A crossing without a whistle board

[umontu]

I walked along some public footpaths today from Kirkham to Singleton that cross the north Fylde line.
I went across one crossing, near the bridge down from Kirkham Junction and this had whistle boards.
But stopped at another, near Singleton. It had no whistle boards on the approach (at least from my assumption seeing about ten trains go by as I walked away without a peep.) but much worse visibility from the down side, when compared to the other one, and what seemed to be a higher line speed.

I have to admit there was a phone to call the signaller, but I was "Informed" by the farmer as I spoke to him that the phone was only for cars and tractors to ask to cross.

Isn't this incredibly dangerous?
Should I contact network rail to tell them of my worries? Or is that a waste of time.

 

[142094]

If a phone was provided I'd certainly be using it and not listening to the farmer.

 

[umontu]

If a phone was provided I'd certainly be using it and not listening to the farmer.

You would, but would a person who had no idea, or a person who thought they'd not trouble the signaller? The warning signs said nothing about people needing to call the signaller. Only drivers.

 

[142094]

You would, but would a person who had no idea, or a person who thought they'd not trouble the signaller? The warning signs said nothing about people needing to call the signaller. Only drivers.

Probably not, I take your point. However, if I was worried enough about something coming I'd certainly be using the phone.

When you say the visibility is bad, what is this due to? Something like a bridge in the way, or is there overhanging vegetation?

 

[umontu]

Probably not, I take your point. However, if I was worried enough about something coming I'd certainly be using the phone.

When you say the visibility is bad, what is this due to? Something like a bridge in the way, or is there overhanging vegetation?

From the up direction on both sides you can see well enough.
From the down direction, towards Poulton, the line bends and goes into a cutting.
Now on the down side of the crossing it isn't too bad to see what's coming from either direction, though there's a very limited amount of time to spot a train heading up.
From the up side your view is extremely limited looking down, by the curve and the signal next to the crossing. You'd be well with in a metre of the track before you spotted anything. Having been stood behind the gate (by that I mean not lineside) when a 142 passed I can tell you it comes as a surprise.

 

[Bald Rick]

Potentially serious. Can you let me know which crossing this is and I will get it seen to straight away. Name of the road, footpath or preferably a Grid reference will help.

As there is a phone there it sounds like a private crossing, although there may be a public right of way also. If there is NOT a public right of way then using the phone is the official way to cross. It is the responsibility of the authorised user(s) to make sure that people using the crossing know how to use it safely, ie using the phone. Nevertheless let me know which crossing it is.

 

[ole man]

Oh come on, that crossing as been there for many years without any incidents, and i know that it has been put through the usual safety criteria.

Are people jumping on the level crossing bandwagon, i've got a easy way to solve the problems on level crossings or foot crossings, DO NOT CROSS unless safe to do so, its not hard is it

 

[Bald Rick]

Having looked at the OS Map the only crossing that fits the description is the access to Preese Hall, Grid Ref 371363, could you confirm?

OLE Man - Having been personally involved in 2 incidents at level crossings with sighting issues, which had been in the same condition for years if not decades, I can assure you that this is no defence in the eyes of the law.

 

[ole man]

Why use them then?? I won't cross the track in my duties if i cant do so safely, i will find a different access or get better sighting.

By the sounds of it this crossing is for use by farmers vehicles only, what is the OP doing there?

 

[Bald Rick]

If its the one I think it is, it's also a public footpath.

 

[umontu]

Potentially serious. Can you let me know which crossing this is and I will get it seen to straight away. Name of the road, footpath or preferably a Grid reference will help.

As there is a phone there it sounds like a private crossing, although there may be a public right of way also. If there is NOT a public right of way then using the phone is the official way to cross. It is the responsibility of the authorised user(s) to make sure that people using the crossing know how to use it safely, ie using the phone. Nevertheless let me know which crossing it is.

It is, on my up to date OS map, a public right of way and there are the standard signs that point in the direction of the crossing as being the public footpath (That is how I got there) and indeed on the long road leading up to it there is no other way to go as the road is private prior to the field (East of the line).

I must admit that the person I quoted as a farmer did not say they were the farmer, I make the assumption on their actions and attitude to the questions I asked. I asked "do you have to use the phone?" and he gave a response along the lines of "The phone is really only for vehicles"
He admitted it was a public footpath also.

Here is the location on Google maps. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Chu...ton-le-Fylde+FY6+8LN,+United+Kingdom&t=h&z=16

As you can see the line changes direction slightly after that crossing, heading in more north western direction towards Poulton.

On SABRE's OS maps it is also shown as part of a public path.
http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/...SMap&zoom=8&layer=0&markers=53.81207,-2.95218,

I think the inside of the phone box said it was Preese hall crossing and the phone contacted Kirkham signal box.

If you are able to see that it is made safer then please do Bald Rick. I'm afraid in terms of demonstrating the location that's the best I can do, hope that's enough.

 

[ole man]

There is no record of that crossing in any of my track diagrams, so I'm assuming that it is a private crossing,i will have a proper look in morning

 

[umontu]

Having looked at the OS Map the only crossing that fits the description is the access to Preese Hall, Grid Ref 371363, could you confirm?

OLE Man - Having been personally involved in 2 incidents at level crossings with sighting issues, which had been in the same condition for years if not decades, I can assure you that this is no defence in the eyes of the law.

Just confirmed it, was checking my details were right before posting so I didn't see your question.

Why use them then?? I won't cross the track in my duties if i cant do so safely, i will find a different access or get better sighting.

By the sounds of it this crossing is for use by farmers vehicles only, what is the OP doing there?

As I've said it is a public path and the only other way to that location, besides the footpath, is a private road.

I think some people might be put off by the huge detour they'd have to make to avoid this crossing. How would a member of the public with no experience know of the complexities of that crossing. If you lived in Weeton and wanted to walk to Staining, got there and thought it wasn't safe it would be a good hour and half detour to get back to the road at Weeton to start off again.

 

[ole man]

Better late than never i think is the saying.

Come to think of it, isn't that how most people die on LX?.
People rushing and ignoring there own safety

 

[Bald Rick]

It is, on my up to date OS map, a public right of way and there are the standard signs that point in the direction of the crossing as being the public footpath (That is how I got there) and indeed on the long road leading up to it there is no other way to go as the road is private prior to the field (East of the line).

I must admit that the person I quoted as a farmer did not say they were the farmer, I make the assumption on their actions and attitude to the questions I asked. I asked "do you have to use the phone?" and he gave a response along the lines of "The phone is really only for vehicles"
He admitted it was a public footpath also.

Here is the location on Google maps. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Chu...ton-le-Fylde+FY6+8LN,+United+Kingdom&t=h&z=16

As you can see the line changes direction slightly after that crossing, heading in more north western direction towards Poulton.

On SABRE's OS maps it is also shown as part of a public path.
http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/...SMap&zoom=8&layer=0&markers=53.81207,-2.95218,

I think the inside of the phone box said it was Preese hall crossing and the phone contacted Kirkham signal box.

If you are able to see that it is made safer then please do Bald Rick. I'm afraid in terms of demonstrating the location that's the best I can do, hope that's enough.

It's been raised with the right person tonight, I expect someone will be out there tomorrow to check sighting distances etc. Will let you know what happens.

 

[umontu]

It's been raised with the right person tonight, I expect someone will be out there tomorrow to check sighting distances etc. Will let you know what happens.

Thank you, I shall sleep easier tonight. And thanks for saying you'll let me know.
Just out of interest do you work for Network Rail?

 

[ole man]

Could you include me in the results of the visit?.

Bald Rick if you are NWR which dept are you from?

 

[driver9000]

I'd be very interested too. I know which crossings the OP is referring to and have never considered the one at Singleton to be a risk. I have only ever seen 1 person waiting to cross at it too. Drivers have a pretty good view of the one at Singleton in both directions but have a restricted view of the W boarded crossing at Bradkirk.

 

[umontu]

I'd be very interested too. I know which crossings the OP is referring to and have never considered the one at Singleton to be a risk. I have only ever seen 1 person waiting to cross at it too. Drivers have a pretty good view of the one at Singleton in both directions but have a restricted view of the W boarded crossing at Bradkirk.

We were forced to wait at the Bradkirk crossing for a down 150 and the driver definitely saw us. when he was at the whistle board. I could see how coming the other way would have been harder to sight.

I have no idea how a driver would feel about Singleton's crossing but the lack of a whistle board and the speed I saw trains passing at did raise my concern as a potential footpath user. Is the line speed there 75mph?

 

[driver9000]

I have no idea how a driver would feel about Singleton's crossing but the lack of a whistle board and the speed I saw trains passing at did raise my concern as a potential footpath user. Is the line speed there 75mph?

Linespeed at both crossings is 60/70MU. I have no concerns over the crossing at Singleton and as I say, Drivers have a decent view in both directions approaching the foot crossing at Singleton. I have never stood at either so can only give my opinion from how I see both from the cab.

 

[umontu]

Linespeed at both crossings is 60/70MU. I have no concerns over the crossing at Singleton and as I say, Drivers have a decent view in both directions approaching the foot crossing at Singleton. I have never stood at either so can only give my opinion from how I see both from the cab.

Aye.
Well I hope if everything is safe then at least my concerns just lead to a clarification as to what actions need to be taken when the crossing is used by a walker.

 

[Bald Rick]

Feedback - it was checked out this morning and all was okay. I have seen the photos myself, and the sighting is more than sufficient for pedestrians.

But thank you for raising it - better to be safe than sorry.

To answer some other questions - I do work for Network Rail, in Operations, with several years experience of Level Crossing risk issues.

 

[TDK]

I walked along some public footpaths today from Kirkham to Singleton that cross the north Fylde line.
I went across one crossing, near the bridge down from Kirkham Junction and this had whistle boards.
But stopped at another, near Singleton. It had no whistle boards on the approach (at least from my assumption seeing about ten trains go by as I walked away without a peep.) but much worse visibility from the down side, when compared to the other one, and what seemed to be a higher line speed.

I have to admit there was a phone to call the signaller, but I was "Informed" by the farmer as I spoke to him that the phone was only for cars and tractors to ask to cross.

Isn't this incredibly dangerous?
Should I contact network rail to tell them of my worries? Or is that a waste of time.

It's a waste of time, the phone is for crossing users to contact the signaller - if the crossing has 27 seconds visibility a whistle board will not be provided unless the crossing is high risk.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Potentially serious. Can you let me know which crossing this is and I will get it seen to straight away. Name of the road, footpath or preferably a Grid reference will help.

As there is a phone there it sounds like a private crossing, although there may be a public right of way also. If there is NOT a public right of way then using the phone is the official way to cross. It is the responsibility of the authorised user(s) to make sure that people using the crossing know how to use it safely, ie using the phone. Nevertheless let me know which crossing it is.

Now this will cost money to go out and check, I see the point and also see the OP point but to be honest if the OP wet to say 100 UWG crossings or FP crossings they would all look dangerous, as long as a pedestrian has 27 seconds visibility no whistle board needs to be provided and the phone is there to contact the signaller if you are concerned - I feel this sort of thing is a waste of resourses that can be spent elsewhere - sorry but this is my opinion

 

[Bald Rick]

Nothing wasted - one of the response guys went out, and it was double checked by the office team.

And things like this HAVE to be taken seriously - potentally something could have changed very recently.

There isn't a standard sighting time by he way - the sighting time required is based on all sorts of variables; traverse distance, number of tracks, crossing deck, type of user etc. For pedestrians at this crossing it's likely to be 10-14 seconds.

 

[TDK]

Nothing wasted - one of the response guys went out, and it was double checked by the office team.

And things like this HAVE to be taken seriously - potentally something could have changed very recently.

There isn't a standard sighting time by he way - the sighting time required is based on all sorts of variables; traverse distance, number of tracks, crossing deck, type of user etc. For pedestrians at this crossing it's likely to be 10-14 seconds.

Yes, I was confusing the time issue with the AHB timings however I still feel that, yes, report a crossing if you think it is dangerous but know it is dangerous before reporting it!