It seems some explanation is due.
That's one of those academic approaches that the rail industry seems to excel in, while everyone else gets on with life. Presumably then no service, anywhere, that crosses any level crossing can ever have an increased frequency. Although I seem to see a lot that have.
Meanwhile, actual apparent risks introduced at crossings (Elsenham, Athelney, new trains that don't operate AHBs properly in East Anglia, sticking a dozen UWCs under the control of one existing remote signaller, etc) get glossed over until something happens.
I’m afraid you’ve just argued against yourself.
Anywhere where services have been proposed to be increased materially (more than about 5-10%) in the past decade (at least) will have had any level crossings on the route reassessed. Where these assessments have identified an increase in risk, mitigation proposals must be generated. If those mitigation proposals are reasonably practical, then they must be done. And they have been, but most of them won’t be visible to the lay person. I have personally overseen several service increases where this has been done.
Your comparison with Elsenham etc is a case in point. The crossings were reassessed. Risk had increased, Mitigating actions were proposed. These were not done. Hence court case. Sitting in a room with Tina Hughes where she explains calmly to an audience that her daughter died because of this, is something that I wouldn’t wish on anyone. I also know people who have had unpleasant days in various BTP police stations being interviewed under caution on suspicion of manslaghter because of incidents at level crossings where there was some doubt about the risk assessments. It
must be done, and done properly.
Installing phones at various UWCs has been done
precisely because of increased risk at the LXs concerned, often caused by an increase in service. That’s not to say it was done perfectly, although in most cases it was.
What does this mean for Highams Park? It is a CCTV crossing that is already at the maximum level of protection, but is, nevertheless, in the second highest category of risk. (There are almost no crossings in the top category of risk, as they tend to get closed). This risk is based on the current service, with 8 train crossings an hour. IIRC the crossing is closed to traffic 20-24 minutes in each hour. Doubling the train service will, roughly, double the risk, and extend the crossing closure to 35-40 minutes per hour (at a guess). Crossing misuse and abuse typically increase disproportionately when barrier down times increase, and this is a notable driver of risk at Highams Park. The longer barrier down time will have implications for the road network, and of course the buses.
There is no doubt that the risk will increase significantly, and no doubt that some form of mitigation is possible, which as it already has the highest level of protection can only be to close the crossing, possibly building an alternative means of crossing the line. Whether it is reasonable to do so is another matter, and one which would have to be tested, ultimately in a public inquiry. But it would be far more preferable to have the public inquiry before someone loses their life than afterwards.
A lot of ground work for it, was done when the Meridian Way works were going on. One time were future proofing it happened, rather than extra services just extend services on the N London line to Chingford and Meridian Way that currently stop at Stratford.
The future proofing is for 4 tracks on the Lea Valley Line, and nothing to do with Hall Farm Curve.
The only way of tackling this issue is to close the line for several months, and then lower the track bed into a cutting, build a new low-level Highams Park Station and a gradient to re-access the original formation. This would be a huge and expensive project. As the railway came first and the houses after, it may be that that there aren't many pipes and cables needing to be moved. Certainly the level crossing at Highams Park is already a traffic problem. There is no room for a road bridge over the railway without ruining a pleasant outer London suburb.
Track lowering would be very expensive and disruptive, and not just to the railway. It would take a couple of years to do, and would almost certainly need more land take and demolition than a road crossing. Unfortunately you can’t just dig a hole on the line of the railway, you have to pile the walls first, then get the muck away, and that means big plant, and that means taking other people’s property to move it around. Lots of it, for the majority of the kilometre or so that the track is being lowered for. It would certainly be much cheaper, less disruptive to the community, and
much less disruptive to rail services to build a road bridge or road underpass.
Regarding power supply on the Chingford line, I can't really see that being likely an issue. Back when it was 12tph the line was electrified at just 6.25Kv. It's now four times the voltage with one third of the trains it used to have - and shorter ones.
On the Chingford Line, yes, albeit they are only a couple of metres shorter. A 9 car 305 was 182m and 1.8MW. An 8 car 710 is 165m and 3.6MW, ie twice the power. However that power supply is also powering many more trains on the Lea Valley line, plus trains to Stratford and Meridian Water, that didn’t run in the 60s. I don’t know the precise details, but I’d be surprised if Northumberland Park feeder could take much more demand than what it is already committed to with the new GA and LO fleets.
