FGW - Line blocked between Castle Cary & Taunton

[KA4C]

No, but the end result was nearly the same! Similarly, they're very occasionally left on local control when normal working has otherwise been resumed. I don't know whether equipment failure has ever resulted in an AHB failing to operate for a train - unlikely (TC failing to drop and both treadles not working), but possible I suppose.

Yeah, but what I said was that in my service, I have never come across or heard of an event of AHB barriers failing in the up
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It simply shouldn't be the done thing for enthusiasts or staff to rule out a possible factor in an accident because they don't like to hear about it or because it puts their colleagues/friends/hobby at risk of blame, even if the factor is incredibly remote. Likewise - absolutely equally - nobody should try to absolve the car driver of blame from a road safety or personal point of view.

True, but eye witnesses testimony at the moment (other car drivers and the train driver +manager in the cab with him) seems to indicate that Atheleny barriers were down and the car zig-zaged them. I believe that the B & H was re-opened to normal operation yesterday, no restrictions over Athelney AHB, but I'll find out for sure later this morning

 

[pjnathanail]

Silly question, but why can't AHBs have full barriers? I'm sure there's a reason I just don't know what it is!

 

[jopsuk]

to provide an escape route. As there's absolutely nothing monitoring them, if someone was (oddly) loitering on the track when the barriers started to come down, they would have jump the barriers/drive through them.

There is a newer, more expensive automatic crossing type that does have full barriers. These use complex object detection systems.

 

[Tomnick]

Yeah, but what I said was that in my service, I have never come across or heard of an event of AHB barriers failing in the up

Indeed, I can't (and wasn't) disagreeing with your experience or the implication that it's rare (or unheard of) for AHBs to fail with the barriers up; I just wanted to suggest that the same effect (a train passing over the crossing at speed with the barriers raised) can be, and has been, achieved by other means!

Silly question, but why can't AHBs have full barriers? I'm sure there's a reason I just don't know what it is!

There needs to be an escape route for any vehicles that would otherwise find themselves 'trapped' on the crossing, as AHBs aren't protected by signals in normal operation (whereas full-barrier crossings need to be proved clear - either by direct or CCTV observation, or using obstacle detectors - before the protecting signals can be cleared to allow a train to approach).

 

[class57basher]

Damage to 43138 can be seen here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peteryoungrailwayphotos/sets/72157633059570342/with/8579742674/

Was at Newton Abbot as the ECS happened to pass back to Laira.

 

[Kali]

Interesting point,

I have been to Australia (Melbourne, best friend emigrated) so i was on the outskirts of the city and one thing that stuck out at me was the level crossings and timings.

There are half barriers on main roads, the bells go, barriers down and you can see the train in the distance. The time is immensely alot shorter for traffic to be stood and i would estimate the trains passing at 50-60 mph.

Oz seem to be alot more relaxed on life and not as impatience as us british.

When I was in Adelaide for three months there were a spate of deaths on LCs, I don't think they're any better or worse than anywhere else. The trains are slower, which like the US must be quite some temptation to try and rush in front of, and also like the US there's no real boundary to rail property so there's less of a mental barrier too.

I wonder if there could be a simple one-way hinged extension to AHB barriers, so there is a complete barrier across the road but you can still push it out of the way non-destructively if you've stalled on the crossing or whatever. I guess it's so blatantly obvious that someone's studied it in the past & declined already...

 

[Zoidberg]

...

I wonder if there could be a simple one-way hinged extension to AHB barriers, so there is a complete barrier across the road but you can still push it out of the way non-destructively if you've stalled on the crossing or whatever. I guess it's so blatantly obvious that someone's studied it in the past & declined already...

Such an enhancement would need to be implemented in such a way that it's use would not cause it to wallop against vehicles waiting in the queue at the closed part of the barrier. That'd need a degree of rigidity which would, I think, be difficult to implement given the flexibility I've seen in the barriers.

 

[341o2]

to provide an escape route. As there's absolutely nothing monitoring them, if someone was (oddly) loitering on the track when the barriers started to come down, they would have jump the barriers/drive through them.

There is a newer, more expensive automatic crossing type that does have full barriers. These use complex object detection systems.

can someone confirm that Brockenhurst has full barriers because the crossing is monitored. Also has there been incidents of drivers trying to get through after the red warning lights start to flash as I note recently considerable police presence and what looks like a security camera mounted by the gates has recently appeared.

will the driver receive a Darwin Award, one of my favourites comes from the US, wqhere a driver decided to zig zag through lowered barriers - only to collide head on with another driver who decided to do the same thing. the occupants of one car were killed the other survived to receive an honorable mention, the crash was clear of the tracks, so the train was not impeded

 

[High Dyke]

can someone confirm that Brockenhurst has full barriers because the crossing is monitored. Also has there been incidents of drivers trying to get through after the red warning lights start to flash as I note recently considerable police presence and what looks like a security camera mounted by the gates has recently appeared.

Brockenhurst is a full barrier crossing. It could be that the camera is a traffic monitoring device. I've seen them at other level crossings around the country.

 

[Crossover]

Damage to 43138 can be seen here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peteryoungrailwayphotos/sets/72157633059570342/with/8579742674/

Was at Newton Abbot as the ECS happened to pass back to Laira.

As you've stated, given the impact, the leading power car (don't mention HST and loco in the same sentence ) has taken it relatively well on the face of it. I guess the location of impact on the power car was its strongest point whereas a lot above it is probably less substantial

 

[jopsuk]

Blimey, that's surprisingly limited damage. I'd have though the bogie would have been worse off- I'm actually surprised that it was able to be moved so easily.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Blimey, that's surprisingly limited damage. I'd have though the bogie would have been worse off- I'm actually surprised that it was able to be moved so easily.

Indeed. Good thing it was only a tinfoil Peugeot 106 rather than the Land Rovers generally favoured in that part of the country- Could've been far worse...

 

[455driver]

It was a 306 and there is nothing wrong with 106s!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It was a 306 and there is nothing wrong with 106s!

Ah, I believe it was erroneously reported as being a 106 at some point- and indeed there's nothing wrong with 106s- I used to have one myself. But whatever car you drive, don't bother trying to argue with a 100mph HST!

 

[asylumxl]

It was a 306 and there is nothing wrong with 106s!

Apart from their country of origin

 

[Ironside]

Assuming that it was the car drivers error who pays for the damage, it would be good if the car insurer had to pay for the damage to the train and track, with an extra fines for drivers to go towards level crossing replacement (bridge/tunnel).

 

[Zoidberg]

Assuming that it was the car drivers error who pays for the damage, it would be good if the car insurer had to pay for the damage to the train and track, ...

That seems reasonable.

... with an extra fines for drivers to go towards level crossing replacement (bridge/tunnel).

I really don't understand the logic (if there is any) in that statement.

EDIT: I took your statement to mean extra fines for drivers for all transgressions. Did you mean more appropriately sized fines for those who survive flouting crossing regulations and are found guilty of having committed an offence? I agree with the latter - that fines should be appropriate to the offence, but not so much that fines should contribute to a fund to replace crossings.

 

[Ironside]

That seems reasonable.


EDIT: I took your statement to mean extra fines for drivers for all transgressions. Did you mean more appropriately sized fines for those who survive flouting crossing regulations and are found guilty of having committed an offence? I agree with the latter - that fines should be appropriate to the offence, but not so much that fines should contribute to a fund to replace crossings.

The latter, and thank you for expressing what I meant.

 

[starrymarkb]

Assuming that it was the car drivers error who pays for the damage, it would be good if the car insurer had to pay for the damage to the train and track, with an extra fines for drivers to go towards level crossing replacement (bridge/tunnel).

I'm pretty sure FGW's insurers will be in contact with the deceased insurers. Though they may say that as their customer was not obeying the rules of the road then his insurance was invalid leaving FGW chasing the estate of the deceased

 

[Zoidberg]

I'm pretty sure FGW's insurers will be in contact with the deceased insurers. Though they may say that as their customer was not obeying the rules of the road then his insurance was invalid leaving FGW chasing the estate of the deceased

But is that not what the "third party" liability aspect of motor insurance is for? If a driver veered off a road and demolished a fence the insurer pays for the third party's loss - whether he skidded on ice while driving carefully or was whizzing along in excess of the speed limit.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd be interested to know how widespread level crossing abuse/compliance is in other countries- Is this complacence and impatience a 'British' problem? I get the impression that in the US, the "I'm not waiting!" attitude is even more widespread (though I don't have any statistics to back this up!).

The stats are out there, although can't lay my hands on them right now. Needless to say we have just about the best level crossing safety record in the world.

One comparison I can find easily - in France (according to RFF) there were 38 deaths caused by collisions and 1,200 accidents at Level Crossings in 2007. In 2011 on the NR network there were 4 fatalities (the NR number definitely excludes suicides, and I am 98% sure the RFF number does also).

France does have more than twice the number of LXs we do, although about 25% fewer trains, and a good 25%(approx) of the train mileage they do run is on high speed lines, with no LX of course.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm pretty sure FGW's insurers will be in contact with the deceased insurers.

FGW will be claiming from NR.

NR will already have been in touch with the insurers of the deceased, assuming he was insured. And those insurers will now be privately doing 5p / 50p with their backside.

 

[455driver]

Apart from their country of origin

Good point, well made!

 

[341o2]

Brockenhurst is a full barrier crossing. It could be that the camera is a traffic monitoring device. I've seen them at other level crossings around the country.

I asked the question is the crossiing at Brockenhurst monitored & how. It needs to be as recently an elderly driver taking her grandson to the station asked "what do I do?" "Turn left" So she did "Road rather bumpy" Delays to trains while the car was removed from the tracks. always thought the old style gates which swung 90 degrees & blocked the tracks when open to road traffic far safer

I don't think the outcome would be much different if a Land rover was involved trains are pretty substantial

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think the outcome would be much different if a Land rover was involved trains are pretty substantial

They are, but look at what happened at Great Heck. Admittedly other factors came into play there as they did at Ufton Nervet though.

 

[Zoidberg]

I asked the question is the crossiing at Brockenhurst monitored & how. It needs to be as recently an elderly driver taking her grandson to the station asked "what do I do?" "Turn left" So she did "Road rather bumpy" Delays to trains while the car was removed from the tracks. always thought the old style gates which swung 90 degrees & blocked the tracks when open to road traffic far safer

...

I remember that - but not so recent. In January 2012 I think

EDIT. I think this is to what you are refering http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...evel-crossing-drive-50-yards-TRAIN-TRACK.html

Extract:

An 85-year-old woman was lucky to escape with her life after taking a wrong turn and driving 50 yards along a busy railway line.

The pensioner is thought to have been driving her 20-year-old grandson to the station when she became confused at a level crossing.

Instead of driving her silver Renault Clio straight over the lines on the A337 through Brockenhurst, New Forest, Hants, she turned onto the tracks.

 

[matchmaker]

It was a 306 and there is nothing wrong with 106s!

Apart from having the crash resistance of a Walkers packet

 

[richw]

Apart from having the crash resistance of a Walkers packet

my old one crashed ok at 60mph. I survived, the car wasnt too bad to be honest!

 

[yorksrob]

That seems reasonable.



I really don't understand the logic (if there is any) in that statement.

EDIT: I took your statement to mean extra fines for drivers for all transgressions. Did you mean more appropriately sized fines for those who survive flouting crossing regulations and are found guilty of having committed an offence? I agree with the latter - that fines should be appropriate to the offence, but not so much that fines should contribute to a fund to replace crossings.

Why shouldn't the cost of replacing level crossings come from road fines, or even the road budget in general? I' ve never understood the logic of this cost coming from the railway budget when in the vast majority of cases level crossings are rendered 'dangerous' by the actions of motorists.

 

[Zoidberg]

Why shouldn't the cost of replacing level crossings come from road fines, or even the road budget in general? I' ve never understood the logic of this cost coming from the railway budget when in the vast majority of cases level crossings are rendered 'dangerous' by the actions of motorists.

... as a generalisation, because the roads were there first and the railway cut a swathe through the countryside across the roads and not under or over them, perhaps.

 

[tsr]

my old one crashed ok at 60mph. I survived, the car wasnt too bad to be honest!

106s are surprisingly safe, but like the vast majority of cars, they probably won't survive a major impact with a train, of course!