Level crossings : eliminating them "a good thing".

[Justin Smith]

Could someone please explain to me why it's considered a positive when Network rail manage to close a level crossing or path crossing ? It's certainly not a positive for those who use them (unless a bridge is built, which is relatively uncommon).....

I have to say I think all this stuff about foot crossings being dangerous is vastly overblown, so long as they're used with even a modicum of care they're far safer to use than even crossing the 30mph (in theory) dual carriageway near my home !

As for road level crossings I think much of the temptation for some drivers to risk driving round the barriers or trying to beat the train across the crossing could be reduced by reducing how long the gates are down. I was at Rossington the other day and those barriers were down for ever and a day with no train coming.

 

[455driver]

Because level crossing continue to be the most likely place for a train to have an 'interaction' with another object simply because 'the other users' dont have a clue how to use them properly/safely.

 

[AM9]

Because level crossing continue to be the most likely place for a train to have an 'interaction' with another object simply because 'the other users' dont have a clue how to use them properly/safely.

I think that many of them do know, but also think that the rules and information are there for lesser types than themselves.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for road level crossings I think much of the temptation for some drivers to risk driving round the barriers or trying to beat the train across the crossing could be reduced by reducing how long the gates are down. I was at Rossington the other day and those barriers were down for ever and a day with no train coming.

If that happens, there would probably be an increase in the number of collisions and/or near misses as those who take the risks now will continue to do so. Also, where there is congestion or there are road vehicle breakdowns on the crossing, there will be more blockages when it is too late to stop the train.

 

[455driver]

As for road level crossings I think much of the temptation for some drivers to risk driving round the barriers or trying to beat the train across the crossing could be reduced by reducing how long the gates are down. I was at Rossington the other day and those barriers were down for ever and a day with no train coming.

I have a stretch of 90mph track where I can see the road traffic crossing infront of me at a AHB crossing, then the yellow light does its bit before the barriers start to lower, once the barriers are down my trains goes over it 10 seconds later. People still jump the lights/ weave around the barriers at that one because they cant wait so what more can be done to stop them?

 

[plymothian]

Because "the railway" has to been seen to be "doing something" about the rash of deaths on crossings. Thus no crossing = no possibility of a death.

There are always calls after an incident to have the "death-trap" closed. By which they mean replaced. But usually an LC is there because there is little to no possibility of anything else being there instead.

Consider a pedestrian bridge would have to be Equality Act compliant, so you end up with either a lift or very long ramps. Lifts in rural environments are far from ideal, so you would then get a huge "monstrosity" that spoils the view.

And how about road crossings, how far away from the line would the bridge or tunnel have to commence to get it high/low enough, and thus how much demolition is required/fields lost for it? Places like Poole are going to be lump it or close it.

However, the other way to go is to make every road/foot crossing fully enclosed with lockable gates and lights.

 

[Bald Rick]

Because, in law, it is Network Rail's responsibility to ensure the safety of the crossings to road / path users and rail users alike. And notwithstanding that 98% of crossing incidents are user abuse / misuse, if there is an incident at a level crossing, Network Rail can be prosecuted. And there is always that 2%.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because "the railway" has to been seen to be "doing something" about the rash of deaths on crossings.

To correct any misconception, there hasn't been a 'rash of deaths' on NR level crossings. They are the safest they have ever been, and orders of magnitude safer than comparable railways in Europe.

Nevertheless, there is a commonly held view that one fatality at a level crossing is one too many.

 

[LLivery]

Its frankly the result of the stupid blame culture this country has. I guarantee if the level crossings used traffic lights with cameras mounted on top of them actively giving people tickets, cars wouldn't cross until its ''clear''. As for pedestrians if they jump the barriers its their stupid fault no one else - same with trespassers and the industry should be clearly saying this. The silly amount of fencing we have compared to Germany and The Netherlands must cost a fortune as well.

Of course I agree about unsafe level/foot crossings being either made safer or closed but the majority are perfectly safe if used correctly. As for breakdowns on a level crossings the barriers should be down with enough time for the stock on that route to emergency brake, so even if the car is hit, its at a very low speed. The signalers should be watching.

 

[AM9]

Its frankly the result of the stupid blame culture this country has. I guarantee if the level crossings used traffic lights with cameras mounted on top of them actively giving people tickets, cars wouldn't cross until its ''clear''. As for pedestrians if they jump the barriers its their stupid fault no one else - same with trespassers and the industry should be clearly saying this. The silly amount of fencing we have compared to Germany and The Netherlands must cost a fortune as well.

I agree with the camera bit, and penalties must include licence points, - at least that will remove the worst offenders from the driving food chain.
Maybe all boundary fencing in 'problem areas' should have cattle electric fence type deterrents, with warning notices of course. In the event of somebody being trapped railside near a crossing (presumably through ignoring all the warnings), an emergency refuge within the area could be provided.

There must be some sort of Anglo-Saxon thing here as most of Europe seems to cope with railway crossing safety and trespassing much better than the UK, then there's the US, where it's almost impossible to fence off the railway.

 

[LateThanNever]

I agree with the camera bit, and penalties must include licence points, - at least that will remove the worst offenders from the driving food chain.
Maybe all boundary fencing in 'problem areas' should have cattle electric fence type deterrents, with warning notices of course. In the event of somebody being trapped railside near a crossing (presumably through ignoring all the warnings), an emergency refuge within the area could be provided.

There must be some sort of Anglo-Saxon thing here as most of Europe seems to cope with railway crossing safety and trespassing much better than the UK, then there's the US, where it's almost impossible to fence off the railway.

In fact both Europe and the US have worse safety records than the UK so they cope but only at the price of accepting a higher level of casualties...

 

[SF-02]

I have a stretch of 90mph track where I can see the road traffic crossing infront of me at a AHB crossing, then the yellow light does its bit before the barriers start to lower, once the barriers are down my trains goes over it 10 seconds later. People still jump the lights/ weave around the barriers at that one because they cant wait so what more can be done to stop them?

Camera and fine. Would dissuade idiots. We shouldn't be closing crossings which can be a lifeline to many due to a minority of morons. Instead make them pay. Change the law so that Network Rail aren't responsible for the stupidity of some as well.

 

[aylesbury]

People nowadays seem to be idiots who cannot stop for a minute in their busy lives constantly texting phoning and not understanding that barriers and red lights are for their safety.Poole LC is an excellent example of the I wont be stopped mentality when interviewed on tv people said the railway should stop for them didn't realise the nature of the crossing and also seemed proud to beat the train when the barriers are coming down.Cant see much of a change coming soon people are thick.

 

[John Webb]

........There must be some sort of Anglo-Saxon thing here as most of Europe seems to cope with railway crossing safety and trespassing much better than the UK, then there's the US, where it's almost impossible to fence off the railway.

The UK was the first area to have railways in quantity, often crossing private land granted to them by Act of Parliament, and it was Parliament (under the influence of the landowners) who insisted on the railway being fenced off, and have done ever since.

 

[Mugby]

I have a stretch of 90mph track where I can see the road traffic crossing infront of me at a AHB crossing, then the yellow light does its bit before the barriers start to lower, once the barriers are down my trains goes over it 10 seconds later. People still jump the lights/ weave around the barriers at that one because they cant wait so what more can be done to stop them?

Camera and fine. Would dissuade idiots. We shouldn't be closing crossings which can be a lifeline to many due to a minority of morons. Instead make them pay. Change the law so that Network Rail aren't responsible for the stupidity of some as well.

I'm not sure it would actually. It's become obsessive compulsive behaviour, unfortunately. Stand at any road junction which is controlled by traffic lights and you will see hundreds of drivers every day who go through after the lights have changed to red. What does it save them, seconds perhaps but they can't stop doing it.
Same with talking on a hand held mobile whilst driving, for every one that gets caught, many thousands get away with it.

You could make these things a capital offence (if there still was such a thing) and it would still be no deterrent.

 

[455driver]

Maybe if our wonderful Police force parked up and caught a few light jumpers the message might get out but I dont think they would leave their doughnuts behind!

 

[Kite159]

I'm not sure it would actually. It's become obsessive compulsive behaviour, unfortunately. Stand at any road junction which is controlled by traffic lights and you will see hundreds of drivers every day who go through after the lights have changed to red. What does it save them, seconds perhaps but they can't stop doing it.
Same with talking on a hand held mobile whilst driving, for every one that gets caught, many thousands get away with it.

You could make these things a capital offence (if there still was such a thing) and it would still be no deterrent.

But putting red light cameras on crossings with have a high level of jumpers might make the driver think twice before jumping the crossing if they end up with a lovely fine and penalty points.

I've seen cameras at various crossings when on my travels so it's nothing new

 

[jopsuk]

Yes, level crossings are safe if they're used correctly. But if they're not then:
A: If it's just a pedestrian, there's psychological harm to the driver plus disrption whilst everything is cleared up
B: If it's the driver of a vehicle then the consequences can be anything up to disastrous. Now, this doesn't happen often. But if that risk can be reduced, why not reduce it? If the level crossing is replaced with a bridge (either road under rail or vice versa) then it is a win for everyone surely? Reduced risk and a traffic disruption removed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for road level crossings I think much of the temptation for some drivers to risk driving round the barriers or trying to beat the train across the crossing could be reduced by reducing how long the gates are down. I was at Rossington the other day and those barriers were down for ever and a day with no train coming.

The barriers are usually lowered far enough out for the approaching train to be able to see Green aspects. This lets the trains run at line speed. But two and a half minutes can seem a very long time...

 

[CockneySparrow]

Because, in law, it is Network Rail's responsibility to ensure the safety of the crossings to road / path users and rail users alike. And notwithstanding that 98% of crossing incidents are user abuse / misuse, if there is an incident at a level crossing, Network Rail can be prosecuted. And there is always that 2%.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


To correct any misconception, there hasn't been a 'rash of deaths' on NR level crossings. They are the safest they have ever been, and orders of magnitude safer than comparable railways in Europe.

Nevertheless, there is a commonly held view that one fatality at a level crossing is one too many.

He didn't say LEVEL crossings, just crossing that would interpret foot/stile crossings as well

There has been a rash of incidents at foot/stile crossings

 

[Mugby]

He didn't say LEVEL crossings, just crossing that would interpret foot/stile crossings as well

There has been a rash of incidents at foot/stile crossings

Hence the colossal structures which are springing up everywhere, no doubt at astronomical cost because they'd rather pay the price than face the consequences.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Hence the colossal structures which are springing up everywhere, no doubt at astronomical cost because they'd rather pay the price than face the consequences.

One is being built at Kennet station, this one by the looks of it is covered in mesh at the sides and top, not sure that's necessary

 

[Bald Rick]

He didn't say LEVEL crossings, just crossing that would interpret foot/stile crossings as well

There has been a rash of incidents at foot/stile crossings

Footpath crossings are still level crossings. And there has not been a rash of incidents.

 

[robschopper]

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/08/20/598983/

Prime Example!

 

[LLivery]

I agree with the camera bit, and penalties must include licence points, - at least that will remove the worst offenders from the driving food chain.
Maybe all boundary fencing in 'problem areas' should have cattle electric fence type deterrents, with warning notices of course. In the event of somebody being trapped railside near a crossing (presumably through ignoring all the warnings), an emergency refuge within the area could be provided.

There must be some sort of Anglo-Saxon thing here as most of Europe seems to cope with railway crossing safety and trespassing much better than the UK, then there's the US, where it's almost impossible to fence off the railway.

Exactly. Penalties should be among the most ''harsh'' on the road. Give them say a two grand fine, a multiple of points/ban them for at least a year and charge them with endangerment of people on the train and dangerous driving and also give them 100s of hours of community service with zero exceptions.

If they do it again ban them from driving totally, fine them again and lock 'em up. We've seen from Ufton Nevet what can happen if a HST hits a car (though it was different circumstances), the road vehicle driver should face the worst for endangering lives.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/08/20/598983/

Prime Example!

I'm glad he got a decent punishment

 

[MK Tom]

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/08/20/598983/

Prime Example!

"40-tonne, four-carriage Arriva train" ?

That's what each carriage would weigh. Try 160 tonne.

 

[Antman]

I'm not sure it would actually. It's become obsessive compulsive behaviour, unfortunately. Stand at any road junction which is controlled by traffic lights and you will see hundreds of drivers every day who go through after the lights have changed to red. What does it save them, seconds perhaps but they can't stop doing it.
Same with talking on a hand held mobile whilst driving, for every one that gets caught, many thousands get away with it.

You could make these things a capital offence (if there still was such a thing) and it would still be no deterrent.

I don't think that is the case at all, the overwhelming majority of drivers do not jump red lights or use phones when driving so let's not go overboard.

I often see a BTP van at the Eastfields level crossing near Mitcham and hopefully it visits other crossings where there is a problem.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

all safety legislation talks about risks being made 'as low as reasonably possible'

there is little you can do about the hazard of an 'interaction' between a train and a pedestrian / cyclist/ equestrian / road vehicle - trains are big and heavy compared to raod vehicles even a pacer or a 153 and orders of magnitude heavier than ped/ cyclist/ equestrian

so you had to address the likelihood


'reasonably practicable' comes into it - but given the costs of an 'interaction' spending millions of pounds is reasonably practicable

with respect to bridges etc there is no explict requirement that it must be a bridge - the pedstrian crossing at Heighington is being replaced by a underpass which despsite the short distance has been tunneled through the embankment to allow the track to remain in situ

in the case of Poole and Lincoln High st the obvious answer is to reoute the road traffic and then you can use the space to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians ( the Lincoln crossing did used to have a footbridge , but the change to barriers from gates did for that in the 1980s

 

[matchmaker]

As for road level crossings I think much of the temptation for some drivers to risk driving round the barriers or trying to beat the train across the crossing could be reduced by reducing how long the gates are down. I was at Rossington the other day and those barriers were down for ever and a day with no train coming.

You'd find it hard to drive round the barriers at Rossington!

 

[PermitToTravel]

Because, in law, it is Network Rail's responsibility to ensure the safety of the crossings to road / path users and rail users alike. And notwithstanding that 98% of crossing incidents are user abuse / misuse, if there is an incident at a level crossing, Network Rail can be prosecuted. And there is always that 2%.

This shouldn't be. It's absolutely correct for Network Rail (or the TOCs where appropriate) to be held accountable for the 2%, and strive to minimise such incidents, but anybody who has put themselves or anyone else in the path of a train at a correctly functioning crossing should bear the full responsibility for their actions as they would at an at-grade road crossing.

 

[brompton rail]

You'd find it hard to drive round the barriers at Rossington!

This is literally true, but in road vehicle terms a diversion south from the Styrup Inn leads to the next bridge south and thus allows Rossington Crossing to be avoided and with very little increase in distance and journey time. However it is pedestrians and cyclists that are inconvenienced by the closure of crossings. Foot/cycle bridges are unpopular when there are adjacent houses, of course!

 

[455driver]

The barriers are usually lowered far enough out for the approaching train to be able to see Green aspects. This lets the trains run at line speed. But two and a half minutes can seem a very long time...

AHBs are among the most abused and the barriers are down about 10 seconds before the train arrives, AHBs are not tied in with the signalling and the train will be at full linespeed (up to 110mph) regardless of the barrier position.

 

[21C101]

One of the reasons that the proposed cost of reopening Uckfield - Lewes was so high was because it priced to eliminate all the level crossings on the old line and replace them with flyovers/underpasses.

While it made sense for roads like the A22 bypass, no one seemed to have considered the option of getting a derogation from the group standard for the Uckfield High Street Crossing where a new bridge in the urban area would be both expensive and destructive and nothing would cross faster than 10mph because all trains stop of Uckfield station immediately adjacent to the crossing.

Similarly I would have thought that full barrier CCTV crossings for the minor roads at places like Isfield would get a derogation based on any reasonable risk assessment

I would have thought a derogation with a PSR of 20mph over the crossing would be quite reasonable in this case. There seems to be a lack of this can-do practicality in recent reports on proposed line openings, not least the one that claimed the cost of reopening the missing 20 miles of the Southern route to Plymouth would cost the thick end of £1 billion.