levels crossing, where practicable should be closed and if necessary be replaced by bridges. I shall never have any doubt in the railways industry nor their strive to keep the railways safe for all those who travel on trains.

October 2013