Plumpton Level Crossing wheel-operated gates to be retained

[BRblue]

Right I'm going to be blunt here and some people might not want to read what I have written, but the simple fact is this....
I am pretty sure the good people of Plumpton could have a nice all singing, all dancing level crossing very similar to the one they have now if they wanted.... but at a considerable price.
The crossing needs replacing of that there is no argument, so the question that the local residents and local councillors have to ask themselves is quite a simple one...
Do they
A) Allow Network Rail to replace the crossing with a off the shelf standardised one which is safer, more reliable and cheaper both to fit and to maintain.
Or
B) Pay for Network Rail to firstly conduct a feasability study, then design, build and fit a shiny new bespoke level crossing. Not forgetting of course the yearly costs of maintaining a crossing built to a one off design.
Level crossings are being replaced across the country... so quite why Network Rail should be expected to foot the bill at huge expense just to appease this particular local council is beyond me. This whole saga has already cost a packet and no doubt it will cost a lot more before its end.
Of course they could always decide on a plan "C" and close the crossing permanently, which in my humble opinion they would not do... but part of me wonders if that is exactly what the Lewes councillors who made this decision deserve.

 

[Rooky]

BRblue, much of what you say is exactly what the locals have been saying. I think, but am by no means certain, the rules regarding listing mean that if it is possible (and I mean possible) to repair or replace like for like for it should be done, cost doesn't come into it. Notwithstanding the above, the ORR clearly states it encourages novel solutions and I am sure the community could reach agreement with Network Rail on such.

 

[Bald Rick]

BRblue, much of what you say is exactly what the locals have been saying. I think, but am by no means certain, the rules regarding listing mean that if it is possible (and I mean possible) to repair or replace like for like for it should be done, cost doesn't come into it. Notwithstanding the above, the ORR clearly states it encourages novel solutions and I am sure the community could reach agreement with Network Rail on such.

The ORR also demands that NR does things as efficiently as possible, indeed encourages innovation for that reason. Keeping 19th century technology at level crossings doesn't sound like innovation to me!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am sure I have seen a gated crossing with flashing red lights somewhere. Also, I'm sure I have seen motorised gates? I still can't see what safety benefits, barriers alone would add. Are barriers not prone to quite regular vehicle damage?

I'm not aware of any motorised gates, but someone may correct me.

I posted earlier about the safety issues that gates have, and that barriers do not.

Being a little blunt now; I have no doubt that there will be, somewhere, a risk assessment document that says that for this level crossing, providing barriers rather than gates will improve safety. So someone would have to specifically and purposefully ignore that, and put pen to paper accordingly. And if a fatal accident happened, and it was demonstrated that barriers could reasonably have prevented that fatality, then the person who signed on the dotted line goes to prison. I'm not been dramatic here, this is very real.

Now you can argue about the risk assessment, but this is the world we live in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

BRblue, much of what you say is exactly what the locals have been saying. I think, but am by no means certain, the rules regarding listing mean that if it is possible (and I mean possible) to repair or replace like for like for it should be done, cost doesn't come into it. Notwithstanding the above, the ORR clearly states it encourages novel solutions and I am sure the community could reach agreement with Network Rail on such.

Being slightly less blunt. People don't normally go to prison for ignoring listed building rules.

 

[Llanigraham]

I am sure I have seen a gated crossing with flashing red lights somewhere. Also, I'm sure I have seen motorised gates? I still can't see what safety benefits, barriers alone would add. Are barriers not prone to quite regular vehicle damage?

In all the years I have operated a barriered crossing I have never seen it damaged by a vehicle.
I also know of 2 barriered crossings locally that have never been damaged by a vehicle, however the crossing gates that preceded them had been damaged several times, and on one occasion the operator hospitalised.

 

[Bald Rick]

In all the years I have operated a barriered crossing I have never seen it damaged by a vehicle.
I also know of 2 barriered crossings locally that have never been damaged by a vehicle, however the crossing gates that preceded them had been damaged several times, and on one occasion the operator hospitalised.

I've seen all types of LC damaged by vehicles, although gated crossings are the only type I've seen damaged by a rail vehicle. Three times.

Barriers are much easier to repair though, usually replace the sacrificial bolts and put them back on. Takes half an hour. Gates - normally needs a couple of carpenters, takes days.

 

[Rooky]

I'm assuming that barriers or gates get damaged mainly because of crossing misuse?
According to RSSB, there are more cases of crossing abuse at barrier crossings than gated crossings per population of each.

 

[BRblue]

BRblue, much of what you say is exactly what the locals have been saying. I think, but am by no means certain, the rules regarding listing mean that if it is possible (and I mean possible) to repair or replace like for like for it should be done, cost doesn't come into it. Notwithstanding the above, the ORR clearly states it encourages novel solutions and I am sure the community could reach agreement with Network Rail on such.

How many times has it been mentioned on this thread that it is not the gates that are listed! :roll:
And as for cost not coming in to it... I'm afraid it does and very much so.
If the local council want to pay for a fancy bespoke crossing then fine, but if you are expecting Network Rail to pay for it then the answer must be no.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm assuming that barriers or gates get damaged mainly because of crossing misuse?
According to RSSB, there are more cases of crossing abuse at barrier crossings than gated crossings per population of each.

Mainly because you find them tucked away in rural communities where as the majority of barrier crossings are across busy roads or in built up areas.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I'm assuming that barriers or gates get damaged mainly because of crossing misuse?
According to RSSB, there are more cases of crossing abuse at barrier crossings than gated crossings per population of each.

The only relevant statistic about level crossings is that closing them completely improves safety, everything else is very much open to question and supposition.

 

[cjmillsnun]

BRblue, much of what you say is exactly what the locals have been saying. I think, but am by no means certain, the rules regarding listing mean that if it is possible (and I mean possible) to repair or replace like for like for it should be done, cost doesn't come into it. Notwithstanding the above, the ORR clearly states it encourages novel solutions and I am sure the community could reach agreement with Network Rail on such.

Cost of course is a factor. If it is too expensive, Network Rail will just close the crossing entirely. Also the gates aren't listed. LDC have acted inappropriately here. I say that as a former councillor. Going against officer advice without sound planning reasons taking into account all factors is a huge risk. Especially when a well produced safety report is one of the factors.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In all the years I have operated a barriered crossing I have never seen it damaged by a vehicle.
I also know of 2 barriered crossings locally that have never been damaged by a vehicle, however the crossing gates that preceded them had been damaged several times, and on one occasion the operator hospitalised.

I have seen a barriered crossing damaged. However it is normally a quick fix as barriered crossings use standard parts. A man in a van can do it in an afternoon.

 

[Rooky]

I can't fault the passion displayed by so many people but I do find the misinformation worrying. Even Railway Heritage try and mislead. They quote an unfortunate incident at East Farleigh in their letter to LDC - yet the circumstances are different. Secondly, the author says there is no basis in law for lights to be used in conjunction with gates. A quick Google shows that lights were used in conjunction with gates at Littlehaven. And what does he mean by 'their span of control is limited by the strength of the signaller'? Is he referring to semaphore signals? It is misinformation like this that doesn't help Network Rail's case.

 

[Altnabreac]

I can't fault the passion displayed by so many people but I do find the misinformation worrying. Even Railway Heritage try and mislead. They quote an unfortunate incident at East Farleigh in their letter to LDC - yet the circumstances are different. Secondly, the author says there is no basis in law for lights to be used in conjunction with gates. A quick Google shows that lights were used in conjunction with gates at Littlehaven. And what does he mean by 'their span of control is limited by the strength of the signaller'? Is he referring to semaphore signals? It is misinformation like this that doesn't help Network Rail's case.

You might make your case better if you read posts thoroughly and ideally quote the areas you disagree with in your reply so we can all see what you disagree about exactly.

In this case you appear to have misread the post by Bald Rick where he states that Enforcement Cameras on a crossing with both gates and lights would require new legislative approval. The same post explicitly talks about existing crossings with both gates and lights.

 

[Llanigraham]

I can't fault the passion displayed by so many people but I do find the misinformation worrying. Even Railway Heritage try and mislead. They quote an unfortunate incident at East Farleigh in their letter to LDC - yet the circumstances are different. Secondly, the author says there is no basis in law for lights to be used in conjunction with gates. A quick Google shows that lights were used in conjunction with gates at Littlehaven. And what does he mean by 'their span of control is limited by the strength of the signaller'? Is he referring to semaphore signals? It is misinformation like this that doesn't help Network Rail's case.

What misinformation? Are you implying that we signallers who work level crossings are telling untruths?
Who/what is Railway Heritage? How are they trying to mislead? You quote something but aren't giving a reference to that quote!!

Did you go to the Public meeting with your Council and NR? Have you read what was stated at that meeting?

Let's be quite honest, the more that the residents of Plumpton refuse to accept that the gates are beyond safe or economic use, and accept that the gates are not actually not listed, the quicker they will get the crossing rebuild with modern barriers. Wanting NR to build a "special case" set of gates that will need specialist design and ORR and HSE blessing, and will take months or years will result in the crossing being closed for even longer, or potentially closed completely.

 

[Rooky]

Apologies Altnabreac and Llanigraham. I should have made it clear that I was quoting from a Railway Heritage Trust letter to the Planning Authority in support of Network Rail's application. Network Rail requested the letter be sent.

 

[Tomnick]

I don't understand the desire to have some sort of bespoke - and modern - design for powered gates either. One of the campaign's main aims seems to be to preserve the whole installation in its current condition. Any modern replacement would almost certainly be without the original mechanism, not really satisying that aim and also depriving the East Kent Railway of the opportunity to properly preserve it in a more appropriate environment.

I'm only aware of one set of power-operated conventional gates (as opposed to the boom gates on the former NE region), at Brigg, and they've been so powered for decades now - almost certainly dating from when lifting barriers weren't really around. They're rather large gates, and presumably would be too difficult to work mechanically by wheel.

As others have said, the rate of misuse is probably lower at gated crossings because the remaining ones are almost all located at much quieter crossings, both in terms of road and rail traffic. Unless road traffic signals are provided (which they aren't, at most gated crossings), users have little opportunity to misuse them anyway, short of physically driving through the closed gates - it's up to the signalman, often with difficulty, to wait for a suitable gap in road traffic before swinging them. Not really ideal!

 

[w0033944]

Who/what is Railway Heritage? How are they trying to mislead? You quote something but aren't giving a reference to that quote!!

I'd imagine the OP is referring to these people:

http://railwayheritagetrust.co.uk/

 

[Flipper]

It seems fairly characteristic of the campaigners that they have very little knowledge or understanding of the subject (which is, to be fair to them, a pretty specialist one), but have accreted themselves around a half dozen or so misunderstood/downright-wrong "facts" which they hold sacred, and that they consider any attempt to inform or correct them as part of a dirty-tricks campaign perpetrated by a malevolent organisation !

The District Councillor at the heart of all this seems rather to be revelling in the publicity, and one can't help but wonder if the needs of the many in Plumpton come second to the thrill she gets out of her attempts to "stick one on a big company".

Flip

 

[BRblue]

I'd imagine the OP is referring to these people:

http://railwayheritagetrust.co.uk/

And here is a copy of the actual letter...
http://87.252.33.67/AnitePublicDocs/00220593.pdf

 

[Llanigraham]

And here is a copy of the actual letter...
http://87.252.33.67/AnitePublicDocs/00220593.pdf

I see nothing in that letter that relates to this posting:

I can't fault the passion displayed by so many people but I do find the misinformation worrying. Even Railway Heritage try and mislead. They quote an unfortunate incident at East Farleigh in their letter to LDC - yet the circumstances are different. Secondly, the author says there is no basis in law for lights to be used in conjunction with gates. A quick Google shows that lights were used in conjunction with gates at Littlehaven. And what does he mean by 'their span of control is limited by the strength of the signaller'? Is he referring to semaphore signals? It is misinformation like this that doesn't help Network Rail's case.

There is NO quote about East Farleigh.
The comment about span of control concerns mechanical signal boxes in general and not just level crossings.
He has also misunderstood the comments about the lights.

Sorry, but it does appear that their understanding is being clouded by their bitterness.

 

[Tomnick]

Although East Farleigh isn't mentioned by name, the recent incident there is clearly the one referred to in the letter. I agree that the span of control doesn't refer specifically to level crossings, although I do wonder whether the author is aware of just how many remaining "mechanical" boxes have had their area of control extended, sometimes substantially, with the aid of point motors, track circuits and colour-light signals?

 

[Rooky]

My point is, Network Rail has either been very naive in its approach or very devious. The more I hear on here, I tend to think it was devious. The Railway Heritage letter was drafted at the request of Network Rail - why doesn't it stick to facts that are relevant? What is the purpose of providing misinformation?
In another post, in another post someone refers to the unsuitability of gates on busy roads. Plumpton Lane is not busy and neither is the railway line that runs through it with just 4 trains per hour max! All Network Rail had to do was present an honest case and it would have 'sailed' through.

 

[WAB]

I am sure I have seen a gated crossing with flashing red lights somewhere.

There is one here. I believe it has now been removed though.

 

[Rooky]

Could someone explain in simple terms what Stowmarket Controls mean please?

 

[Yabbadabba]

Could someone explain in simple terms what Stowmarket Controls mean please?

Stowmarket Controls.

(Controls that cause a level crossing in very close proximity to a stop signal to start its amber and red light sequence when a train approaches (125m) the signal at danger, if they haven't already been called to lower.)

It's just an extra layer of safety should for whatever horrible reason the train fails to stop. Thus insuring that there is at least a warning to the road users that there is an approaching train.

 

[infobleep]

It's a totally a different crossing with different planning limitations. The local planning policies at Plumpton would require four gates with horizontal opening and closing, and built to the same overall design, if listed building consent was to be guaranteed of being granted, essentially, so nobody would be able to tell the crossing has changed.

The interlocking on Redcar's new barrier is simple too, and can possibly make use of existing components from the current barriers - it doesn't fold across the track, but will be a telescopic design, so there's not additional work needed to ensure the barrier can't be in a position where it triggers the interlocking to say it's clear of the railway line but in reality it's fouling the cess and can be caught by a passing train, also, for each pair of barriers, in addition to being clear of the railway line, it will need to be confirmed that they're neatly locked together in the middle so that nobody can pass through the middle of the barriers.

These are all issues which make the type of barrier used at Plumpton very difficult to design and certify - NR have said these types of barrier would likely require a derogation and that this could cause issues with ASLEF who could refuse to work over lines with barriers having derogation as part of existing agreements.

Couldn't the gates at Plumpton has similar simple interlocking like at Redcar? I'm sure the answer is no but what's the reason?

In terms of system safety, ie safety for everyone (road users, rail users, rail staff, public), yes barriers are safer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'm afraid there is. On a technical basis, the enforcement cameras work off the red light sequence. Often, gates don't have lights, and given that they are manually operated, well, it gets complicated.

And legally, there would have to be new home office regulations. The enforcement cameras on barrier end crossings have only recently been permitted to be used for prosecution, and it applies only to specific types of crossing.

Perhaps the government could rush through emergency legislation to allow gates to have cameras.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only relevant statistic about level crossings is that closing them completely improves safety, everything else is very much open to question and supposition.

Is their space to build a bridge at Plumpton? That would make it even safer than a barrier crossing, let alone a gated one.

 

[Rooky]

Thanks Yabbadabba. Why not just put the signal at a greater distance from the crossing and thus ensure barriers are lowered before the train arrives? That must be the safest option?

 

[infobleep]

Cost of course is a factor. If it is too expensive, Network Rail will just close the crossing entirely. Also the gates aren't listed. LDC have acted inappropriately here. I say that as a former councillor. Going against officer advice without sound planning reasons taking into account all factors is a huge risk. Especially when a well produced safety report is one of the factors.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I have seen a barriered crossing damaged. However it is normally a quick fix as barriered crossings use standard parts. A man in a van can do it in an afternoon.

Of course nothing will happen to the councilors. I doubt they one will tell them off. If it was a member of staff however who got to wrong....... Or am I being to cynical?

 

[Yabbadabba]

Thanks Yabbadabba. Why not just put the signal at a greater distance from the crossing and thus ensure barriers are lowered before the train arrives? That must be the safest option?

Because it would involve more than moving just one signal to ensure that there is the correct breaking and sighting distance form the previous signals for the line speed.

Your doing a lot of fishing which is ok. But for someone who lives so close to the crossing and is being directly effected by the road closure, you haven't expressed an opinion either way for wanting a heritage crossing or a new modern one. Well not that I've found through the last lot of post?

 

[Tomnick]

Thanks Yabbadabba. Why not just put the signal at a greater distance from the crossing and thus ensure barriers are lowered before the train arrives? That must be the safest option?

In Plumpton's case (if Stowmarket control is necessary), the proximity of the station platform probably precludes moving the signal back far enough - although there are a whole load of other factors too, including braking distance from the signal in rear, sighting and much more besides.

 

[Rooky]

Yabbadabba, you seem to be the voice of reason. In answer to your question, I want the right solution, based on fact and that also follows due process. If someone makes an overwhelming argument that a gated crossing is impossible (not necessarily a like for like replacement) and that barriers are in the greater public interest I will fully accept that.
Now, back to these 'Stowmarket Controls' my quick calculation says that if the red like sequence is triggered 125 metres from the crossing, a train travelling at 90 mph would reach the crossing in less than 3 seconds which gives motorists no time at all to react. How can that be safe?

 

[Yabbadabba]

Yabbadabba, you seem to be the voice of reason. In answer to your question, I want the right solution, based on fact and that also follows due process. If someone makes an overwhelming argument that a gated crossing is impossible (not necessarily a like for like replacement) and that barriers are in the greater public interest I will fully accept that.
Now, back to these 'Stowmarket Controls' my quick calculation says that if the red like sequence is triggered 125 metres from the crossing, a train travelling at 90 mph would reach the crossing in less than 3 seconds which gives motorists no time at all to react. How can that be safe?

Without looking out of the train window to see if the protecting signals have TPWS fitted or not. But if they do then they are good for speed up to 75mph when armed by a red aspect. So any train passing a sigmal at danger will be down to 15mph and still braking.