Lorry backs over LC and breaks barrier

[Deafdoggie]

There are places where if a vehicle that long needs to turn around, for example if they've mistakenly gone the wrong way, the only way to do so is to reverse.

I don't know the location, so don't know if that is the case here.

There is a height and weight restriction just after the crossing. The driver had no choice but to reverse. The reverse manouver was conducted correctly and within the highway code as far as known at this stage. Far better than ploughing on regardless or stopping on the crossing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2021 ==

Looks like automatic half barrier?

It's full barriers CCTV controlled from Stoke.

Is the bridge marked in advance in this case?

Not till after the crossing in the direction the lorry was coming from. There is a weight (except for access) restriction sign, but the lorry would have required access prior to the crossing. Either to the Wedgwood factory or the building site where they are building new houses. There is a sigh as you pull out of the factory complex to prevent an HGV turning right over the crossing, but if he hasn't been into the factory complex, he's not coming out of it! There's a loop road for buses to turn in so they don't need to go over the crossing and can serve the factory and housing estate. But again, if you don't know you need to turn you won't use it!

Edit to add:

I have just been out there to check, and there are two warning signs before the crossing advising of the height limit and to turn using the loop road the buses use.
However, if you turned into the loop before the first sign (as you're entitled to do) and used the loop the opposite way to the buses (and you're allowed to) and then turned right out of there you wouldn't pass a warning sign.
The signs also only warn of a height restriction and not the weight restriction. So it's possible the lorry driver thought the loop road was his turn, realised it wasn't and came out of the bottom of the loop and would not have passed a height or weight warning sign.
A second scenario is that he had delivered to the housing estate and come out of the road, which connects to the loop, which equally would bypass the warning signs. There is warning of a weight restriction if coming out of the factory, but not height and nothing if coming out of the housing estate.
There is a warning sign visible just on the crossing, which is what I guess the lorry driver saw. Ironically, this is the least visible of all the signs! It is, of course, all private roads round there, belonging to the Wedgwood Estate. Although I'd doubt this makes any difference legally.

 

[Gonzoiku]

There is a height and weight restriction just after the crossing. The driver had no choice but to reverse. The reverse manouver was conducted correctly and within the highway code as far as known at this stage. Far better than ploughing on regardless or stopping on the crossing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2021 ==


It's full barriers CCTV controlled from Stoke.

Not till after the crossing in the direction the lorry was coming from. There is a weight (except for access) restriction sign, but the lorry would have required access prior to the crossing. Either to the Wedgwood factory or the building site where they are building new houses. There is a sigh as you pull out of the factory complex to prevent an HGV turning right over the crossing, but if he hasn't been into the factory complex, he's not coming out of it! There's a loop road for buses to turn in so they don't need to go over the crossing and can serve the factory and housing estate. But again, if you don't know you need to turn you won't use it!

Clearly explained, Deafdoggie.

GZ

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The road in question is a private one. How does this affect reference to The Highway Code, signage requirements for the weight/height restriction etc - honest question, as a non-driver I've never read a copy.

On a public highway, signs etc have to comply with regulations, otherwise a driver with decent legal representation can get off on a technicality. There was a very long debate between Stoke Council, The Highways Agency, contractors, police etc about a set of no-entry signs being wrongly placed on the A500 northbound slip road exit onto City Road when the grade separation was completed a decade or so ago. A number of people turned right onto the slip road, leading to accidents, but technically hadn't committed an offence as they hadn't yet passed the no entry sign.

The level crossing was a private crossing, manually controlled, until relatively recently. In those times the crossing was closed to road traffic overnight and at weekends - presumably because the factory didn't require it at those times. There is a Public Right of Way along the road giving pedestrians 24/7 access.

The canal bridge is in a poor state but was used by a public bus service (D & G 350 as I recall) until a few years ago. I guess the height barrier stopped that.

 

[norbitonflyer]

A quick glance at the CCTV, showing the rear of the lorry on the crossing but not long enough to realise that it was going backwards, may have convinced the signaller that it would be clear by the time the gates started to drop. If the signaller looked again, how easy is it to stop the barrier sequence once initiated?

 

[Deafdoggie]

The canal bridge is in a poor state but was used by a public bus service (D & G 350 as I recall) until a few years ago. I guess the height barrier stopped that.

The 350 didn't use the canal bridge as I recall, due to the issue of being closed at nights and weekends. Although this may have changed since the barrier was installed. It's also the reason the RRB doesn't serve the station.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The 350 didn't use the canal bridge as I recall, due to the issue of being closed at nights and weekends. Although this may have changed since the barrier was installed. It's also the reason the RRB doesn't serve the station.

Definitely the 350, at least from 4 September 2006, and it went round Potters Green Estate (The council estate by the Wedgwood Factory):

Trentham Lakes North	818
Leyfield Park, Jonathan Rd	827
Wedgwood Factory	830
Barlaston, Ivyhouse Dr Shop	831
Barlaston, Bell Lane	833
Barlaston, Plume of Feathers	841

 

[Deafdoggie]

Definitely the 350, at least from 4 September 2006, and it went round Potters Green Estate (The council estate by the Wedgwood Factory):

Trentham Lakes North	818
Leyfield Park, Jonathan Rd	827
Wedgwood Factory	830
Barlaston, Ivyhouse Dr Shop	831
Barlaston, Bell Lane	833
Barlaston, Plume of Feathers	841

Now you mention it, I think I remember something about the service to Potters Green Estate being withdrawn & the 350 being the easiest (cheapest!) way to serve it.

 

[Stigy]

Is there signage at that location to instruct drivers of large or slow moving vehicles to contact the signaller before crossing?

 

[thelem]

I have just been out there to check, and there are two warning signs before the crossing advising of the height limit and to turn using the loop road the buses use.
However, if you turned into the loop before the first sign (as you're entitled to do) and used the loop the opposite way to the buses (and you're allowed to) and then turned right out of there you wouldn't pass a warning sign.

Looking at it on Google Maps the first warning sign is immediately before the loop road (pictures from April 2021, so six months before the incident).

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

However, the sign says: "Height Limit Ahead. 2.3m. 7' 6". Take the next right turn."

This sign is immediately before the eastern end of the loop, so it's quite reasonable to read that as meaning you should turn in to the eastern end of the loop. What it actually wants you to do is pass the eastern end and turn in to the western end, where there is a second sign that says turn around now.

Having entered at the eastern end, there is then no sign visible at the western end to tell you to turn left (away from the level crossing and bridge).

Immediately before the crossing there is a sign saying Safe Height 16' 6" to protect against the OHLE. This may have reassured the driver that he had successfully avoided the height restriction. Given there is nothing to access between the level crossing and the bridge, it would seem clearer to have the height limit of 7' 6" start from the level crossing. I note that sign doesn't have a metric height so is presumably older. Indeed the sign visible as you leave the factory only has the metric height limit for the bridge (no imperial height and no OHLE height).

 

[Surreytraveller]

A quick glance at the CCTV, showing the rear of the lorry on the crossing but not long enough to realise that it was going backwards, may have convinced the signaller that it would be clear by the time the gates started to drop. If the signaller looked again, how easy is it to stop the barrier sequence once initiated?

Very easy to stop the sequence. Just take your finger off the button

 

[JohnMcL7]

The highway code is not law. My understanding though is that the judiciary have historically accepted it as the interpreted it as the law and ruled accordingly thereby setting legal precedent as they go.

You are correct the Highway Code is not law but nothing in it is used in an official legal process instead the actual legal definitions that matter are properly defined elsewhere such as the Road Traffic Act so what it says in the Highway Code is legally irrelevant and it's what's actually defined in law which matters. As an example the government made a big deal about changing the Highway Code to define 1.5m as the minimum for overtaking a cyclist but they never actually changed the underlying law so legally there was no actual change, drivers could be prosecuted for a close overtake before this change was made with DWDCA or similar and it would be exactly the same offence after the change.

Similarly it doesn't matter what the Highway Code says about level crossings if there's no matching definition in the proper legal documents but there doesn't need to be to prosecute either as there's range of careless driving offences which can cover a wide range of different offences.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Interestingly, if the lorry came out of The World of Wedgwood entrance road, there is a sign (visible on Google Streetview) forbidding HGV's from heading left away from the level crossing / canal bridge (7.5T except for access). Can't turn left (weight restriction), can't turn right (height and weight restriction). Trapped forever unless you go cross country!

 

[Deafdoggie]

Interestingly, if the lorry came out of The World of Wedgwood entrance road, there is a sign (visible on Google Streetview) forbidding HGV's from heading left away from the level crossing / canal bridge (7.5T except for access). Can't turn left (weight restriction), can't turn right (height and weight restriction). Trapped forever unless you go cross country!

Coming out of Wedgwood there is only a no right turn sign for HGV & coaches and also a sign indicating weight & height restrictions if turning right. There is no sign preventing left turns.

 

[Taunton]

This is surely an embarrassment for Network Rail more than the trucker.

11 seconds after the truck came into CCTV view as being on the crossing, the barriers were started to come down. Whatever was the operator doing? Whatever is the point of CCTV if no notice is taken of it?

 

[Tomnick]

I've seen it suggested elsewhere that the lighting towers that the lorry had gone to collect were the railway's, in connection with engineering work? It's certainly an interesting twist if so.

Very easy to stop the sequence. Just take your finger off the button

Most CCTV crossings don't require the lower button to be held down throughout the whole sequence. There's a stop button instead - a significant distinction because....

This is surely an embarrassment for Network Rail more than the trucker.

11 seconds after the truck came into CCTV view as being on the crossing, the barriers were started to come down. Whatever was the operator doing? Whatever is the point of CCTV if no notice is taken of it?

...there is (rightly or wrongly) no requirement to observe the whole lowering sequence, only to confirm that the crossing's clear at the end of it. The workload on a busy panel, or even a relatively quiet box at a busier moment, is such that you can't really be expected to devote yourself entirely to it for the duration.

 

[mr_moo]

This just seems to be a whole mess of individually acceptable or wrong but minor things creating an overall issue - the stuff of accident reports everwhere.
Hopefully a signage and access review will be undertaken as a result of this and some changes made.
I do somehow doubt it though, sadly.

 

[Wyrleybart]

And commenting on earlier posts in this thread, the lorry driver damaged the crossing equipment, which closed the crossing to both road and rail for a while. XC trains and probably Avanti too, had to be diverted via Crewe and WCML for a while. Yes, no humans were harmed but they were disrupted along with any road users.

 

[zwk500]

This just seems to be a whole mess of individually acceptable or wrong but minor things creating an overall issue - the stuff of accident reports everwhere.
Hopefully a signage and access review will be undertaken as a result of this and some changes made.
I do somehow doubt it though, sadly.

From a quick skip through Google Street view, the weight limit appears to not be mentioned at all until beyond the crossing, at which point a reversal is unavoidable due to the car park having been barriered off.

2 Solutions appear to be simple and relatively cheap: Post the weight limit on the 'Height limit - turn around now' signs, and paint some markings on the return loop to make it's purpose obvious. Or make use of the car park on the west side of the line to allow lorries to turn around (either as a loop or 3-point turn). Both would probably be quite useful, as you'd rather not have unnecessary moves over the crossing but if somebody did get that far you'd rather they didn't reverse back over the line.
NR could also give thought to making it easier to contact the signaller. At the moment from Google Street View there is no suggestion as to how a warning may be given if the driver had wanted to do so.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

From a quick skip through Google Street view, the weight limit appears to not be mentioned at all until beyond the crossing, at which point a reversal is unavoidable due to the car park having been barriered off.

There is signage on Wedgwood Drive on the East side of the level crossing, in the vicinity of the turning loop, the furthest one from the crossing possibly partially covered in green gunk, and says "Height Limit Ahead - 2.3 m, 7ft 6ins - Take the next right turn".

A second one nearer the crossing says "Height Limit Ahead - 2.3m, 7ft 6ins - Turn Around Now" and below same is a circular no goods vehicles over 5 tonnes prohibition sign.

 

[zwk500]

A second one nearer the crossing says "Height Limit Ahead - 2.3m, 7ft 6ins - Turn Around Now" and below same is a circular no goods vehicles over 5 tonnes prohibition sign.

The 5t prohibition presumably being the one turned perpendicular to the road in this April 2021 view:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

It's easy to see why the driver would have missed that warning!

 

[Deafdoggie]

The 5t prohibition presumably being the one turned perpendicular to the road in this April 2021 view:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

It's easy to see why the driver would have missed that warning!

The signs are quite clear to read and all facing the correct way. Those that are 90° to the road are for traffic coming out of Wedgwood. I went down there yesterday to look. However, they are all designed and placed assuming vehicles are going to, or coming from, Wedgwood.
Whilst I don't know, my guess is that the driver came out of the new housing estate building site, and turned right. It's possible they missed the first signage but more likely misunderstood its meaning, thinking it meant the height restriction applied to the right turn, which they didn't want and to carry on would be OK, as by this time they can see the height sign of 16'6" for the overhead wires and know they are safe, this thought is confirmed. Only after entering the crossing can further height restriction signs and a weight restriction sign be seen. By then it's too late. Stopping as soon as seeing these signs places you on the crossing. The driver tries to correct their action by reversing, which would have been OK had the barriers not started lowering, or NR watched them before or during lowering.
In general, I think the signage is poor there and needs looking at. Particularly the low height and turn right being on the same sign and then a sign for a higher height following after all gives apparently contradictory informationto a driver. NR need to check a crossing is clear before starting to lower the barriers. And if it's not, either don't lower or keep watching to see that it does clear. Certainly NR don't come out of this well.

 

[zwk500]

The signs are quite clear to read and all facing the correct way. Those that are 90° to the road are for traffic coming out of Wedgwood. I went down there yesterday to look. However, they are all designed and placed assuming vehicles are going to, or coming from, Wedgwood.

Thanks for the local recce!

By then it's too late. Stopping as soon as seeing these signs places you on the crossing. The driver tries to correct their action by reversing, which would have been OK had the barriers not started lowering, or NR watched them before or during lowering.

On this point specifically, the video makes it look as thought the driver has stopped clear of the crossing. The frame is clear until the driver enters, and the driver is straddling both lanes slightly.

NR need to check a crossing is clear before starting to lower the barriers. And if it's not, either don't lower or keep watching to see that it does clear. Certainly NR don't come out of this well.

Fitting Obstacle Detection would probably be the answer here. I suspect the crossing is auto-lower on Strike-in. Or build new bridges (but then we get into the issue of who's paying).

 

[GB]

Very easy to stop the sequence. Just take your finger off the button

Not all crossing controls are set up like that...and as Tomnick points out, there is no requirement to monitor the lowering sequence (unless it's written in the signal box special instructions).

 

[WestRiding]

Perhaps it was in auto lower mode?

This. They do exist. Though it should be noted that the Signallers only obligation is to check the crossing is clear, before clearing the protecting signal. The onus is on the driver of the road vehicle to obey the red lights and claxtons at the level crossing. Even if the crossing was auto lower (i dont know), the signaller would still have to confirm that the crossing is clear before setting the route and clearing the signal. As a signaller, there are some crossings that you simply wouldn't be able to start the sequence at because of how busy the crossing is. So to clarify, the crossing does NOT have to be clear to start the sequence. That is why auto lower crossings are a thing. If they had to be clear, how could you have an auto lower. Just like as stated above, there is absolutely no requirement to watch the lowering sequence, which would be impossible anyway if a box is busy or has multiple crossings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2021 ==

I imagine it would be inconvenient for Network Rail to admit that if this was controlled by a man in a box next to the crossing, this wouldn't have happened. Safety is of course their no. 1 priority though.

Irrelevant. We have had CCTV crossings for many many years. Its not a new technology that came about with signal box closures. Sheffield PSB for example, opened in the 70s with 3 CCTV crossing, one of which is auto lower. That was a long time before Network Rail was even a thing.

 

[talltim]

The signs are quite clear to read and all facing the correct way. Those that are 90° to the road are for traffic coming out of Wedgwood. I went down there yesterday to look.

There’s nothing to say it hasn’t been spun round the right way between the incident and your visit.

 

[Watershed]

Whilst reversing over a level crossing is a risky maneuver, I think it would be unfair to say that the lorry broke the level crossing barriers. Rather, the barriers lowered into a moving vehicle.

The video footage also shows that the barriers didn't start lowering until 10 seconds or so after the lorry passed the 'point of no return' (PONR). Based on other videos it looks like most level crossing lights only start indicating around 10 seconds before the barriers lower.

So in other words, it's unlikely that the lorry driver actually went through a red light. It's more likely that the lights had just turned yellow as they were passing the PONR, or possibly even after that, in which case the correct action would be to continue.

As far as I can tell the lorry driver's error was not to contact the signaller, being a "slow moving" vehicle that would take more than 10 seconds to clear the level crossing.

Was there sufficient signage to indicate this was mandatory, and how to contact the signaller?

I think NR have been rather hasty in releasing this video with a potentially defamatory comment, when they might well carry some of the blame. It's not particularly helpful to say "people shouldn't misuse level crossings", any more than it helps to say "train drivers shouldn't SPAD".

Certainly I think questions need to be asked about why auto lower crossings don't require either obstacle detection, or for the signaller to watch the CCTV.

 

[Deafdoggie]

There’s nothing to say it hasn’t been spun round the right way between the incident and your visit.

The rust suggests otherwise

 

[Taunton]

I think if this came to a court case rather than an excited moment for the Network Rail PR department, having CCTV displayed to a remote operator who had full control over stopping the barrier process, but where the procedure was not necessarily to look at it while the barriers lowered themselves, would have the truckers' lawyers having a field day.

It really does make you wonder what's the point of providing the CCTV in the first place. What if pedestrians were crossing at that speed?

 

[BrianW]

The signs are quite clear to read and all facing the correct way. Those that are 90° to the road are for traffic coming out of Wedgwood. I went down there yesterday to look. However, they are all designed and placed assuming vehicles are going to, or coming from, Wedgwood.
Whilst I don't know, my guess is that the driver came out of the new housing estate building site, and turned right. It's possible they missed the first signage but more likely misunderstood its meaning, thinking it meant the height restriction applied to the right turn, which they didn't want and to carry on would be OK, as by this time they can see the height sign of 16'6" for the overhead wires and know they are safe, this thought is confirmed. Only after entering the crossing can further height restriction signs and a weight restriction sign be seen. By then it's too late. Stopping as soon as seeing these signs places you on the crossing. The driver tries to correct their action by reversing, which would have been OK had the barriers not started lowering, or NR watched them before or during lowering.
In general, I think the signage is poor there and needs looking at. Particularly the low height and turn right being on the same sign and then a sign for a higher height following after all gives apparently contradictory informationto a driver. NR need to check a crossing is clear before starting to lower the barriers. And if it's not, either don't lower or keep watching to see that it does clear. Certainly NR don't come out of this well.

Thank you for the Googleearth link.
The approach from the 'Wedgwood' side shows scope for misunderstanding re 5T limit and possible 'next turn'/ 'first turn' confusion.
Running on over the rail crossing and the canal bridge shows much better provision over the other side, with a big turning area and a height limiting beam acros the road.

I also note on the video the rail spokesman requesting that a driver continue, thus conirming the understanding re legal obligations/ 'advice'.

 

[GB]

Certainly I think questions need to be asked about why auto lower crossings don't require either obstacle detection, or for the signaller to watch the CCTV.

Because it is expected that A, traffic would obey the road signals, B, traffic would be going in the right direction and C, if a car or lorry would happen to get caught they would stop and not rip the barrier off be continuing on. Not sure it’s right for anyone to expect a slow moving vehicle to be reversing over a crossing. Why didn’t the lorry stop when the barriers were being lowered? He would have seen that in his mirrors.

It really does make you wonder what's the point of providing the CCTV in the first place. What if pedestrians were crossing at that speed?

Its there to check the crossing is clear before clearing the signals.