Wooden Slats at Foot Crossings.

[Dai.]

I was out and about today and crossed a foot crossing, on the foot crossing there were wooden slats either side of the crossing.

I was wondering if anyone knew why they are there?

Thanks for the help.

[P.S. Just in case my description makes no sense what-so-ever, here is a picture]

 

[chappers]

Anti trespass boards! Hard to walk on, and being increasingly replaced by spikey rubber mats which are far less effective.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

They're meant to keep people/animals from taking short cuts, but they aren't very effective.

The best way to do that at road crossings is to have the old style crossing gates, which would prevent things like trespass as they block access to the track completely.

 

[Dai.]

Anti trespass boards! Hard to walk on, and being increasingly replaced by spikey rubber mats which are far less effective.

These didn't look very effective, the ones I see are usually filled with rubbish.

They're meant to keep people/animals from taking short cuts, but they aren't very effective.

The best way to do that at road crossings is to have the old style crossing gates, which would prevent things like trespass as they block access to the track completely.

They would be more effective, yes, with the wooden slats, people could easily jump over them, or at least, try and injure themselves.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Just put those spikes that deter cats from climbing along the walls of your garden on top! OUCH!

 

[Aictos]

They're meant to keep people/animals from taking short cuts, but they aren't very effective.

The best way to do that at road crossings is to have the old style crossing gates, which would prevent things like trespass as they block access to the track completely.

Quite agree but more and more of them seem to be closed in favour of footbridges or road bridges or nothing at all.

I can think of two former level crossings near me which had the level crossing ripped up with a combined brick and metal fence put straight across with a footbridge being the only way to cross now.

All well and good but they would have served the emergency services quite well instead of taking diversions ie instead of 5 minutes by car it takes 15 minutes depending on traffic.

Still apart from that, good to see the Wansford signalbox on the NVR get some free advertising,

 

[gordonthemoron]

they could try what the East Berlin authorities did in the Berlin u-bahn to deter boarder crossers, metal spikes

 

[dk1]

Had a bad experience several years ago when i was a crossing keeper. We had to, after locking each gate, remove the key & insert them into the interlocking which allowed the release lever to be put back in the frame & the home & distant signal to be cleared. I forgot to get the gates after the standard 4 minutes & next thing i knew the train sat horns blasting at my up home!! I in a panic ran out, shut the gates & proceded to drop one of the damn keys into the bramble infested wooden cattle grid. After frantically trying to retrieve it (cutting hands to shreds!!) i gave up & gave the driver a flag to procede past the peg at danger. Gingerly looking up red faced as the train slowly passed, the driver was laughing his head off. Must have looked so funny as i flapped around.

In todays railway i would probably have to put a report in. Back then, never heard another word .

 

[ert47]

They're meant to keep people/animals from taking short cuts, but they aren't very effective.

The best way to do that at road crossings is to have the old style crossing gates, which would prevent things like trespass as they block access to the track completely.

Don't think they'd be able to do that at Lincoln =/

I detest the level crossings there. They should install pedestrian footbridges there, but nooo~ :roll:

 

[Old Timer]

They should install pedestrian footbridges there, but nooo~ :roll:

If you can find the position for one, that has eluded the City Council and BR/Network Rail for years, I am sure both parties would be delighted to hear from you.

 

[ert47]

If you can find the position for one, that has eluded the City Council and BR/Network Rail for years, I am sure both parties would be delighted to hear from you.

I guess so =/

The electrical substation on the north west is in a bit of an annoying position so I guess...

It makes getting to uni/work/town annoying though

 

[charlesn132]

Quite agree but more and more of them seem to be closed in favour of footbridges or road bridges or nothing at all.

I can think of two former level crossings near me which had the level crossing ripped up with a combined brick and metal fence put straight across with a footbridge being the only way to cross now.

All well and good but they would have served the emergency services quite well instead of taking diversions ie instead of 5 minutes by car it takes 15 minutes depending on traffic.

Still apart from that, good to see the Wansford signalbox on the NVR get some free advertising,

How will they be able to know whether a train is coming if the track has a high speed limit?

 

[Old Timer]

These didn't look very effective, the ones I see are usually filled with rubbish.

They would be more effective, yes, with the wooden slats, people could easily jump over them, or at least, try and injure themselves.

The cattle guards are provided for precisely that purpose, to prevent cattle and other hoofed animals from accessing the Railway.

They are not intended to prevent human access, although they do go some way to deterring ad hoc access.

Their presence will be supportive in a Prosecution by re-inforcing the fact that an attempt was made to prevent access to the track, thereby demonstrating intent on the part of the person so charged.

Cattle guards are only necessary when there is usuage of the crossing by animals, and/or there is know trespass issues at the location.

 

[Ty'n'wtre nr 2]

What are the rules concerning providing these guards? I have to use a UWC to cross with sheep and there are no guards fitted. I have asked for them and was told they would be provided when the line was relaid and the crossing reinstated. Needless to say the guards were never fitted and it takes me a lot longer to get the sheep across than might otherwise be the case.

 

[Old Timer]

What are the rules concerning providing these guards? I have to use a UWC to cross with sheep and there are no guards fitted. I have asked for them and was told they would be provided when the line was relaid and the crossing reinstated. Needless to say the guards were never fitted and it takes me a lot longer to get the sheep across than might otherwise be the case.

The relevant provision is in Railway Safety Principles and Guidance, Part 2 Section E Guidance on Level Crossings, paragraph 175 (issued by HMRI) which states "Guards should be provided where there is regular movement of cattle on the hoof over the crossing, or where there is significant risk of trespass by pedestrians.

As you can see this is exclusive to cattle.

Network Rail Company Standard NR/L2/SIG/30015 Issue 1 dated 5th June 2010 clause 5.3 states however :

Except where the gates close fully across the track, cattle cum trespass guards shall be provided, where there is regular and frequent movement of hoofed animals over the crossing, significant risk of trespass by pedestrians, or electrification by the conductor rail system."

You owe me a pint, old chap.

By the way, I anticipate that the provision has fallen between two areas of responsibility. I assume that the Maintenance Engineer has expected the track renewals Contractor to install the cattle guards, however this is not usually included as a new item, only as a replacement of any existing protection. Therefore if there were none present at the time of renewal the Renewals Contractor would not install them as a matter of course as they would be outwith his Contract.

Probably worth pushing the issue again.

 

[Failed Unit]

Don't think they'd be able to do that at Lincoln =/

I detest the level crossings there. They should install pedestrian footbridges there, but nooo~ :roll:

Until about 1992 IIRC High Street Lincoln used to be a level crossing just like that one, it even had a footbridge on the subway side of the road. The footbridge went at the same time as the barriers were installed.

To be honest when the footbridge was there only about 5% of people used it most waited. At least the choice was there.

No sympathy for the cars however, if they want to chose a route with no trains they have pelham bridge or the university bridge. If they think it is quicker to take thier chances with the level crossing they know it is there so don't moan when it is shut.

 

[wintonian]

The relevant provision is in Railway Safety Principles and Guidance, Part 2 Section E Guidance on Level Crossings, paragraph 175 (issued by HMRI) which states "Guards should be provided where there is regular movement of cattle on the hoof over the crossing, or where there is significant risk of trespass by pedestrians.

As you can see this is exclusive to cattle.

Network Rail Company Standard NR/L2/SIG/30015 Issue 1 dated 5th June 2010 clause 5.3 states however :

Except where the gates close fully across the track, cattle cum trespass guards shall be provided, where there is regular and frequent movement of hoofed animals over the crossing, significant risk of trespass by pedestrians, or electrification by the conductor rail system."

You owe me a pint, old chap.

By the way, I anticipate that the provision has fallen between two areas of responsibility. I assume that the Maintenance Engineer has expected the track renewals Contractor to install the cattle guards, however this is not usually included as a new item, only as a replacement of any existing protection. Therefore if there were none present at the time of renewal the Renewals Contractor would not install them as a matter of course as they would be outwith his Contract.

Probably worth pushing the issue again.

On a slightly different track, is the Security guard still watching over the crossing at Wareham? or have the council/ Network Rail found a solution and closed the crossing?

 

[Ty'n'wtre nr 2]

The relevant provision is in Railway Safety Principles and Guidance, Part 2 Section E Guidance on Level Crossings, paragraph 175 (issued by HMRI) which states "Guards should be provided where there is regular movement of cattle on the hoof over the crossing, or where there is significant risk of trespass by pedestrians.

As you can see this is exclusive to cattle.

Network Rail Company Standard NR/L2/SIG/30015 Issue 1 dated 5th June 2010 clause 5.3 states however :

Except where the gates close fully across the track, cattle cum trespass guards shall be provided, where there is regular and frequent movement of hoofed animals over the crossing, significant risk of trespass by pedestrians, or electrification by the conductor rail system."

You owe me a pint, old chap.

By the way, I anticipate that the provision has fallen between two areas of responsibility. I assume that the Maintenance Engineer has expected the track renewals Contractor to install the cattle guards, however this is not usually included as a new item, only as a replacement of any existing protection. Therefore if there were none present at the time of renewal the Renewals Contractor would not install them as a matter of course as they would be outwith his Contract.

Probably worth pushing the issue again.

Thanks for that OT. Well worth a pint.