This locomotive also carries an explanatory plaque. Coincidentally, 91023 was also involved in the Hatfield rail crash four months earlier. The locomotive escaped with only slight damage on both occasions. Following technical upgrade of the Class 91 fleet, which led to all locomotives having 100 added to the number (91001 became 91101, etc.), 91023 was renumbered 91132, not 91123. Hart denied the charges, claiming that his car had suffered a mechanical fault, or had collided with an object on the road. An investigation, including reconstruction of the Land Rover to demonstrate that it was not mechanically defective, concluded that Hart had been driving in a sleep-deprived condition, and had not applied the brakes as it went down the embankment. It later transpired that Hart had stayed up the previous night talking on the telephone to a woman he had met through an internet dating agency. Hart later stated that although he had witnessed the impact between the InterCity 225 and his Land Rover, he had not been aware of the more serious collision with the freight train until informed by police several hours later. He was found guilty on 13 December 2001, and was sentenced to 5 years in prison and a 5-year driving ban. He was released from prison in July 2004 after serving half of his sentence. Campaigners drew attention to what they claimed was the inadequate length of the crash barriers alongside the motorway. According to the Health and Safety Executive's final report, the Land Rover had left the road 30 yards before the barrier started and had easily broken through the simple wooden fence that lined the track. A 2003 Highways Agency review of crash barriers on bridges over railways concluded that only three bridges nationwide were in need of upgrading. The bridge at Great Heck was not one of them. By October 2003 Hart's insurers had paid out over £22 million. Gary Hart's insurers, through Hart's name, sued the Department for Transport for a contribution to the damages paid to GNER and the victims, alleging a degree of causation on the grounds that the safety barrier was inadequate (contributory negligence). The High Court judge ruled that the barrier length had been reasonable and there was no negligence.