Engineering solutions to incompetent motorists turning left/right at level crossings

[Bald Rick]

Is there published data from such research?

I read it some years ago, but can‘t find it now. It may have been internal use only, although I thought it had RSSB involvement The research was also looking into increasing the flash speed to increase conspicuity.

The broader point is that almost every railway uses flashing lights at crossings and at similar high hazard obstructions.

So you're going along a nearly empty motorway in lane 2, overtaking a lorry, and you see "red Xs" and wig-wags across all lanes ahead. Are you just going to stop there?

What I'd do if I saw that was think it's likely to be a signalling error and instead pass it, but be slowing down, continue at a low speed in lane 1, and stop at the first suitable safe place to call 999 and report the likely multi-car pileup it would cause).

I would do the same. However I suggest that is not misunderstanding the meaning of the flashing lights.

 

[Basil Jet]

I wonder if water curtain stop signs might help, as fitted in a Sydney Harbour tunnel?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

My suggestion would be to use the "X" level crossing symbol mounted on the traffic light pole either above or below. You could potentially also use the red-and-white blocks on the traffic light surround. It's presently used for ungated crossings, but there's no reason to treat those any differently.

Level crossing wigwags showing the X sign, from sabre-roads.org.uk

So you'd swap one sort of uncommon signage for a different, even more uncommon sort of signage? I'm sure that will solve the unfamiliarity problem...

I get the feeling that you're proposing a change for change's sake. Whilst there are a minority of drivers who will chance it at level crossings, I'd hazard a guess that it's a much smaller minority than those who do so with conventional traffic lights. It's also worth reminding ourselves that the incident which prompted this discussion does not appear to be a case of deliberately disobeying the signage or signals, nor of misunderstanding them. The crossing was open to road traffic at the time, so if the driver simply turned too early then panicked (which seems like the most likely scenario based on the information we have), they'd have likely done the exact same thing if the signals were standard traffic lights on green as opposed to wigwags that weren't illuminated.

The use of cat's eyes along the edge of the carriageway does seem a sensible suggestion, and I can't think of any reason it wouldn't be possible. In fact it's such a simple solution that I'm surprised it isn't already implemented at all but the quietest of crossings.

 

[edwin_m]

The use of cat's eyes along the edge of the carriageway does seem a sensible suggestion, and I can't think of any reason it wouldn't be possible. In fact it's such a simple solution that I'm surprised it isn't already implemented at all but the quietest of crossings.

This does seem to be the best suggestion made so far. A cat's eye is passive, reflecting light from headlights back the way it has come, so wouldn't be effective in daylight (but perhaps less of problem then as it's more obvious there isn't a road there). A powered version like those used at airports would need cables to feed power around and under the rails, or perhaps a solar panel designed to support road vehicles (as trialled on various "solar road" schemes).

 

[sprunt]

So you'd swap one sort of uncommon signage for a different, even more uncommon sort of signage? I'm sure that will solve the unfamiliarity problem...

I'm sure Bletchleyite will correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's suggesting solving the familiarity problem by replacing wig-wags with regular traffic lights. The X symbols would be an extra sign for emergency service drivers to say "This is a red light that you absolutely musn't pass under any circumstances".

(None of which really has anything to do with the thread topic, as the issue wasn't that someone drove onto the crossing against the signals, but that they drove off the crossing onto the railway.)

 

[renegademaster]

There's also the issue that wigwags don't fail safe - green is a blank signal

That's actually a really good point TBH.

All though a "blown bulb" detector would be pretty easy to make electrically speaking. Do AHBs have anything of the sort at the moment, and if so does it shut the barriers til fixed or does it function normally until an engineer comes just without lights?

 

[zwk500]

That's actually a really good point TBH.

All though a "blown bulb" detector would be pretty easy to make electrically speaking. Do AHBs have anything of the sort at the moment, and if so does it shut the barriers til fixed or does it function normally until an engineer comes just without lights?

Level Crossings are fail-safe to the railway - if the wig-wags are not detected to be working properly either the protecting signal is held at danger or there is a separate marker approaching the crossing that communicates there is a possible fault with the road signals to the driver.

 

[edwin_m]

Level Crossings are fail-safe to the railway - if the wig-wags are not detected to be working properly either the protecting signal is held at danger or there is a separate marker approaching the crossing that communicates there is a possible fault with the road signals to the driver.

To be clear that's referring to the train driver, and only applies to locally monitored crossings. I believe with Automatic Half Barriers the only response is a fault indication to the signaller, who has to stop and caution trains.

 

[Lucan]

6 inch kerbs along the edge of the carriageway or the footway, with gaps between them for the train wheels to pass through.

Wouldn't that risk a serious tripping hazard where the rails intersect the footway though?

You can have the footway and the road at the same level, with a kerb in between the two for separation.

Nottingham59's idea is sensible but only if the kerb is at the outer edge of the footway. Starmill seems to be thinking of a footway is sunk below rail level (??) and JamesT is adressing a different issue (separation of vehicles and pedestrians, which as someone pointed out would be confusing for the blind).

It would be quite easy, cheap, simple and 90% effective to put 6" high kerbs along the outer edges of the footway with gaps at the rails as wide as the loading gauge requires. The kerbs would be more visible in the lighting and felt more definitely than (and before) the "cattle grid", and if struck at a shallow angles would deflect the car back anyway. Would not stop driving over deliberately of course, like the drug-dealer who was fleeing the police.

 

[Starmill]

Starmill seems to be thinking of a footway is sunk below rail level (??)

No no, as in, if the crown of the rail were at road height and a conventional kerb were installed to the raised footway, you'd end up with a depression just wide enough to catch debris and pose a tripping hazard where the rails cross the footway.

It would be quite easy, cheap, simple and 90% effective to put 6" high kerbs along the outer edges of the footway with gaps at the rails as wide as the loading gauge requires. The kerbs would be more visible in the lighting and felt more definitely (and before) the "cattle grid", and if struck at a shallow angles would deflect the car back anyway. Would not stop driving over deliberately of course, like the drug-dealer who was fleeing the police.

This sounds a lot more sensible. It may require a bit of extra cleaning at some crossings but there shouldn't be too much debris catching in the rails. One thing a kerb outside a footway could risk is drivers not seeing the demarcation of the lane as clearly, and thinking that the kerb is the edge of the lane. Painting the footway a different colour is an obvious solution there.

 

[etr221]

My thought as a possible way of doing things would be to have the pavement/footway and the rails all at the same level, with the roadway slightly lower, with what would effectively be speed bumps up to rail level for vehicles to get over them.

But the important thing is to ensure that it obvious to motorists that road goes straight across, and that the railway isn't a side turning in any sense.

 

[edwin_m]

My thought as a possible way of doing things would be to have the pavement/footway and the rails all at the same level, with the roadway slightly lower, with what would effectively be speed bumps up to rail level for vehicles to get over them.

But the important thing is to ensure that it obvious to motorists that road goes straight across, and that the railway isn't a side turning in any sense.

There's a risk that speed bumps on the crossing would cause drivers to slow down and possibly stall. Probably best to keep them moving.

 

[TSG]

My thought as a possible way of doing things would be to have the pavement/footway and the rails all at the same level, with the roadway slightly lower, with what would effectively be speed bumps up to rail level for vehicles to get over them.

But the important thing is to ensure that it obvious to motorists that road goes straight across, and that the railway isn't a side turning in any sense.

You can't lower the roadway close to the rails much without encroaching on the track below it. There is normally standard ballast/sleepers below the bowmac/strail units. You'd also create potential problems with road vehicles placing regular lateral stress on the alignment I suspect. It would also make it harder to meet the maximum gap at the bottom of the skirt standard unless you dip the kerb too, which defeats the object. You'll also increase the risk of grounding long/low vehicles, which is a serious hazard on an automatic crossing.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

My thought as a possible way of doing things would be to have the pavement/footway and the rails all at the same level, with the roadway slightly lower, with what would effectively be speed bumps up to rail level for vehicles to get over them.

But the important thing is to ensure that it obvious to motorists that road goes straight across, and that the railway isn't a side turning in any sense.

That brings to mind Bradford Crossing near Bradford on Tone in Somerset, over the GWML. The road surface is quite uneven due to the cant of the railway, so the crossing has signs warning road vehicles of the risk of grounding as a result.

My gut feeling is that making all other crossings as hazardous as this one would be a bad move. Likewise things like raised kerbs or moveable bollards are introducing an additional risk and an additional point of failure.
I still stand by the cats-eye suggestion, it would be simple and effective and wouldn't cost too much. It also doesn't bring any of the down sides and additional risk factors that some of the more elaborate suggestions do.

 

[Meerkat]

The more I look at it on Streetview the more I think this is really location specific.
The first warning sign for a LC actually has a ‘white on blue arrow’ sign above it showing you must make a right angle left turn. If you were hoping to turn right panic is starting.
Then just before you get to the crossing there is a big arrow painted on the road telling you to turn left.
Because of a slight left bend you can’t see the anti-trespass strip until pretty late let alone ballast and other obvious railway infrastructure.
If it’s dark, and there are other factors such as inexperience, distraction, unfamiliarity with the location, etc it looks a lot like a dual carriageway, with the road you see in the distance being a left to right carriageway you aren’t allowed to join, and the railway being a right to left carriageway everything is telling you to turn left down.
And I struggle to believe any long term driver that says they have never got confused at an unfamiliar crossroads with multiple lanes and islands and nearly turned too early and ended up on the wrong side of the road.
This particular level crossing/junction combo is just dangerous and needs some road engineers and human factors experts to have a good look at it.
Red cats eyes seem the most obvious and simplest physical improvement that doesn’t involve sorting out the mess of signs and road markings.