Level crossings : eliminating them "a good thing".

[21C101]

You are both (HST Ed and Bald Rick) making the assumption that the current historically and previously unimaginably low interest rates will remain at this level for the next 30 years. To be fair the accounting methods allow you to, so I maintain that the accounting methods artificially favour bridges over level crossings.

Another thing that will change very soon is the formal nationalisation of Network Rail which will mean every penny they borrow goes onto the national debt. Expect the treasury to favour the level crossing because it means £20 million off the national debt and generally put pressure on to cut investment packages to the minimum to keep borrowing down, just as they did with BR, even when the higher cost solution would have led to much reduced ongoing operating costs. Lets hope we don't go back to single lead junctions and singling odd short bits of line like Moreton to Dorchester.

However a lot of this boils down to an argument over what is reasonably practicable which would occupy a 150 page thread of its own...

Bald Rick is right that the BR civil engineer could keep costs lower by losing costs in overheads. He could also call upon engineers of all disciplines who knew the area like the back of their hand (including the closed bits which the BR civil engineering department still maintained unless the trackbed was sold off - little was outside urban areas - I remember in my first days on the railway helping install a phone in the local ACE office and seeing a map on the wall with all the closed bits and anotations on the closed bits for tunnels/viaducts etc.)

Feasibility study would have been a couple of inter disciplinary meetings followed by the various departmental engineering reps spending a day or so doing a budgetary estimate and short report which the BR project manager would have packaged up in another day or two. In other words it could be done with a lot less work too because the knowledge was in house, athlough in recent years Network Rail has begun to taken more and more back in house. Closed lines are now owned by BR residuary or whatever they are now called and maintained by someone else.

I'm not sure deterioration of structures over the last 25 years would have made that much difference as the main structure, the bridge over the Ouse had already gone (and was I think the excuse for closing the line -the real reason was I am led to believe that East Sussex council didn't want to fork out for a bridge on their new Lewes relief road (Phoenix Causeway), just as they don't much want the cost of forking out for a Bridge on the Uckfield Bypass now. I'm told - I was too young myself - that the road was built up to either side of the viaduct while they waited for the line to close so the viaduct could be flattened - but that might be an urban myth).

BR also owned the rolling stock and therefore often had a spare unit or two they could store long term without paying leasing charges, so finding an extra Thumper to extend the service to Lewes would not have been difficult. Similarly if they wanted a weekend possession they just booked it at the cost of the Area Manager getting cross rather than £thousands in compensation to a TOC.

I think it will happen eventually (a change in party running the county might help), the Lewes loop idea makes direct trains to Brighton feasible, but the BML2 lot seem to be living on another planet so long as they advance crackpot ideas like ripping up Tramlink and running via Elmers End, these seem to come out of the same magic cookie jar as the short lived attempt for a preserved railway at Addiscombe where someone advocated running an Addiscombe to Heathrow Airport service via some heath robinson route.

Personally I think a new alignment turning off at Isfield and dropping down to a Brighton facing junction at Glynde with an intermediate station at Ringmer would be a better solution but probably cost too much. In the meanwhile please someone get on and electrify it.

 

[HSTEd]

You are both (HST Ed and Bald Rick) making the assumption that the current historically and previously unimaginably low interest rates will remain at this level for the next 30 years. To be fair the accounting methods allow you to, so I maintain that the accounting methods artificially favour bridges over level crossings.

Interest rates on the borrowing to build the bridge would be fixed at the moment the money is borrowed.
The interest rate cannot go up afterwards.
So we can borrow at essentially zero interest cost to build the bridge.

Even if the interest goes up in 30 years time you will have till expended at leat £3m on operating costs at that time, and £6m on renewals.
That leaves you with £15m cost compared to £25m for the bridge.

Trading £100k a year and £6m every 30 years into perpetuity for £10m of capital expenditure is a good deal at almost all reasonable interest rates.

And negative interest rates in real terms exist on almost the IL bonds issued by the Treasury - you can even borrow for 37 years with no much 'higher' interest.
You could issue special 60 year bonds if you want to and its almost certain the interest rate would be below or equal to inflation.

Another thing that will change very soon is the formal nationalisation of Network Rail which will mean every penny they borrow goes onto the national debt. Expect the treasury to favour the level crossing because it means £20 million off the national debt and generally put pressure on to cut investment packages to the minimum to keep borrowing down, just as they did with BR, even when the higher cost solution would have led to much reduced ongoing operating costs. Lets hope we don't go back to single lead junctions and singling odd short bits of line like Moreton to Dorchester.

The idiocy of politicians pursuing sound-bites about public borrowing does not change the fact that its better to build the bridge.

Bald Rick is right that the BR civil engineer could keep costs lower by losing costs in overheads. He could also call upon engineers of all disciplines who knew the area like the back of their hand (including the closed bits which the BR civil engineering department still maintained unless the trackbed was sold off - little was outside urban areas - I remember in my first days on the railway helping install a phone in the local ACE office and seeing a map on the wall with all the closed bits and anotations on the closed bits for tunnels/viaducts etc.)

BR is gone, now we praise the glorious and undying meerkat.
Hail the meerkat.

 

[MarkyT]

Hail the meerkat.

Hallowed be the meerkat!

(apologies I've been watching Stargate SG1 whilst on this forum!)

 

[muz379]

Talking about misuse here , obviously when a LC is unsafe because of a fault that is the fault of NR .
I do think we have a bit of a blame culture where even if you have been misusing the LC
somehow NR is responsible for that we absolve the wrongdoer of liability despite them ignoring the guidance that NR has given them to safely use the crossing .

I get the creeps when using a level crossing even in accordance with the rules and instructions . so i dont know how people can pass a level crossing when the barriers are down .

Personally I think part of the theory and practical driving test should contain something about level crossings . I have never been tested by the DSA on my knowledge of level crossings and when learning to drive never came across one because of where I learnt .Im not saying that all drivers that misuse them are ignorant to their operation but I bet some are and dont actually know what the warning lights are prior to the barrier coming down .

I support cameras with hefty fines and points on the license of any car seen passing a level crossing dangerously . A clear publicity campaign about this also . Even if it doesnt decrease the number of drivers using LC's safely it will raise some revenue .

Anybody who drives for a living , so bus drivers or commercial drivers who endanger the safety of the railway at a level crossing should get a hefty fine and potentially loose their license .

Someone whose car does come into contact with a train or a barrier on a level crossing should have none of their costs covered by their insurance , even if they are fully comp .So if their car is a write off then they need to go and buy themselves a new one . Insurance companies should also contribute towards the cost of welfare for the driver and any railway staff who witness the aftermath of the incident . Although there is the problem here of uninsured drivers being hit at LC's

This is all assuming you are at fault for misusing it . If the barrier doesnt come down , or your car breaks down well before the barriers come down you obviously have not done anything wrong there .

I think for the sake of railway staff and passengers who might have to witness the aftermath of it going wrong at a level crossing we should close as many as we can afford to starting with the busier ones at interfaces between busy railways or busy roads . this IMO is nothing to do with protecting those who currently misuse them because for all I care if they choose to risk their life they play the game . it is to protect the innocent victims of their misuse .

 

[21C101]

Interest rates on the borrowing to build the bridge would be fixed at the moment the money is borrowed.
The interest rate cannot go up afterwards.
So we can borrow at essentially zero interest cost to build the bridge.

Even if the interest goes up in 30 years time you will have till expended at leat £3m on operating costs at that time, and £6m on renewals.
That leaves you with £15m cost compared to £25m for the bridge.

Trading £100k a year and £6m every 30 years into perpetuity for £10m of capital expenditure is a good deal at almost all reasonable interest rates.

And negative interest rates in real terms exist on almost the IL bonds issued by the Treasury - you can even borrow for 37 years with no much 'higher' interest.
You could issue special 60 year bonds if you want to and its almost certain the interest rate would be below or equal to inflation.

Hmm, doubles and Weimar Republics all round

 

[PermitToTravel]

Personally I think part of the theory and practical driving test should contain something about level crossings . I have never been tested by the DSA on my knowledge of level crossings and when learning to drive never came across one because of where I learnt .Im not saying that all drivers that misuse them are ignorant to their operation but I bet some are and dont actually know what the warning lights are prior to the barrier coming down .

Some of the questions that can be randomly chosen are about level crossings and/or "wig-wag" signals, but there is no guarantee that these will appear on any particular candidate's theory test.

Someone whose car does come into contact with a train or a barrier on a level crossing should have none of their costs covered by their insurance , even if they are fully comp .So if their car is a write off then they need to go and buy themselves a new one . Insurance companies should also contribute towards the cost of welfare for the driver and any railway staff who witness the aftermath of the incident . Although there is the problem here of uninsured drivers being hit at LC's

I absolutely agree with you on the first point. I think the second is the case already - I'd be surprised if the railway doesn't claim on the miscreant's insurance in the event of train-car collisions. I suspect the Motor Insurance Bureau would pay in the event of a collision between an uninsured car and a train (if the driver didn't).

This is all assuming you are at fault for misusing it . If the barrier doesnt come down , or your car breaks down well before the barriers come down you obviously have not done anything wrong there .

I must disagree - even if the barrier doesn't come down road users should comply with the red signal and should be responsible for the consequences if they don't.

 

[muz379]

Some of the questions that can be randomly chosen are about level crossings and/or "wig-wag" signals, but there is no guarantee that these will appear on any particular candidate's theory test.


I absolutely agree with you on the first point. I think the second is the case already - I'd be surprised if the railway doesn't claim on the miscreant's insurance in the event of train-car collisions. I suspect the Motor Insurance Bureau would pay in the event of a collision between an uninsured car and a train (if the driver didn't).


I must disagree - even if the barrier doesn't come down road users should comply with the red signal and should be responsible for the consequences if they don't.

Yeah I know there are random questions on the theory test that should be about them , I just think it should be mandatory for there to be a question about them either on the theory test or a question on the practical test that way everybody in theory should know about them

I suspect uninsured drivers would probably end up in court and end up being bound to an agreement to pay the damages back at £1 a week or something like that .

By saying if the barrier doesnt come down , I was essentially saying the level crossing is faulty and no lights or barrier where active , I should have made myself clearer on that given that some crossings dont even have barriers . Depending on circumstances/sighting even if the lights are faulty someone might still be at fault because with road junctions when the lights are out you are expected to treat the junction with extreme caution so the same should be the case at level crossings .

 

[PermitToTravel]

Yeah I know there are random questions on the theory test that should be about them , I just think it should be mandatory for there to be a question about them either on the theory test or a question on the practical test that way everybody in theory should know about them

Many cycle campaigners say the same about various questions about cycling. I don't think either would be an effective way of solving the problem of people who actually don't know how to drive safely; straying off topic now but I've always thought that an effective solution would be to double the cost of each subsequent attempt, forcing people to actually study for all the questions rather than pass by brute force.

By saying if the barrier doesnt come down , I was essentially saying the level crossing is faulty and no lights or barrier where active , I should have made myself clearer on that given that some crossings dont even have barriers . Depending on circumstances/sighting even if the lights are faulty someone might still be at fault because with road junctions when the lights are out you are expected to treat the junction with extreme caution so the same should be the case at level crossings .

Or fit green lights to wigwags confirming to road users that they are working correctly, just like every other traffic signal

 

[muz379]

Many cycle campaigners say the same about various questions about cycling. I don't think either would be an effective way of solving the problem of people who actually don't know how to drive safely; straying off topic now but I've always thought that an effective solution would be to double the cost of each subsequent attempt, forcing people to actually study for all the questions rather than pass by brute force.


Or fit green lights to wigwags confirming to road users that they are working correctly, just like every other traffic signal

even if a small percentage of incidents at level crossings are down to drivers who do not know a mandatory questioning could get rid of some of that . If I had not looked in my Highway code I would not have any knowledge of what these funny signs are for because i never actually came across one where I live when learning to drive . The first time I ever come across one was after i had passed my test and was driving on my own .

Of course the idiots out there that seem hellbent on driving dangerously and are responsible for the majority of incidents will always exist so you have to make it unattractive to mess around at level crossings with hefty points and fines for people .

 

[8A Rail]

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

And why not? The technology is already there and I am aware of one foot crossing in Cheshire (WCML) were the gates are auto locked sometime before a train is due (and a warning is given that it is about to happen too).

 

[HSTEd]

You would have to ensure there was refuge space on both sides of the crossing inside the gates however.
So anyone trapped on the crossing can guarantee they are clear (rather than having to guess what direction trains are coming from and 'dodge them').

 

[Tomnick]

You would have to ensure there was refuge space on both sides of the crossing inside the gates however.
So anyone trapped on the crossing can guarantee they are clear (rather than having to guess what direction trains are coming from and 'dodge them').

...and then ensure that even the most panicked individual can work out what to do, where to stand and how long to remain there for. I'd be interested in the details of this foot crossing, as I'd understood that any crossing, not monitored, that could trap anyone was still a no-no.

 

[mac]

And why not? The technology is already there and I am aware of one foot crossing in Cheshire (WCML) were the gates are auto locked sometime before a train is due (and a warning is given that it is about to happen too).

You could have a crossing keeper to look after the gates then it would be safe, forget that they are doing away with crossing keepers to save money and having barriers.

 

[carriageline]

...and then ensure that even the most panicked individual can work out what to do, where to stand and how long to remain there for. I'd be interested in the details of this foot crossing, as I'd understood that any crossing, not monitored, that could trap anyone was still a no-no.

I would guess (maybe) that the gate (once locked) is able to be opened from the inside but not the outside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DownSouth]

This is a standard active level crossing as used all over South Australia, and fairly cheap/easy to install at about $60,000 (£34k) each.

When it's open (as it is in the Google Street View photo shown) you walk or ride straight through, without any need to open any gate.

When a train is approaching, the red lights (ISO "don't walk" person pictogram) begin flashing and the alarm sounds for a fairly long time, certainly long enough to finish crossing a corridor with four tracks even if you're only just walking on as the light/alarm start. It's certainly a generous enough amount of time that I've only ever seen one person (an old man dragging a bike with a seized up rear wheel) need to use the emergency exit in the six years since the installation of these crossings first started.

The main gate then closes across the direct route of the crossing and magnetically locks shut, and there's still more time before the train actually comes.

If you are still on the crossing after the main gate shuts, you exit to the side bit and push open the spring-loaded emergency exit gate – which in the photo above has a NO ENTRY sign with pictogram on the outside. The side of the main gate facing the crossing when it's closed has a red EXIT sign with arrow pointing through to the emergency exit.

It's not "perfect" in that a person who really wants to access the rail corridor can pull the sprung NO ENTRY gate open, climb over a fence, or simply wait inside the rail corridor while the crossing activates. The design does seem to be fairly idiot-proof though, and protecting the innocent from getting injured/killed is what it's aimed at, it's not a security measure for keeping trespassers away.

EDIT: In case anyone is wondering, the rail corridor is fenced on the right of the photo – by posts and wires which simply don't show up well on a Street View camera. That fence was replaced last year during the electrification works.

 

[Tomnick]

Nice design, but I can almost guarantee that it'd be misused over here. People in a panic are often unable to see an easy escape route (I've seen someone 'trapped' by descending barriers, despite clearly unlocked wicket gates being available, which he looked straight at more than once, wandering repeatedly between a position of safety and the four foot), and if there's any chance of the escape gates being opened from 'outside' - they will be (we now have a set of locked gates on a barrow crossing at a station, released from the supervising box on demand and with a release button on the 'inside' - it's increasingly common, it seems, for users who are told that it's not safe to cross to lean over and let themselves through anyway). After all, if users are happy to deliberately ignore a red light and yodalarm (because they 'know' that they've got time to cross - see recent Mott's Lane RAIB report), it's a fair bet that they'd ignore a locked gate too if there was another way around. Personal responsibility, it seems, is a thing of the past.

 

[21C101]

A cheaper solution than getting rid of the level crossings on secondary lines might be to deploy tram trains with track brakes or modify things like 150s to have magnetic track brakes. Then it becomes quite proper to rip out all the pedestrian footbridges/subways and many of the road bridges and replace them with level crossings as, was done with Tramlink.

Note that the roads concerned included the very busy A222 where the trackbed was lowered, removing a large amount embankment and the overbridge removed at considerable cost so that a level crossing could be installed. When it was a railway it had a train frequency of two, two car trains per hour in peak hours only. Tramlink has fourteen two car trams per hour each way all day....

Similary on the A238 in Wimbledon which is a very busy TfL trunk road, the full barrier CCTV level crossing was removed and replaced with an open crossing, controlled by normal (red, amber, green) traffic lights. Service frequency went up from one every 45 mins to eight per hour each way which will near double to 14-16 each way in the next few years.

Shurely shome mishtake.....we really have got ourselves into a funk with level crossings in the UK.

 

[edwin_m]

Crossings on tram lines are not termed as "level crossings" and the tram people get very upset if anyone refers to them as such, because they know how much cost and hassle they cause to heavy rail. However they are still far from accident-free, with several pedestrians and cyclists killed on tramway crossings in recent years.

 

[MarkyT]

Crossings on tram lines are not termed as "level crossings" and the tram people get very upset if anyone refers to them as such, because they know how much cost and hassle they cause to heavy rail. However they are still far from accident-free, with several pedestrians and cyclists killed on tramway crossings in recent years.

One of the key differences with signalled light rail/tram road intersections is they are usually 'locally monitored', like AOCL, ABCL types on heavy railways with the tram driver being responsible for ensuring the road is clear. That means tram traffic must always approach the intersection at a speed from which it could stop if the crossing remained blocked by road traffic or pedestrians, and the better emergency braking performance of trams means they can stop more abruptly than typical heavy rail vehicles. Crossings ahead of stations platforms where everything stops are fairly easy with the tram starting from rest only once the crossing is clear. Accidents usually occur because tram intersections are open without barriers, and nothing can prevent an absent minded road user from completely ignoring any signals and crossing at the last moment without looking, just as they might at a road junction, with similar tragic results.

 

[jopsuk]

It has been touched on that it isn't just safety that's the issue- on a busy line crossing busy roads the effects of the crossing on vehicle traffic are often a major problem.

And, as it needs repeating, it isn't the safety of idiots that's the issue- it's the safety of people their idiocy can affect.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

A cheaper solution than getting rid of the level crossings on secondary lines might be to deploy tram trains with track brakes or modify things like 150s to have magnetic track brakes.

Magnetic track brakes can only be used below a certain speed can't they? It could be quite... interesting(!) applying them from a typical full linespeed couldn't it?

 

[najaB]

Magnetic track brakes can only be used below a certain speed can't they? It could be quite... interesting(!) applying them from a typical full linespeed couldn't it?

I half-remember seeing a documentary program that said they were fitted on German ICE sets... An emergency stop from 300km/h now that would be interesting!

 

[DownSouth]

Nice design, but I can almost guarantee that it'd be misused over here. … Personal responsibility, it seems, is a thing of the past.

There's the issue –*this active crossing design is optimised for helping people make the correct decision of when to cross the tracks, not as a security system to keep trespassers out of the rail corridor.

They seem to perform very well in their designed purpose – better to do one thing well than many things badly – and offer a clear improvement over the pedestrian chicane crossings that they have replaced.

People in a panic are often unable to see an easy escape route (I've seen someone 'trapped' by descending barriers, despite clearly unlocked wicket gates being available, which he looked straight at more than once, wandering repeatedly between a position of safety and the four foot), and if there's any chance of the escape gates being opened from 'outside' - they will be (we now have a set of locked gates on a barrow crossing at a station, released from the supervising box on demand and with a release button on the 'inside' - it's increasingly common, it seems, for users who are told that it's not safe to cross to lean over and let themselves through anyway).

I'm yet to hear of anybody being 'trapped' –*it does help that the way off the crossing remains the same all the time, with the normal and emergency exit routes only having any difference once you're well clear of the tracks.

There have been suggestions that future installations should not have the sprung emergency exit gates, and that anyone waiting in the emergency exit area should simply wait until the gates open after the train has passed and leave via the normal route. This would remove the option of opening the emergency exit gate from the 'outside' to enter a closed crossing, and would also make each installation a little cheaper – but it would be thoroughly unpleasant waiting for a 1800 metre freight train to pass and would also remove a contingency option for the main gate getting stuck closed (where the emergency gate could be propped open and the crossing used like a traditional unsignalled pedestrian chicane until repairs were completed).

I'm not convinced by your suggestion of having a release button for the gate to leave the emergency exit area. It wouldn't be any more than a token obstacle for the person who actually wants to get into the rail corridor (they'd simply hop a fence) and it would present another thing to break down when it's better to avoid unnecessary complexity.

 

[MarkyT]

I'm not convinced by your suggestion of having a release button for the gate to leave the emergency exit area. It wouldn't be any more than a token obstacle for the person who actually wants to get into the rail corridor (they'd simply hop a fence) and it would present another thing to break down when it's better to avoid unnecessary complexity.

I agree that complexity avoided removes failure potential and the second order risks that could emerge and need assessing. The emergency exit I assume is held closed by the spring pressure alone. I guess this makes it more disabled friendly - some people may not easily be able to operate a latch or press a button. Legally I assume the railway is covered in that if the emergency exit is used incorrectly for access whilst the main gate is closed then any subsequent mishap has been reasonably mitigated against and is the trespasser's fault.

I might consider some sort of monitoring of the emergency gate to ensure it was not misused, rather than any measures to lock or hold it closed, otherwise there might be accusations it had been left open inviting misuse prior to an incident. Monitoring could take the form of:

Continuous loop video recording that could be reviewed following an incident;
Time stamped event recording system registering operations of a limit switch attached to the gate (to review post incident);
'Cycle proving' of the above limit switch to prove the emergency gate closed at the time the crossing normalises following passage of a train before warnings cease.

The limit switch methods only really prove the gate hasn't been propped or failed open, as the gate can be used legitimately whilst the crossing is closed, and the cycle proving method adds failure modes that could leave the crossing in a warning state for extended periods, perhaps inviting further misuse. Video for post incident review seems the best bet.

 

[edwin_m]

I half-remember seeing a documentary program that said they were fitted on German ICE sets... An emergency stop from 300km/h now that would be interesting!

The ICEs have eddy current braking, which also has magnets just above the rail but doesn't involve physical contact - the magnetic field induces electric currents within the rail which warm it up and dissipate the train's kinetic energy that way. There is a concern that if several trains do this in succession in the same place, the rail may get too hot.

In a magnetic track brake the magnet is also just above the rail but mounted on springs. When activated the magnetic force pulls it down against the springs onto the rail, and mechanical friction slows the tram or train. These certainly work up to the 50mph or so maximum speeds of trams, and some tram-trains have a higher top speed though I don't know whether the track brakes can be used over the whole speed range.

 

[MarkyT]

The ICEs have eddy current braking, which also has magnets just above the rail but doesn't involve physical contact - the magnetic field induces electric currents within the rail which warm it up and dissipate the train's kinetic energy that way. There is a concern that if several trains do this in succession in the same place, the rail may get too hot.

I recall there was also some concern with their effect on axle counter inductive sensors mounted on the rail. Axle counters were first used widely in Germany, particularly on their new high speed lines, so there may have been incidents. Failure mode would most likely be false occupied, so 'right side' but operationally inconvenient and could introduce second order risk from manual procedures instituted to pass signals at red, and reset the counters.

In a magnetic track brake the magnet is also just above the rail but mounted on springs. When activated the magnetic force pulls it down against the springs onto the rail, and mechanical friction slows the tram or train. These certainly work up to the 50mph or so maximum speeds of trams, and some tram-trains have a higher top speed though I don't know whether the track brakes can be used over the whole speed range.

There's no reason why tram trains shouldn't use different braking methods in different speed bands. Main line trains already blend regenerative methods with friction.

 

[matchmaker]

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.

100mph, surely?

 

[455driver]

100mph, surely?

Yeah 100, slip of the finger!

 

[MarkyT]

AHBs were inspired by similar crossings already existing in Europe and America. When they first appeared in the 1960s the maximum rail speed anywhere in UK was 100MPH so effectively AHBs could be used almost anywhere the road layout and traffic characteristics were suitable - the most crucial aspect of which is a careful assessment of the likelyhood of traffic 'blocking back' over the crossing. Where there are busy road intersections nearby for instance AHBs would not normally be suitable*. They were particularly suitable for the numerous small rural public road crossings where local attendants had been employed previously to operate gates, often with no interlocking with the signals or block systems. Together with the obvious staff saving these crossings were considered more dependable and safe than the previous manual methods, prone to human error. The short road closed time of these automated crossings was definitely seen as a great benefit for road users too at the time.

* Note local and highway authorities are also supposed to consider this in approving new developments near existing crossings. It is not for me to comment on whether these considerations have always been taken into account, but if surveys reveal traffic characteristics have changed over time the railway may have no legal option but to 'upgrade' a crossing to a supervised, interlocked full barrier variety that will significantly increase road closed time. That is often the point at which negotiations for how to pay for a bridge replacement commence.

 

[Tomnick]

There's the issue –*this active crossing design is optimised for helping people make the correct decision of when to cross the tracks, not as a security system to keep trespassers out of the rail corridor.

They seem to perform very well in their designed purpose – better to do one thing well than many things badly – and offer a clear improvement over the pedestrian chicane crossings that they have replaced.

Indeed, and I agree that they certainly look effective! However, I strongly suspect (and I can't back this up with figures!) that the greatest risk to pedestrians is found at those footpath crossings - the majority - that have no form of active protection beyond a telephone to the signal box (and then only intended, in most cases, for those crossing with vehicles or animals). At those fitted with R/G miniature warning lights, and often yodalarms too, there's far less opportunity for misunderstanding: the main problem is, I'm sure, misuse, and that misuse will surely continue.

I'm yet to hear of anybody being 'trapped' –*it does help that the way off the crossing remains the same all the time, with the normal and emergency exit routes only having any difference once you're well clear of the tracks.

Maybe the general public over there are more intelligent and sensible than here (it wouldn't, in general, be difficult!), but yes, I agree that it looks like an escape route that should be immediately obvious. Familiarity with the crossing type probably helps too. I still wouldn't put it past folk (over here) to think that they're trapped, purely because their 'planned' route has been blocked!

There have been suggestions that future installations should not have the sprung emergency exit gates, and that anyone waiting in the emergency exit area should simply wait until the gates open after the train has passed and leave via the normal route. This would remove the option of opening the emergency exit gate from the 'outside' to enter a closed crossing, and would also make each installation a little cheaper – but it would be thoroughly unpleasant waiting for a 1800 metre freight train to pass and would also remove a contingency option for the main gate getting stuck closed (where the emergency gate could be propped open and the crossing used like a traditional unsignalled pedestrian chicane until repairs were completed).

Indeed, I'm not sure that it'd be wise to remove the gates! Returning to the theme of trapped pedestrians - if there's no means of escape, would they be tempted (despite the availability of a position of safety) to cross back in front of the approaching train to try to open the far gate? Sounds like a silly thing to do, but people do silly things under pressure! Don't get me wrong, I think it's a brilliant crossing design (and I'm sure that I've seen it seriously proposed over here), but I'm sure that the money would be far better spent on providing basic R/G miniature warning lights at some currently unsignalled crossings than trying to further improve safety at crossings that are already relatively safe (at least for those who use them correctly - not that the railway's duty of care to those who choose to misuse crossings is reduced, of course).

I'm not convinced by your suggestion of having a release button for the gate to leave the emergency exit area. It wouldn't be any more than a token obstacle for the person who actually wants to get into the rail corridor (they'd simply hop a fence) and it would present another thing to break down when it's better to avoid unnecessary complexity.

It's not my suggestion! It's the means by which users at the aforementioned barrow crossing routinely let themselves 'out', the gates only being released upon request to let them start crossing. In an emergency, I'd guess that they'd be even less likely to be seen by a panicked individual.