Lorry backs over LC and breaks barrier

[BrianW]

Point of Order Chair.

Both Barlaston and Wedgwood stations are open. It's just that they haven't had a passenger train call at them since the WCML upgrade in 2004 (I think it was).

Wedgwood (the pottery producer) is owned by whatever Waterford Wedgwood Royal Doulton (WWRD) became after in 'went bust'. If I recall, the Irish owners bought the elements they wanted from the administrator / receiver, leaving the pension liabilites etc to fall upon the historic pottery collections held by the museum / trustees. Forcing the sale of rare items to fill the pension black hole.

The land for the new super-executive housing estate was bought by Barratts back in 2014 for £12m. The houses on the estate sold so far have brought in a total of £77.8m (182 sales out of approx 216 to be built, as per the most recent Land Registry data publicly available).

The council was more interested / excited at the prospect of new properties in Council Tax Band G and H than they were about residential development in the Green Belt or Section 106 receipts of any significance. Also the justification for the housing development was that the capital receipt (from sale of the land) was essential to allow investment in the remaining part of the factory and the jobs that would be saved as a result. I'm sure the applicants highway consultants will have produced figures showing how all the traffic would turn left out of the estate, and in any event it would be less traffic than if the factory were to return to full operation.

The Section 106b Agreement via the Stoke on Trent Planning portal:

https://planning.stoke.gov.uk/online-applications/files/2996AE09ACCBFD0236FE28531E4A12CA/pdf/55286_FUL-SECTION_106_07_OCTOBER_2013-205766.pdf

refers to payments due for an Education contribution, concern about woodland (including for its management and maintenance) and a sustainable travel plan with plans for its promotion dated 16 Jan and 14 May 2013 and a sum of £3000 for its monitoring.
The Environmental Assessment Statement accompanying the planning application 55286/FUL made little reference to traffic implications for Wedgwood Drive, and mainly in consideration of noise and air quality. It did however observe the railway crossing (noting queuing lengths and frequency) and the canal bridge weight, height and width restrictions and that beyond the canal 'the carriageway here is wide enough to
facilitate large HGVs that are required to turn around due to the height and weight restriction in place at the bridge' (paras 12.11-13)
The Travel Plan of 22 May 2013 and the Consultee Comment from Network Rail of 6 Sep 2013 are shown as 'This document is unavailable for viewing at this time'. * #

I think I'm concluding that there was no suggestion at that time (2013 ish) of any deficiency in relation to adequacy of Wedgwood Drive.

I would be interested to know of the content of the Travel Plan and its monitoring, but then I'm strange like that! I also note that all the properties at Wedgwood Park are sold; wonder if residents are pressing for the 're-opening' (however best described) of the station

* EDIT https://planning.stoke.gov.uk/onlin...B19E29F/pdf/55286_FUL-NETWORK_RAIL-102148.pdf
Suggests a bridge required, with S.106 payment!!

# EDIT The 18 November 2013 Consultee Comment from 'Highways': https://planning.stoke.gov.uk/onlin...1414EAE5C04/pdf/55286_FUL-HIGHWAYS-109079.pdf seems to indicate concern about vehicles other than 'cars and other small vehicles' leaving the site in a westerly direction along Wedgwood Drive.

So there was concern.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I would be interested to know of the content of the Travel Plan and its monitoring, but then I'm strange like that! I also note that all the properties at Wedgwood Park are sold; wonder if residents are pressing for the 're-opening' (however best described) of the station.

Locally I'm not aware of anyone interested in reopening Wedgwood. And few are interested in reopening Barlaston, as the RRB service is actually better! This is why it's all quiet, the locals are happy with the RRB (It accepts bus passes, and runs into Stoke City centre and Stone Town centre unlike the train) returning the train or closing the station would remove the RRB. The residents of the new houses are probably unaware there is a station at Wedgwood.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Locally I'm not aware of anyone interested in reopening Wedgwood. And few are interested in reopening Barlaston, as the RRB service is actually better! This is why it's all quiet, the locals are happy with the RRB (It accepts bus passes, and runs into Stoke City centre and Stone Town centre unlike the train) returning the train or closing the station would remove the RRB. The residents of the new houses are probably unaware there is a station at Wedgwood.

If only we had better integration generally so buses could be used in the same beneficial way in other locations rather than the choice being simply expensive rail or unsubsidised bus.

 

[XAM2175]

If only we had better integration generally so buses could be used in the same beneficial way in other locations rather than the choice being simply expensive rail or unsubsidised bus.

Hear hear.

 

[Deafdoggie]

It turns out the lorry was delivering to Network Rail at Wedgwood station. The phone at the crossing was locked so couldn't be used. The lorry driver was very experienced and has a wealth of, and many years HGV driving, experience. Network Rail have admitted that the crossing lights could not be seen by the reversing lorry driver. Its caused quite an uproar locally that noone appears to monitor crossings when lowering the barriers. All things considered, Network Rail haven't come out of this very well.

 

[Gonzoiku]

I really cannot understand why there are some here who cannot accept that this is one area that signallers do know more about, because they have experienced it.

You are proven right, Llanigraham, although perhaps not quite as you had expected.

GZ

 

[Falcon1200]

All things considered, Network Rail haven't come out of this very well.

In what way ? Not monitoring barriers while they are lowering applies to practically every level crossing, of whatever type, in the country ! Plus the damage to the barriers caused the crossing to fail and prevented trains being signalled across it normally, and had that not been the case there is also a system for ensuring that a crossing with full barriers is clear before a train is signalled across.

 

[Deafdoggie]

To be more accurate, Network Rails public perception hasn't come out of this very well at all.

Think of yourself as someone who knows nothing about railways. The railway then says we arranged for a delivery, we had no one there to accept it and locked the phone. We provided no instructions or directions to the delivery driver. Arriving at the delivery point they realise they would cause an accident and block a road so the lorry backs out of the way (there's no other option) during which time the barriers are lowered onto the lorry. It's captured on CCTV that noone is watching. Network Rail then use the same CCTV to try and blame the lorry driver.

Only if you work for the railways is this not the railways fault. To everyone else it only the railways fault.

 

[Elecman]

How We’re the phone(s) locked ?

 

[Deafdoggie]

They are in a locked cabinet behind locked gates. Whilst not designed for public use, they can't be used in an emergency either. The idea is that the CCTV monitors the crossing, but it turns out no- one watches that...

 

[Jim the Jim]

Because it is expected that A, traffic would obey the road signals

If traffic could reliably be expected to obey road signals we wouldn't need barriers in the first place!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If traffic could reliably be expected to obey road signals we wouldn't need barriers in the first place!

Like in the USA. I have lived here 21 years and it still blows my mind there are no barriers in many places.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Because it is expected that traffic would obey the road signals,

The lorry had been instructed, by Network Rail, to deliver to the station.

 

[Taunton]

I suspect that whoever excitedly put this video out (was it the railway PR department, or BTP?) had no idea either of the details of how the crossing worked. Just like the "Smart Motorways", which have millions of pounds worth of CCTV but inquests into fatal accidents show nobody is watching it, the public just think that having crossings monitored by CCTV but nobody watches the closing sequence is a nonsense, however much the railway tries to justify it.

If I was the HGV driver who had been set up to be pilloried by all this I would be asking NR for a public apology.

 

[LAX54]

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 press the Red STOP button.

 

[OuterDistant]

Whoops! Eggs on a couple of faces there at least, then.

The driver's position certainly looks a lot better now. I don't think he had much choice when delivering there to do anything other than go over the crossing, drop the load off, then reverse.

 

[AM9]

Like in the USA. I have lived here 21 years and it still blows my mind there are no barriers in many places.

You Tube videos aren't necessarily representative of actual numbers, but there do seem to be quite a lot of at-grade crossing collisions between trains and road vehicles, especially semis. How does that stack up with your experience.

 

[LAX54]

I suspect that whoever excitedly put this video out (was it the railway PR department, or BTP?) had no idea either of the details of how the crossing worked. Just like the "Smart Motorways", which have millions of pounds worth of CCTV but inquests into fatal accidents show nobody is watching it, the public just think that having crossings monitored by CCTV but nobody watches the closing sequence is a nonsense, however much the railway tries to justify it.

If I was the HGV driver who had been set up to be pilloried by all this I would be asking NR for a public apology.

We have about 20 CCTV xings on the workstations in the PSB, ALL of them both manual lower and auto lower have an instruction to observe the lowering sequence.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2021 ==

Whoops! Eggs on a couple of faces there at least, then.

The driver's position certainly looks a lot better now. I don't think he had much choice when delivering there to do anything other than go over the crossing, drop the load off, then reverse.

Had he not veered over the the other side of the road, he would have got away with it, as the exit barrier goes down later, as he may well have known from other crossings, so knew he could still get over before that barrier lowered, failing that, he should have called the number on the crossing to say he wanted to reverse over the crossing, (it is not a normal move to reverse over a xing) then the Signaller would have stopped any lowering sequence starting.

 

[GB]

The lorry had been instructed, by Network Rail, to deliver to the station.

What has that got to do with anything?

 

[Llanigraham]

The lorry had been instructed, by Network Rail, to deliver to the station.

And?
That doesn't make the driver exempt from obeying the Laws of the road.

 

[AlterEgo]

What has that got to do with anything?

It explains why he has gone past the warning signs and the turning loop. He must do that to deliver to the station. He had no option but to reverse the vehicle.

 

[Deafdoggie]

What has that got to do with anything?

This

It explains why he has gone past the warning signs and the turning loop. He must do that to deliver to the station. He had no option but to reverse the vehicle.

 

[GB]

It explains why he has gone past the warning signs and the turning loop. He must do that to deliver to the station. He had no option but to reverse the vehicle.

The original question was why is it permitted to not observe the lowering sequence at CCTV crossings. The fact he had to reverse and was told to deliver to the station is irrelevant to that question. I wonder if it was an AHB and had caused a collision or if it was a road junction and he went into the side of someones car peoples opinions would be different. I accept at some point he would need to reverse but should be done in a safe manner.

 

[Taunton]

We have about 20 CCTV xings on the workstations in the PSB, ALL of them both manual lower and auto lower have an instruction to observe the lowering sequence.

he should have called the number on the crossing to say he wanted to reverse over the crossing, (it is not a normal move to reverse over a xing) then the Signaller would have stopped any lowering sequence starting.

There are multiple mentions above by presumably informed personnel that in auto-lower the gates descending are not monitored. Can it be that there are different procedures in different areas?

If so many CCTVs have been put together for one signaller, along with their other responsibilities, that they can't reliably monitor the process adequately, that's a railway problem - in fact one that should come to the attention of the RSSB.

You can see on Google Earth there's no public phone or number to call at the crossing, nor the notice about large/slow vehicles.

Wedgwood Dr - Google Maps

That's just AHBs have those.

 

[A Challenge]

We have about 20 CCTV xings on the workstations in the PSB, ALL of them both manual lower and auto lower have an instruction to observe the lowering sequence.

The whole idea of autolower is that it starts lowering without the signaller's intervention, surely, so surely the signaller can't be expected to monitor it (if the signaller was busy, it's one thing to not start a new sequence at a manual lower crossing but if it starts automatically what's the signaller meant to do)?

 

[Falcon1200]

The lorry had been instructed, by Network Rail, to deliver to the station.

We provided no instructions or directions to the delivery driver.

Does the road haulage firm contracted and paid by Network Rail to deliver a load not have a responsibility to establish where they are sending their large vehicle, and to brief their driver on what is required of them ?

There are multiple mentions above by presumably informed personnel that in auto-lower the gates descending are not monitored.

The barriers at any AHB or AOCL+B crossing anywhere in the UK are not monitored when they descend either.

There has to be a point at which the railway can no longer be blamed for, or expected to provide for, every single possible eventuality (no matter how remote the likelihood) when others interract with the industry.

 

[WestRiding]

We have about 20 CCTV xings on the workstations in the PSB, ALL of them both manual lower and auto lower have an instruction to observe the lowering sequence.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2021 ==

How do you watch 2 screens at the same time? (if two crossings or even 3 or 4 need to be lowered at the same time)

And what do you do if you miss the full lower sequence of an Auto Lower because you were dealing with something else? Do you raise them and start again?

 

[AlterEgo]

The original question was why is it permitted to not observe the lowering sequence at CCTV crossings. The fact he had to reverse and was told to deliver to the station is irrelevant to that question. I wonder if it was an AHB and had caused a collision or if it was a road junction and he went into the side of someones car peoples opinions would be different. I accept at some point he would need to reverse but should be done in a safe manner.

How does he do that, without a crossing phone?

If there was an accessible level crossing phone and he didn't use it then I would be very much in agreement with you.

 

[Taunton]

Does the road haulage firm contracted and paid by Network Rail to deliver a load not have a responsibility to establish where they are sending their large vehicle, and to brief their driver on what is required of them ?

Funnily enough, at the various user-worked crossing accidents which access commercial premises (eg the Sudbury, Suffolk accident), much is made by the RAIB of the fact that the factory etc which arranged the delivery has a responsibility to ensure drivers are briefed and in fact overseen about crossing usage.

Suggesting this approach does not apply when it is Network Rail themselves, of all people, arranging the HGV delivery to the crossing itself does seem counter-intuitive.

 

[GB]

How does he do that, without a crossing phone?

If there was an accessible level crossing phone and he didn't use it then I would be very much in agreement with you.

It was reported up thread that he is a very experienced driver. You don't think he could have contacted his office or Network Rail directly via mobile phone? Network Rail would have sent someone to assist.