Putting signaller phone number on all user worked crossings

[Egg Centric]

I'm aware this cannot be a panacea, but it seems to me that relative to other measures to deal with the dangers from passive foot crossings and the like, adding phone numbers for signallers (perhaps a different phone number for each crossing, all of which go to the same phone but display something to the signaller about which crossing's number is being used) for users to call to enquire if safe to cross would be inexpensive and quick to roll out. Would this be helpful or create more problems (what?) than it solves?

 

[markymark2000]

I'm aware this cannot be a panacea, but it seems to me that relative to other measures to deal with the dangers from passive foot crossings and the like, adding phone numbers for signallers (perhaps a different phone number for each crossing, all of which go to the same phone but display something to the signaller about which crossing's number is being used) for users to call to enquire if safe to cross would be inexpensive and quick to roll out. Would this be helpful or create more problems (what?) than it solves?

This surely has to be a good way of working. A way to reduce the costs slightly here though would be for all crossings within the same signalling block to be under the same phone number. I only say this as more phone numbers is costly and if they are in the same signalling block, it makes sense to have them grouped by phone number.

Otherwise, I do think the suggestion would work really well and signallers can help the public much quicker.

 

[PeterC]

I was a bit confused by the title as I have regularly seen phone numbers posted or trackside phones provided at user worked crossings (ie gates operated by the landowner). I agree that an emergency number should be displayed at foot crossings as well.

 

[Tio Terry]

Thought Public Level Crossings had direct lines to signallers in most, or if not all, cases except crossings between farmers fields. Phones are not normally provided at footpath crossings and users on foot are not likely to use them anyway, they just look and cross or are listening to their headphones and couldn’t be bothered! If they are restricted to key holders only then they will know how to contact the signaller anyway. Or have I missed something?

 

[Ianno87]

I thought in many boxes, the signallers phone already indicated which crossing was phoning before answering (i.e. if more than one call was being made simultaneously, the signaller can choose which one to answer first)?

 

[Egg Centric]

Phones are not normally provided at footpath crossings and users on foot are not likely to use them anyway

Maybe not most of the time. But I was thinking this when reading a RAIB accident report about a fatal accident at one of these crossings in fog. I would have thought unusual circumstances like that (or for example at night at an unfamiliar crossing when pedestrians don't know how far they can see) would make phone calls far more likely. This is much cheaper and quicker than a crossing phone to implement and the vast majority of people have mobile phones these days.

 

[Egg Centric]

At the moment, according to that report, we're committed to active warning measures at all crossings by 2039. Twenty years for goodness sake! This would take months to roll out and cost buttons.

 

[John Webb]

Would displaying signaller phone numbers, where a direct line is not provided to the box or signalling centre, possibly lead to unwanted calls distracting the signaller?

 

[alxndr]

Would displaying signaller phone numbers, where a direct line is not provided to the box or signalling centre, possibly lead to unwanted calls distracting the signaller?

Numbers are already displayed at crossings with phones fitted. A few prank calls happen, but generally using the phones provided rather than a mobile or other external line.

The point of distraction is a concern though. Even though the majority of people probably won't call, you do have to consider the increased workload on the signaller. And by including phones on footpath crossings you're then requiring the signaller to know exactly where all those crossings are, and how long it takes for a train to reach them. I'd fear you'd end up with more incidents of signaller error if members of the public frequently started ringing in every time they wanted to cross.

A line going to a dedicated crossing keeper style person might be a better option. Although there's still the issues of whether it's right to rely upon members of the public carrying a mobile phone, and receive signal, and whether they would in fact make the calls.

 

[randyrippley]

the benefits are going to be very dependent on location........take the Schola Green Lane crossing in Morecambe. This is in the town between two housing estates on a blind curve on a major cycle route linking Morecambe to Lancaster. It has one return passenger train a day (Heysham port) plus occasional nuke traffic. Several hundred people use it each day.
But the route is unsignalled - its protected by a ground frame / key arrangement at Morecambe station.
So to make this idea work you'd have to fully signal the line to protect the crossing, field several hundred calls a day just for one train a day in each direction........but you would still need a walking speed speed restriction around the blind curve just in case someone didn't bother calling.
Costs simply don't add up

 

[Egg Centric]

the benefits are going to be very dependent on location........take the Schola Green Lane crossing in Morecambe. This is in the town between two housing estates on a blind curve on a major cycle route linking Morecambe to Lancaster. It has one return passenger train a day (Heysham port) plus occasional nuke traffic. Several hundred people use it each day.
But the route is unsignalled - its protected by a ground frame / key arrangement at Morecambe station.
So to make this idea work you'd have to fully signal the line to protect the crossing, field several hundred calls a day just for one train a day in each direction........but you would still need a walking speed speed restriction around the blind curve just in case someone didn't bother calling.
Costs simply don't add up

You're making the perfect the enemy of the good...

 

[Tio Terry]

At the moment, according to that report, we're committed to active warning measures at all crossings by 2039. Twenty years for goodness sake! This would take months to roll out and cost buttons.

Really? I’d be interested to see your costings for this.

 

[Egg Centric]

Really? I’d be interested to see your costings for this.

Ok, here's a wild overestimate:

6000 crossings in UK. Most of them this idea doesn't apply to, but let's say it's all of them.

4 signs per crossing at £10 a sign.

£240 000.

Put them out when track workers are next on that bit of track anyway. Let's double that figure for the time to put the sign up.

£480 000

Let's say we need to get 4500 phones. We don't need to get anything like that, actually. But I've based this massive overestimate on there being 4114 signallers employed by Network Rail in 2015, so clearly there aren't anything like 4500 panels in the UK.

You can get a minimal phone with a phone number from Tesco Mobile for way under £100.

Total Cost of phones: £450 000

Grand Total: Under a million.

Remember, while this is a safety system, it is not a safety critical system. That differentiation is crucial because it doesn't have to be perfect or work for every crossing user or every crossing, or even day.

A bit like how we have TPWS rather than ATO

 

[takno]

Ok, here's a wild overestimate:

6000 crossings in UK. Most of them this idea doesn't apply to, but let's say it's all of them.

4 signs per crossing at £10 a sign.

£240 000.

Put them out when track workers are next on that bit of track anyway. Let's double that figure for the time to put the sign up.

£480 000

Let's say we need to get 4500 phones. We don't need to get anything like that, actually. But I've based this massive overestimate on there being 4114 signallers employed by Network Rail in 2015, so clearly there aren't anything like 4500 panels in the UK.

You can get a minimal phone with a phone number from Tesco Mobile for way under £100.

Total Cost of phones: £450 000

Grand Total: Under a million.

Remember, while this is a safety system, it is not a safety critical system. That differentiation is crucial because it doesn't have to be perfect or work for every crossing user or every crossing, or even day.

A bit like how we have TPWS rather than ATO

So the signs will cost at least 20, and possibly more like 100 each once you've ordered all the different numbers, and checked they're correct. No chance you're getting them erected for less than 50 each either. The physical phones aren't going to be a cheap mobile - they have to be bought, installed in a safety critical environment maintained regularly, and quite possibly sanitised.

Much more importantly, as soon as they are out there they *are* a safety critical system, since you will have the signaller giving people permission to cross on them, which you can't construe as a general chat about the location of trains. You've also not accounted for any increase in workload for the signallers, which is going to have to be paid for in more staff time.

You could probably get into the hundreds of millions with this brilliant cost-saving measure, and all you've really done is made things slightly less safe thanks to people calling the number for the wrong crossing, or getting the wrong info from an overworked signaller. Better to spend more on speeding up the rollout of crossings with indicators, and removal of crossings that can justifiably be done without

 

[alxndr]

All other issues aside, I suspect that realistically it would be found not to be cost effective.

From the RAIB report into the Near miss with track workers and trolleys at South Hampstead, London 11 March 2018

103 RAIB report 15/2009 highlighted the need for track layout information at access points. Recommendation 3 is relevant.
Recommendation 3
Network Rail should develop and implement a programme for the provision of track layout information signage at all railway access points, showing mileages, line names and directions and other key items of local railway information, as appropriate. The ORR has reported to the RAIB that this recommendation has been implemented. Network Rail undertook a cost benefit analysis that showed that it was not cost effective to retrofit signs at all access points; however, it would be cost effective to fit such signs at new-build access points.​

If we can't get signs fitted to access points then I suspect it's very unlikely that they'll deem it cost effective to get signs fitted to footpath crossings and install the necessary infrastructure for phones and people to answer them.

 

[Egg Centric]

So the signs will cost at least 20, and possibly more like 100 each once you've ordered all the different numbers, and checked they're correct. No chance you're getting them erected for less than 50 each either. The physical phones aren't going to be a cheap mobile - they have to be bought, installed in a safety critical environment maintained regularly, and quite possibly sanitised.

Much more importantly, as soon as they are out there they *are* a safety critical system, since you will have the signaller giving people permission to cross on them, which you can't construe as a general chat about the location of trains. You've also not accounted for any increase in workload for the signallers, which is going to have to be paid for in more staff time.

You could probably get into the hundreds of millions with this brilliant cost-saving measure, and all you've really done is made things slightly less safe thanks to people calling the number for the wrong crossing, or getting the wrong info from an overworked signaller. Better to spend more on speeding up the rollout of crossings with indicators, and removal of crossings that can justifiably be done without

You're still displaying a mentality here of trying to specify an almost perfect system. Don't just think about the destination, but remember where we're coming from - if we were building these lines today, then there is no chance whatsoever that with as strict criteria as above (santisiting phones! who does that?) we would have any of these foot crossings. But we do and we need to deal with them. If we stop only 10% of footpath crossing accidents then this is a huge success.

The idea that it would cost £100s of millions to roll out signage is either laughable or an indictment on Network Rail. How much does it cost to roll out penalty fare signage?

 

[Egg Centric]

All other issues aside, I suspect that realistically it would be found not to be cost effective.

From the RAIB report into the Near miss with track workers and trolleys at South Hampstead, London 11 March 2018

103 RAIB report 15/2009 highlighted the need for track layout information at access points. Recommendation 3 is relevant.
Recommendation 3
Network Rail should develop and implement a programme for the provision of track layout information signage at all railway access points, showing mileages, line names and directions and other key items of local railway information, as appropriate. The ORR has reported to the RAIB that this recommendation has been implemented. Network Rail undertook a cost benefit analysis that showed that it was not cost effective to retrofit signs at all access points; however, it would be cost effective to fit such signs at new-build access points.​

If we can't get signs fitted to access points then I suspect it's very unlikely that they'll deem it cost effective to get signs fitted to footpath crossings and install the necessary infrastructure for phones and people to answer them.

The difference is that those signs would be safety critical and that introduces much more cost

 

[alxndr]

The difference is that those signs would be safety critical and that introduces much more cost

How so?

The only difference between them would be the level of detail which is gone into. In both cases they need to accurately display the location and correct telephone number. The only difference is the level of location detail—there's no need for a hypothetical crossing sign to display information about linespeed, direction, or a diagram. A crossing sign may end up being smaller and having more standardised text, but still needs to maintain the same level of accuracy. Perhaps more, as those using it are not accustomed to the area, whereas those using access point signs should have access to other sources of location information.

 

[PG]

With reference to the fatal accident mentioned above at Tibberton, I guess the public would disregard any signs instructing them not to use the crossing in fog?

As much as I might like any such signs to read something like this I doubt that would be permitted.
Trains:

• approach this crossing at 100mph
• can't stop in time to avoid hitting you
• can't swerve round you
• in fog you can't hear or see a train and have time to cross before the train hits you

Don't cross in fog

 

[74A]

The difference is that those signs would be safety critical and that introduces much more cost

Surely the phones would be safety critical. When the phone was not working you would have to caution trains. Also what about the extra workload for the signaller answering phone calls.

 

[Tio Terry]

Ok, here's a wild overestimate:

6000 crossings in UK. Most of them this idea doesn't apply to, but let's say it's all of them.

4 signs per crossing at £10 a sign.

£240 000.

Put them out when track workers are next on that bit of track anyway. Let's double that figure for the time to put the sign up.

£480 000

Let's say we need to get 4500 phones. We don't need to get anything like that, actually. But I've based this massive overestimate on there being 4114 signallers employed by Network Rail in 2015, so clearly there aren't anything like 4500 panels in the UK.

You can get a minimal phone with a phone number from Tesco Mobile for way under £100.

Total Cost of phones: £450 000

Grand Total: Under a million.

Remember, while this is a safety system, it is not a safety critical system. That differentiation is crucial because it doesn't have to be perfect or work for every crossing user or every crossing, or even day.

A bit like how we have TPWS rather than ATO

As the signs would be individual to each crossing - they would need the crossing name and map reference on them as a minimum - I think you have under costed them quite considerably, you also need to include spares for when they get damaged and graffitied.

You can’t just get anyone to put them up anywhere. Accident reports often critique the positioning of signs, you need to get them sited by somebody with the right kind of training and experience, there needs to be drawings for records as well as installation. More cost.

You would need a separate phone line for each crossing at the signaller end. This is to allow conversations to be recorded and to allow the signaller to identify which crossing is calling in the event of any confusion from the caller. You cannot use mobile phones for this as they cannot be connected to the signallers voice recorder.

If you are going to rely on the public GSM networks then you will need to undertake a full survey of all the service providers at all crossings to ensure adequate coverage. There are large areas of the more remote lines where coverage is sparse to say the least.

There is every probability that there would need to be some form of call queuing system for signallers so that they can see who’s calling and decide who to answer first, this may well exist at some locations but may need modification/extending/replacing at others.

As has already been mentioned, there would need to be workload assessments for the signallers which may lead to the need for staffing adjustments.

I wouldn’t agree that TPWS is not Safety Critical.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ok, here's a wild overestimate:

6000 crossings in UK. Most of them this idea doesn't apply to, but let's say it's all of them.

4 signs per crossing at £10 a sign.

£240 000.

Put them out when track workers are next on that bit of track anyway. Let's double that figure for the time to put the sign up.

£480 000

Let's say we need to get 4500 phones. We don't need to get anything like that, actually. But I've based this massive overestimate on there being 4114 signallers employed by Network Rail in 2015, so clearly there aren't anything like 4500 panels in the UK.

You can get a minimal phone with a phone number from Tesco Mobile for way under £100.

Total Cost of phones: £450 000

Grand Total: Under a million.

Remember, while this is a safety system, it is not a safety critical system. That differentiation is crucial because it doesn't have to be perfect or work for every crossing user or every crossing, or even day.

A bit like how we have TPWS rather than ATO

Well that was a good laugh.

Signs need to be put on something. If there isn’t a suitable ‘something’ there already, that means erecting posts, and that means digging a foundation, and that means doing a buried services check. That makes it, easily, £500 a sign.

If the phones are there for crossing users to seek advice if it is safe to cross, then the phones are safety critical. Regardless of technology, they will need a power supply, and a secure equipment box, positioned in a place of safety. Again, that will likely need to be constructed, involving some digging. That’s thousands.

As it happens, I have in the past installed phones on a number of level crossings, and it was in the region of £25k a crossing. That was more than a decade ago.

Then there’s the signallers workload. I know of at least two signalboxes where the provision of a number of new crossing phones increased the workload to the extent that a second signaller was required simply to do the crossing workload. Fortunately in both cases resolved through technology (at the costs of many millions). It’s reasonable to assume this would happen again somewhere else.

And at the end of the day, you have spent all that money, and you still have a level crossing. Far better to spend a bit more and pay the farmer to close it. Then it’s never a problem again.

 

[carriageline]

Plus, signallers are more likely to err on the side of caution. When signallers refuse permission to cross, when normally someone would just cross, people will just stop phoning and cross anyway!

 

[Llanigraham]

Plus, signallers are more likely to err on the side of caution. When signallers refuse permission to cross, when normally someone would just cross, people will just stop phoning and cross anyway!

Exactly!!
They fitted phones to a footpath crossing our Box oversaw. It created more aggravation than any of the farmer's UWC's we also had.
(paraphrased)
"Can I cross at x crossing please?
"No, sorry, there is a train approaching. Please wait and call back when it has passed"
"But I can't hear anything"
"Please wait...........etc"
"But I can't see anything"
"Please wait...........etc"
Phone goes down and there is no call back!

And we reckoned that the majority of users never ever used the phone anyway!

 

[Egg Centric]

Well that was a good laugh.

Signs need to be put on something. If there isn’t a suitable ‘something’ there already, that means erecting posts, and that means digging a foundation, and that means doing a buried services check. That makes it, easily, £500 a sign.

If the phones are there for crossing users to seek advice if it is safe to cross, then the phones are safety critical. Regardless of technology, they will need a power supply, and a secure equipment box, positioned in a place of safety. Again, that will likely need to be constructed, involving some digging. That’s thousands.

As it happens, I have in the past installed phones on a number of level crossings, and it was in the region of £25k a crossing. That was more than a decade ago.

Then there’s the signallers workload. I know of at least two signalboxes where the provision of a number of new crossing phones increased the workload to the extent that a second signaller was required simply to do the crossing workload. Fortunately in both cases resolved through technology (at the costs of many millions). It’s reasonable to assume this would happen again somewhere else.

And at the end of the day, you have spent all that money, and you still have a level crossing. Far better to spend a bit more and pay the farmer to close it. Then it’s never a problem again.

Regarding price - I accept your costings from a "railway" perspective. I still don't think that's the correct type of analysis to apply to a "sticking plaster", better than nothing, seat of the pants "del boy" approach. I'll leave it at that.

I do consider signaller workload a valid objection and I defer to real railwaymen and womens' views there, which makes the above moot. Back to the drawing board before Egg Centric gets the Nobel Peace Prize for reducing crossing fatalities then

 

[Bald Rick]

I still don't think that's the correct type of analysis to apply to a "sticking plaster", better than nothing, seat of the pants "del boy" approach. I'll leave it at that.

The trouble with sticking plasters is that they usually come off, often when you don’t know about it, sometimes painfully, and occasionally leading to blood on the floor. Not how Level Crossings should be managed.