ECML Level Crossings

[stanley T]

The Helpston crossing should have been replaced by a bridge years ago. Two separate rail routes, both busy, one of them at 125mph, and a busy road. Sometimes the gates are only open for a minute or two before they come down again.

When the GNR was built, nice and straight or gentle curves, but they sure did skimp on building bridges.

 

[Tomnick]

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.

I don't doubt that any proposal to run at anything higher than 125mph, whether on an existing line or not, would require no level crossings. I'm not convinced that the minimal risk posed by the existing crossings on the ECML requires every single one of them to be closed though, and I'm sure that their collective safety record supports that. I can only think of a handful of cases where a road vehicle has crashed through fully closed barriers or gates at a 'controlled' crossing (usually managing to keep going, clear of the crossing!) set against many many more where vehicles have obstructed the line in some other way. I'm not aware of a serious collision caused by the former. Wouldn't the money therefore be better spent elsewhere?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I'm surprised that there are level crossings on any line around the country where line speed is above 50-60mph. I watched a drivers eye view DVD of the ECML and was surprised that there was any level crossings on the line, especially when the line speeds in places must be 100mph or higher.

If there must be level crossings anywhere then imho they should be full barrier crossings. Are all level crossings signalled so that the protecting signal is red until the signalman presses a button to confirm that the crossing is clear?

 

[Tomnick]

Full barrier crossings are, but not AHBs (not much point when the crossing can subsequently be obstructed anyway, though the ability for trapped vehicles to escape and the short closure time should mitigate against that risk) - they're not permitted above 100mph anyway, and other strict criteria have to be met too.

 

[lincolnshire]

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.

I was thinking the same as The Northern put it surely in this day and age and speed of trains should it still be there or be planned to get rid of it?When your on the train as you rattle across it, it makes you think what would happen if ? I know it should never happen , but a lot of things should never happen but they do.

Also how do they manage to get trains across when level crossings can be closed for anything between 5 and 15 minutes and be open and closed again in a couple of minutes. Or is that usual fact of delay the road and let the trains run to save on train delay payments?

Interesting to see what others think and what the plans will be?

 

[Tomnick]

If there's trains to run, then trains will be run regardless of how long the barriers are down as a result. Most of us try our best to keep road traffic on the move, but we're paid to run trains not cars! Watching the chaps at Helpston at work is certainly an experience, trying to take any opportunity to at least clear some of the waiting traffic between trains.

 

[edwin_m]

I was thinking the same as The Northern put it surely in this day and age and speed of trains should it still be there or be planned to get rid of it?When your on the train as you rattle across it, it makes you think what would happen if ? I know it should never happen , but a lot of things should never happen but they do.

Also how do they manage to get trains across when level crossings can be closed for anything between 5 and 15 minutes and be open and closed again in a couple of minutes. Or is that usual fact of delay the road and let the trains run to save on train delay payments?

Interesting to see what others think and what the plans will be?

Without checking the working timetable I would guess there is a gap of at least 5min in the ECML traffic in both directions at the times when a train to/from Nottingham is due to use the flat crossing. A northbound ECML could be making a station stop during this time.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Full barrier crossings are, but not AHBs (not much point when the crossing can subsequently be obstructed anyway, though the ability for trapped vehicles to escape and the short closure time should mitigate against that risk) - they're not permitted above 100mph anyway, and other strict criteria have to be met too.

Trouble with AHBs is the times people try to go around the barriers. Where there are AHBs is there a viable alternative method nearby eg tunnel or bridge nearby which could be used allowing the AHB to be closed.

 

[jopsuk]

Also, AHBs have essentially zero protection

 

[Tomnick]

AHBs are generally rather less safe than their full-barrier counterparts, but even then the risk of an accident is very small if they're used correctly. Personally, if the spending is justified on safety grounds, I think it'd be far better spent on replacing AHBs with full-barrier crossings or alternative routes - but that wouldn't result in such a big saving on operating costs...

 

[jopsuk]

The problem though is generally incorrect use. In those cases, it isn't the safety of car drivers misusing the crossings that people like me worry about. It is those on the trains, and also potentially the passengers of the car drivers.

 

[Tomnick]

Indeed, there's no doubt that misuse of AHBs pushes up the risk of an accident considerably, and it'd be foolish to simply blame it on the motorists and leave it at that. That's why I think that it'd be far better to use some of the pot of money allocated to level crossing safety to deal with those crossings, rather than trying to exaggerate the 'danger' of full-barrier crossings to justify spending the money on their replacement with very little safety benefit.

 

[IanXC]

Is that pretty much what's going on with one aspect of the roll out of MCB-OD? I know there are some manned crossings impacted, but certainly the ones near me are AHB to MCB-OD.

 

[eastwestdivide]

The Newark flat rail crossing is perhaps a bit of a red herring in the context of this thread, as in terms of safety I'd argue that it's no different to a 'conflicting move' at a normal rail junction. One train is crossing the path that another train will take later.
In terms of operating convenience, it's a pain to have to block both lines of the ECML every time a Notts/Lincoln train has to cross, but in safety terms is it any worse than say Colwich, Norton Bridge, Wooton Bassett or Colton?

 

[Tomnick]

Is that pretty much what's going on with one aspect of the roll out of MCB-OD? I know there are some manned crossings impacted, but certainly the ones near me are AHB to MCB-OD.

Certainly the vast majority have been MCB (from an adjacent box or CCTV) to MCB-OD - I don't think I could name a single one that's been converted from AHB, despite the increased safety benefit. Are yours connected to a particular resignalling scheme, or busy AHBs that might have been identified as 'high risk' anyway?

 

[carriageline]

How are they getting on with OD, the last I heard was the problems down Anglia(?) way, with the crossings being permanently manned, not sure if it had all been sorted yet, it must of!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is that pretty much what's going on with one aspect of the roll out of MCB-OD? I know there are some manned crossings impacted, but certainly the ones near me are AHB to MCB-OD.

Any links to any pages which outline the idea/principle of MCB-OD please?

The Newark flat rail crossing is perhaps a bit of a red herring in the context of this thread, as in terms of safety I'd argue that it's no different to a 'conflicting move' at a normal rail junction. One train is crossing the path that another train will take later.
In terms of operating convenience, it's a pain to have to block both lines of the ECML every time a Notts/Lincoln train has to cross, but in safety terms is it any worse than say Colwich, Norton Bridge, Wooton Bassett or Colton?

Long term could they not install a flyover to eliminate that problem?

 

[edwin_m]

A flyover at Newark has been discussed for years including several times on here. As usual the problem is £££££.

 

[PhilipW]

Enclosed is an article on Network Rail's efforts to close all Level Crossings south of Peterborough.
http://www.theconstructionindex.co....d-to-look-for-alternatives-to-level-crossings

 

[181]

It's worth bearing in mind the point made in the BBC article that if road users, in particular pedestrians and cyclists (who of course pose virtually zero risk to the safety of trains), are diverted onto longer or busier routes, the risk to them may be increased. Network Rail are happy because it's not their problem any more, but in broader terms there's a risk of public disbenefit.

 

[snowball]

NR consultation website on ECML level crossings:

https://networkrail.citizenspace.co...-coast-main-line-level-crossing-closure-study

Consultation runs from 6 June to 31 Aug.

 

[jopsuk]

You'd have thought Network Rail could have managed a picture of an ECML location for the page...