ECML Level Crossings

[7Pinza]

In the Retford press this week, proposals and calls to remove the numerous level crossings especially on the ECML close to the town -

http://www.retfordtimes.co.uk/Rail-crossings-hangover-past-close/story-20971987-detail/story.html

Mostly on very minor roads - can't see expensive bridges being put in place and instead can see roads being shut off and longer journeys.
Can be long delays - e.g. I stopped for around 15 minutes at Botany Bay north of Retford today while four trains passed.

 

[thenorthern]

I was thinking about this the other day, the ones near Stamford I would say need removing, 6 lines to cross seems too many for a level crossing.

 

[Tomnick]

Seems a bit over the top - certainly the delay to motorists can be significant, but does that alone justify an expensive flyover at some of the quieter crossings? Good to see the same old tired safety card being played too - what happened at Misson Springs is largely irrelevant, as that's a different type of crossing with its own specific risks. The crossings in question are just about as safe as you can get, yet we still can't see past the "all level crossings are dangerous" mantra...

 

[7Pinza]

Agree with the above - the Retford ones crossing two lines are largely on minor roads and seem as safe as you can get. They will not justify millions to cross by bridge. Can see locals complaining when roads are instead closed or re-routed. As they say, be careful what you wish for!

Stamford ones over six lines - always does look very wide from train! Not sure what the alternative is though.

 

[yorksrob]

The recent select committee effectively made it NR's responsibility to achieve zero level crossing casualties, regardless of whether the crossing is being used correctly in the event of a collision. Expect a lot more closures.

 

[lincolnshire]

Seems a bit over the top - certainly the delay to motorists can be significant, but does that alone justify an expensive flyover at some of the quieter crossings? Good to see the same old tired safety card being played too - what happened at Misson Springs is largely irrelevant, as that's a different type of crossing with its own specific risks. The crossings in question are just about as safe as you can get, yet we still can't see past the "all level crossings are dangerous" mantra...

Yes as you say a bit over the top, the old faithfull safety card vote, if you can get some money from the goverment to pay for it as usual then all the grandiose plans can go ahead, but remember one thing with grandiose plans who,s paying for it? yet again the taxpayer will be footing the bill.

Mission Springs as you say is irrelevent as didn,t know it had moved onto the main line? Some people will not know where it is located.

 

[Haydn1971]

Economics play a part here, in that some level crossings provide access between development sites and major roads, a level crossing makes access more difficult on a busy crossing over a main line, also, familiarity breeds contempt, remove the temptation to ignore the barriers and you reduce the ultimate costs of dealing with a serious or fatal injury - Let's be clear here, whilst we all agree it's stupid to jump the barriers etc, someone still has to pay for the clean up, the investigation, the mitigation, then there's the loss of output from the injured individuals, plus the stress and time off by the driver and also the risk of multiple injuries should a derailment occur.

I'd like to see a drive toward removing all level crossings, it may take a century to do so, but they are an unwelcome relic of Victorian penny pinching that's left a liability today - I'm not sure where the priority should be given, I'm not all that familiar with the statistics and risks, but I'm aware there are people in network rail that look at this in their area, I'd be interested to know how the replacement process is driven.

 

[Tomnick]

Nothing like a nice achievable target, but I suppose that's what you get if you let uninformed politicians interfere! The only way, realistically, to achieve zero fatalities in the long term is to abolish every single level crossing - even the safest crossing in the country will expose users to a degree of risk. It'd be more helpful to consider that risk relative to that found elsewhere, and prioritise spending accordingly. How many lives could that money save if it was spent on something else?

 

[trentside]

Agree with the above - the Retford ones crossing two lines are largely on minor roads and seem as safe as you can get. They will not justify millions to cross by bridge. Can see locals complaining when roads are instead closed or re-routed. As they say, be careful what you wish for

Indeed, be careful what you wish for.

The delays at Grove Road can be bad - it doesn't seem unusual to be there 5-10 minutes with 3 or 4 trains passing. I must admit, as soon as I come to a stop there I turn my engine off as I'm expecting a long wait.

I can't really see the crossing being feasible to bridge, due to the proximity of houses to the line - but we'll see. The road does seem to be the main route for the workers at Rampton Hospital, and can be busy at shift change times - and I also use it as a cut through to the A57 at Dunham when heading towards Lincoln (as do quite a few people!). Would miss it if it were closed!

 

[7Pinza]

Indeed, Grove Rd is very busy at times for access to Rampton Hospital and would cost millions to come up with a bridge/alternative route.

 

[Starmill]

BBC Magazine's recent piece on the issue sums it up nicely I feel; it's all about your attitude to risk.

Personally I feel that anyone moaning about crossing closures should be looking for sources of funding for replacements or being realistic!

 

[NotATrainspott]

What is the ECML linespeed near here? Even the best designed level crossings can be defeated by someone in a suicidal mindset and the results of a train-versus-vehicle collision at mainline speed are not pretty. Pedestrian crossings are a risk almost entirely to the pedestrian rather than to the railway itself other than the psychological damage to railway workers. The cost of the worst-case scenario of two fully-loaded InterCity trains colliding at a combined 320km/h or greater speed due to derailment from hitting a car would pay for the cost of closing a great chunk of the level crossings in Great Britain.

 

[route:oxford]

The trouble with this is that putting in bridges in place of level crossing at many points of the South East will open up areas to development for housing.

You can be sure that local resident groups and national vexatious groups such as the CPRE will fight against them the loss of level crossings.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What is the ECML linespeed near here?
. . . . .

It's 125 in both directions. This is true over the several LCs between Peterborough and Tallington, those between Retford and Potteric Carr (s. of Doncaster), and those between Shaftholme (n. of Doncaster) and Copmanthorpe (nr. York).

Another stretch of the ECML with a lot of LCs is through Northumberland, where linespeeds vary, typically 100, 115 or 125mph.

 

[andypops]

The cost of the worst-case scenario of two fully-loaded InterCity trains colliding at a combined 320km/h or greater speed due to derailment from hitting a car would pay for the cost of closing a great chunk of the level crossings in Great Britain.

Great Heck / Selby?

Fairly similar circumstances to your "hypothetical" scenario - Intercity 225 (DVT leading) struck a landrover on the line at well over 90 MPH, colliding with a loaded Class 66 traveling at 54 MPH. The closing speed of the collision was estimated at 229 KPH, although the lightweight DVT possibly exacerbated the effects of the collision as has been previously reported in accident reports.

As of 2003, the driver's insurers had paid out £22 million... Even adjusting for inflation, that is unlikely to allow more than a couple of crossing closures...

 

[Tomnick]

The cost of the worst-case scenario of two fully-loaded InterCity trains colliding at a combined 320km/h or greater speed due to derailment from hitting a car would pay for the cost of closing a great chunk of the level crossings in Great Britain.

Yet probably the closest we've come to that sort of collision is Great Heck - caused by a vehicle crashing off the approach to an overbridge. I can think of several other incidents, some resulting in a collision, where vehicles have obstructed the line away from a level crossing, yet very few where they've crashed through level crossing barriers. Even full barrier crossings will never be free of risk - but then neither will the alternatives.

 

[andypops]

Yet probably the closest we've come to that sort of collision is Great Heck

Beat you to it

 

[Tomnick]

Beat you to it

I got a new page all to myself though .

I didn't want to delete my post though, in all seriousness, as I think it's important to highlight the fact that the terrible accident at Great Heck occurred at an overbridge, not a level crossing, for those who reckon that the former provide absolute safety!

 

[andypops]

Yes, absolutely.

Just to play devil's advocate, you could almost make an argument that a level crossing is more safe in that sort of situation, if a telephone is provided with which to contact the signaller directly.

 

[Llanigraham]

As of 2003, the driver's insurers had paid out £22 million... Even adjusting for inflation, that is unlikely to allow more than a couple of crossing closures...

I have heard a figure of £1m just to automate a currently controlled crossing, so to replace with a bridge could easily be 5 times that.

 

[Tomnick]

Yes, absolutely.

Just to play devil's advocate, you could almost make an argument that a level crossing is more safe in that sort of situation, if a telephone is provided with which to contact the signaller directly.

There's usually no need - damaging the barrier (by driving through it, or any other way) will cause an alarm to sound in the supervising box in most (?) installations, from where the signalman can immediately see what's going on by CCTV. I think it'd usually place the protecting signal to danger automatically too (not sure about that bit - I've never tried it!). How many bridges have that level of protection?!

Thinking a bit deeper, I can fully understand why Network Rail are so keen to exploit these blinkered views. They'll make a fair saving in operating and maintenance costs. I think there are five 'crossing keeper' positions south of Doncaster (not sure whether some are actually classed as signalmen - they're certainly higher grade than most crossing keepers), each manned 24/7. Never mind safety - the opportunity to use a large chunk of money, from a separate pot within the higher powers, to rid themselves of such costs must be particularly tempting. I doubt the savings alone would justify such initial spending otherwise, so the safety card is probably rather welcome.

 

[thenorthern]

I know its not a level crossing but is Newark Flat Crossing something that should be removed? I think yes but it would cost quite a bit of money to do so.

 

[snowball]

As of 2003, the driver's insurers had paid out £22 million... Even adjusting for inflation, that is unlikely to allow more than a couple of crossing closures...

That's probably a fair estimate of the cost of replacing a crossing with a vehicular bridge, but most crossings that are closed are not replaced with anything.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

That's probably a fair estimate of the cost of replacing a crossing with a vehicular bridge, but most crossings that are closed are not replaced with anything.

Indeed, but on the line in question, the ECML, the closure of the Crossing at Joan Croft does come with the newly constructed road bridge (though this development also comes with the new rail flyover as well!).

 

[Tomnick]

I know its not a level crossing but is Newark Flat Crossing something that should be removed? I think yes but it would cost quite a bit of money to do so.

It'd certainly solve a few problems, but related to capacity, speed of trains on the GN and the cost of maintenance rather than safety. Level crossings (of the road type) don't really affect capacity from a railway point of view, other than those cases where a substantial increase in rail traffic is prevented from happening by concerns over road congestion (Airtrack?), so it all comes down to safety (rather a dubious basis for investment, given the good safety record of full barrier crossings) and operating/maintenance costs from the railway's point of view.

 

[edwin_m]

Great Heck / Selby?

Fairly similar circumstances to your "hypothetical" scenario - Intercity 225 (DVT leading) struck a landrover on the line at well over 90 MPH, colliding with a loaded Class 66 traveling at 54 MPH. The closing speed of the collision was estimated at 229 KPH, although the lightweight DVT possibly exacerbated the effects of the collision as has been previously reported in accident reports.

As of 2003, the driver's insurers had paid out £22 million... Even adjusting for inflation, that is unlikely to allow more than a couple of crossing closures...

In fact it would pay for several more than that, if they were reasonably easy sites. And had the leading coaches had more passengers and the other train been a passenger train the casualties and the payout could have been a lot more. However Great Heck also illustrates that the road vehicle hazard doesn't go away even if all crossings are closed.

The DVT wasn't exactly "lightweight" being of similar construction and heavier axleload to the Mk4 coaches, but came into collision with a much heavier class 66. However it is possible that had the loco been leading it might not have lifted off the track.

 

[lincolnshire]

Great Heck / Selby?

Fairly similar circumstances to your "hypothetical" scenario - Intercity 225 (DVT leading) struck a landrover on the line at well over 90 MPH, colliding with a loaded Class 66 traveling at 54 MPH. The closing speed of the collision was estimated at 229 KPH, although the lightweight DVT possibly exacerbated the effects of the collision as has been previously reported in accident reports.

As of 2003, the driver's insurers had paid out £22 million... Even adjusting for inflation, that is unlikely to allow more than a couple of crossing closures...

And when you think of the item above the Great Heck / Selby accident was due to the Land Rover and car on a trailor been towed behind it coming off the motorway and ending up on the track ( due to drivers lack of sleep they say) no level crossing involved here. And the other accidents of vehicles on over bridges going through walls etc and ending up on the railway below or the walls blocking the track from the bridge, what we going to do about allof these then? How much money do you spend ?

P.S. As far as I know the Location of Great Heck / Selby accident on the motorway is still the same as it was when the accident happened, else where improvements have been made where roads cross over the railway. If this happened at that location then someone was admiting liability that it was not safe.

 

[steevp]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27037582

A pertinent article that was linked by the excellent railscot site

 

[snowball]

P.S. As far as I know the Location of Great Heck / Selby accident on the motorway is still the same as it was when the accident happened, else where improvements have been made where roads cross over the railway. If this happened at that location then someone was admiting liability that it was not safe.

If I remember correctly the Land Rover came off the motorway before the start of the roadside barrier on the approach to the bridge. I think that as a result of the crash, parapets at comparable sites were inspected for strength, and strengthened if found to be substandard, but not necessarily lengthened!

 

[NotATrainspott]

To the best of my knowledge one of the things that high-speed lines have as an improvement over classic lines is the quality of the crash barriers and detection of any objects that might be dropped from road-over-rail bridges. There will be a limited number of locations where such measures are in fact needed on main line railways and the cost of replacing the fences and barriers will not be particularly high. Once these are done the remaining risk is left again mostly with level crossings, whose removal could result in the classic main lines having all the safety features of a high-speed line once the new signalling technology has been installed.

As terrible as Great Heck was, the damage it caused was nowhere near what is made possible by a 200km/h or 225km/h railway with mostly-filled trains as will be the case almost all the time in the near future. If the ECML or GWML were upgraded to 225km/h operation the total closing speed of a derailment could be 450km/h, a speed at which there would be complete devastation of even the most crash-resistant train design. As a result it seems only obvious that all level crossings on fast mainlines should be closed as in reality there is not much to differentiate them from purpose-built high speed lines other than the age of the alignment.