Is this level crossing unique?

[dk1]

Lakenheath was equipped with flashing warning lights to support the manual crossing gates until converted to MCBOD during resignalling in 2012.

 

[Tomnick]

Uffington is an excellent example of a crossing that could do with these.

To close the gates, the signalman first has to cross the road, noting that there's very poor visibility of approaching traffic (and vice versa) from one direction in particular. Once at the gates, before being able to swing the first one across the road, there's the possibility of impatient motorists squeezing past, and it really is a squeeze (against the gate!) if cars try to cross in opposite directions simultaneously (which they do).

Once the train's passed, the signalman goes back out to open the gates, and the natural action after securing them open is to step back away from them. The obvious danger there is that traffic, now often queuing in both directions of course, tries to squeeze past just as you step back. There are (or were) signs, added a few years ago and pretty much in the face of the first driver stopped at each gate, asking motorists to wait for the signalman to cross back to the box before moving, but many were either oblivious or deliberately ignorant.

I found that the regular locals there were generally brilliant and waited patiently - it was the other users (e.g. visitors to Burghley House or folk using it as a rat-run to avoid Stamford or the A1) who were the problem. Words don't describe the convoy of large agricultural machinery, five or six in total (which barely fitted over the crossing) in the very early hours of the morning, that squeezed me up against the gates after I'd opened them.

 

[geoffk]

Network Rail.


Llanidloes Rd Crossing, between Moat Jane and Caersws had wigwags long before it became controlled by Machynlleth SCC, and for similar reasons.

Should the local authority not get the bill, or at least half of it, seeing that it's road users who cause the problems? Another example of the railways being loaded with costs for things which are not their fault.

 

[High Dyke]

Uffington is an excellent example of a crossing that could do with these.

We're working on additional measures for Uffington. Wickenby is another location where the gates are across the road from the signal box, but the sighting up and down the highway both sides is better. There seems to be less traffic too.

 

[paul1609]

I believe the signs on the posts were to do with the wiring and have since been removed. If you zoom in you will see the one on the left has YN on and the one on the right has YO.


Unfortunately it is a common occurrence. I went over on the way home last week and the aldi that was first in line going the other way was itching to go. Fortunately the lights went of quite quickly so I was ok when I went over and about 5th in line.

I cant imagine that a supermarket has that fast acceleration anyway.

 

[ex-probationer]

Grain Manned Gates, Kent has had flashing roadlights for many years. This photo was taken by me in 2007.

 

[pint]

Couldnt they automate the gates? whats the advantage of having someone there sole whos sole job appears to be to open and close a gate?

 

[dk1]

Couldnt they automate the gates? whats the advantage of having someone there sole whos sole job appears to be to open and close a gate?

Automating or resignalling tends to run into £millions.

 

[David Goddard]

Looks like a positive move, hopefully making the crossing safer for all. Surprised they have not fitted warbler alarms as well, to come in at the same time. Do people think they would help further?

 

[MarkyT]

Looks like a positive move, hopefully making the crossing safer for all. Surprised they have not fitted warbler alarms as well, to come in at the same time. Do people think they would help further?

I suppose a visually impaired pedestrian represents a lower risk than vehicles to the crossing operator, who can also have a word with such a user.

 

[bramling]

I believe the signs on the posts were to do with the wiring and have since been removed. If you zoom in you will see the one on the left has YN on and the one on the right has YO.


Unfortunately it is a common occurrence. I went over on the way home last week and the audi that was first in line going the other way was itching to go. Fortunately the lights went of quite quickly so I was ok when I went over and about 5th in line.

That is a bit of a design flaw if there’s a delay between the lights going off and the gates being opened. Can see that causing issues. It’s kind of bad practice to engineer a situation where motorists are routinely driving through red wig wags, even if they should know better.

It’s like in Wales I’ve noticed they set the variable speed limits on motorways (around Newport) to as low as 20 mph during overnight roadworks. That is absolutely ridiculous as it is extremely dangerous to be compelled (by the presence of cameras) to reduce to such a low speed on an empty motorway, both from the fact that it will guarantee tailgating, and worse if someone behind isn’t paying attention.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2020 ==

Uffington is an excellent example of a crossing that could do with these.

To close the gates, the signalman first has to cross the road, noting that there's very poor visibility of approaching traffic (and vice versa) from one direction in particular. Once at the gates, before being able to swing the first one across the road, there's the possibility of impatient motorists squeezing past, and it really is a squeeze (against the gate!) if cars try to cross in opposite directions simultaneously (which they do).

Once the train's passed, the signalman goes back out to open the gates, and the natural action after securing them open is to step back away from them. The obvious danger there is that traffic, now often queuing in both directions of course, tries to squeeze past just as you step back. There are (or were) signs, added a few years ago and pretty much in the face of the first driver stopped at each gate, asking motorists to wait for the signalman to cross back to the box before moving, but many were either oblivious or deliberately ignorant.

I found that the regular locals there were generally brilliant and waited patiently - it was the other users (e.g. visitors to Burghley House or folk using it as a rat-run to avoid Stamford or the A1) who were the problem. Words don't describe the convoy of large agricultural machinery, five or six in total (which barely fitted over the crossing) in the very early hours of the morning, that squeezed me up against the gates after I'd opened them.

It’s astonishing (and disgusting) just how thoughtless some people are.

 

[Efini92]

Talking of unique crossings,is Rosarie Crossing in Scotland still an AOCR crossing?

Who remotely monitors the crossing?

 

[MichaelAMW]

Couldnt they automate the gates? whats the advantage of having someone there sole whos sole job appears to be to open and close a gate?

As well as the point dk1 makes about cost, the other problem is that automatic half-barrier crossings are no longer allowed in new works. Too many motorists have abused them and now it is a requirement that a positive form of "crossing clear" must be used. This basically means MCB-OD or MCB-CCTV. This poses a problem with crossings in absolute block sections, which I suspect many of the crossing mentioned in this discussion are, because the crossing is protected in one direction by one box and in the other direction by another box, and you can’t protect either MCB-OD or MCB-CCTV like that: one box must control the signals on both sides of the crossing. There also needs to be continuous train detection throughout the area of the crossing, which obviously does not exist, by definition, on an AB line. So, basically, these crossings are now difficult to deal with and are only likely to be automated as part of a full resignalling of the line to TCB.

(Credit to a pal who is a professional in this area and who boosted my knowledge of this issue with manned crossings.)

 

[MarkyT]

That is a bit of a design flaw if there’s a delay between the lights going off and the gates being opened. Can see that causing issues. It’s kind of bad practice to engineer a situation where motorists are routinely driving through red wig wags, even if they should know better.

I would have thought a better procedure would be to switch the lights off once the gates are closed. When opening up again later the traffic should already be stationary and the risk lower.

Who remotely monitors the crossing?

Keith Junction SB

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2020 ==

As well as the point dk1 makes about cost, the other problem is that automatic half-barrier crossings are no longer allowed in new works. Too many motorists have abused them and now it is a requirement that a positive form of "crossing clear" must be used. This basically means MCB-OD or MCB-CCTV. This poses a problem with crossings in absolute block sections, which I suspect many of the crossing mentioned in this discussion are, because the crossing is protected in one direction by one box and in the other direction by another box, and you can’t protect either MCB-OD or MCB-CCTV like that: one box must control the signals on both sides of the crossing. There also needs to be continuous train detection throughout the area of the crossing, which obviously does not exist, by definition, on an AB line. So, basically, these crossings are now difficult to deal with and are only likely to be automated as part of a full resignalling of the line to TCB.

(Credit to a pal who is a professional in this area and who boosted my knowledge of this issue with manned crossings.)

There need to be interlocked signals fairly near an MCB crossing as it must be confirmed closed to road traffic before the signal can be cleared. A former AHB in the middle of a 10 mile absolute block or token section would have an excruciatingly long road closure time unless additional stop signals were provided in the vicinity! The new signals need not be block signals for the purpose of following trains however and can be assigned to either one of the adjacent signal boxes, although usually it will be the one that used to monitor the crossing when it was an AHBC (failure indication and phones). An alternative option for modernisation is the new AFBCL type (Automatic Full Barrier Crossing, Locally Monitored). Like MCB-OD, the crossing area is equipped with obstacle detection technology that scans the crossing area at various stages during the closure sequence, but no local protecting signals are required. Like ABCL crossings, these are provided with crossing illumination (for night visibility) and a drivers' flashing red and white light indicator in each direction on final approach for local monitoring by the train crew. Also like ABCL however, the speed approaching a AFBCL crossing is limited according to sighting distance, so an approaching train has space to stop before the road if the crossing is visibly blocked or the flashing indicator hasn't changed from red to white. If the equipment is working correctly and the OD sensors have confirmed clearance of the road surface between the barriers then the indicator should be showing flashing white before the train reaches the crossing speed board. Even in the case of excellent sighting on a straight railway, the approach speed for all kinds of crossings locally monitored in this way may not exceed 55mph, so they are not suitable for many fast running segments unless a reduction in speed is acceptable.

 

[edwin_m]

That is a bit of a design flaw if there’s a delay between the lights going off and the gates being opened. Can see that causing issues. It’s kind of bad practice to engineer a situation where motorists are routinely driving through red wig wags, even if they should know better.

It’s like in Wales I’ve noticed they set the variable speed limits on motorways (around Newport) to as low as 20 mph during overnight roadworks. That is absolutely ridiculous as it is extremely dangerous to be compelled (by the presence of cameras) to reduce to such a low speed on an empty motorway, both from the fact that it will guarantee tailgating, and worse if someone behind isn’t paying attention.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2020 ==



It’s astonishing (and disgusting) just how thoughtless some people are.

I would have thought a better procedure would be to switch the lights off once the gates are closed. When opening up again later the traffic should already be stationary and the risk lower.

I think the point here is that the wig-wags are to protect the crossing keeper not the train. So they need to be lit before the keeper starts walking in the road to open the gates, until after they have finished closing them. Obviously not a perfect solution, and any motorist starting against the lights is committing an offence, but if there were no cars present until one approached while the keeper was just crossing the road back to the cabin then at least it would be slowed or stopped by the lights instead of approaching at full speed.

So, basically, these crossings are now difficult to deal with and are only likely to be automated as part of a full resignalling of the line to TCB.

Derby-Stoke was supposed to be due for re-signaling - not sure whether it's still happening.

 

[Tomnick]

As well as the point dk1 makes about cost, the other problem is that automatic half-barrier crossings are no longer allowed in new works. Too many motorists have abused them and now it is a requirement that a positive form of "crossing clear" must be used. This basically means MCB-OD or MCB-CCTV. This poses a problem with crossings in absolute block sections, which I suspect many of the crossing mentioned in this discussion are, because the crossing is protected in one direction by one box and in the other direction by another box, and you can’t protect either MCB-OD or MCB-CCTV like that: one box must control the signals on both sides of the crossing. There also needs to be continuous train detection throughout the area of the crossing, which obviously does not exist, by definition, on an AB line. So, basically, these crossings are now difficult to deal with and are only likely to be automated as part of a full resignalling of the line to TCB.

(Credit to a pal who is a professional in this area and who boosted my knowledge of this issue with manned crossings.)

There’s quite a few examples of full barrier crossings that would be partway through absolute block sections (but for the fact that their protecting signals effectively become the home signal in one direction and the section signal in the other - I can’t think of any with non-block signals). Luffenham is the one example - about four miles from the controlling box (Manton) and continuously track circuited between the two, with very long station limits and effectively the benefits of an IB section on the Up (not so on the Down, purely because trains can’t be tail lamped until they pass the box). It’s perhaps not the best example because it came about as the result of the abolition of Luffenham box rather than AHB-CCTV conversion. Another, more recent, one is Rauceby, the half barriers on the main road having been converted to full barriers, effectively with extended station limits in a similar manner although it’s all a lot closer together there.

 

[Ianno87]

There’s quite a few examples of full barrier crossings that would be partway through absolute block sections (but for the fact that their protecting signals effectively become the home signal in one direction and the section signal in the other - I can’t think of any with non-block signals). Luffenham is the one example - about four miles from the controlling box (Manton) and continuously track circuited between the two, with very long station limits and effectively the benefits of an IB section on the Up (not so on the Down, purely because trains can’t be tail lamped until they pass the box). It’s perhaps not the best example because it came about as the result of the abolition of Luffenham box rather than AHB-CCTV conversion. Another, more recent, one is Rauceby, the half barriers on the main road having been converted to full barriers, effectively with extended station limits in a similar manner although it’s all a lot closer together there.

Isn't Norbury Hollow between Hazel Grove and Middlewood an example of non-block signals protecting a level crossing; the Block section itself runs from Hazel Grove to Furness Vale?

 

[Efini92]

Isn't Norbury Hollow between Hazel Grove and Middlewood an example of non-block signals protecting a level crossing; the Block section itself runs from Hazel Grove to Furness Vale?

Yes. Chapel lane on the Southport line is the same.

 

[High Dyke]

I think the point here is that the wig-wags are to protect the crossing keeper not the train. So they need to be lit before the keeper starts walking in the road to open the gates, until after they have finished closing them. Obviously not a perfect solution, and any motorist starting against the lights is committing an offence, but if there were no cars present until one approached while the keeper was just crossing the road back to the cabin then at least it would be slowed or stopped by the lights instead of approaching at full speed.

Derby-Stoke was supposed to be due for re-signalling - not sure whether it's still happening.

Absolutely. This is also a suggestion for other locations, including Uffington. If a project, to install wig-wags, comes in less than a re-control of the crossing, but still proves its merits then it's a big tick in the Network Rail safety box. However, it shouldn't be just about box ticking. The important part is protecting the signaller/crossing keeper.

No further update on the Derby - Stoke re-signalling at the current time; though staff were redeployed to that line after the East Nottingham scheme was completed.

Regarding non-block posts. I know Norwood, on the Mansfield - Worksop line was one, the signals being put to on when a motorist wished to cross. I think it's still operates that way, but the lever frame has been replaced.

As I mentioned earlier, there are many different crossings, which on an individual basis may be considered unique, but overall are a variation on a similar theme. For example my first crossing keepers job was at a crossing where the gates opened outwards, like a user worked crossing (UWC), no protecting signals and plenty of potential for an incident. In later years the crossing was changed so the gates closed across the railway, but again there was still potential for an incident.

 

[MarkyT]

I think the point here is that the wig-wags are to protect the crossing keeper not the train. So they need to be lit before the keeper starts walking in the road to open the gates, until after they have finished closing them. Obviously not a perfect solution, and any motorist starting against the lights is committing an offence, but if there were no cars present until one approached while the keeper was just crossing the road back to the cabin then at least it would be slowed or stopped by the lights instead of approaching at full speed.

Perhaps a sign then: "Vehicles must not move until red lights extinguished", backed up by enforcement cameras.

 

[Tomnick]

Isn't Norbury Hollow between Hazel Grove and Middlewood an example of non-block signals protecting a level crossing; the Block section itself runs from Hazel Grove to Furness Vale?

Yes, there’s a few like that - Norwood, as @High Dyke suggests, is another and does indeed still work like that (motor worked semaphores in the Down direction, normally off, worked off a panel). It’s a bit different, though, to a CCTV crossing being worked remotely from the box at one end of the section, and that’s what I can’t think of an example of (without block signals at least).

 

[Efini92]

Four lane ends is an OD level crossing located in the block section between parbold and burscough bridge signal boxes.

Clayton bridge level crossing used to be a cctv Lc in the block section between Baguley fold and Ashton moss north.

 

[43055]

Derby-Stoke was supposed to be due for re-signaling - not sure whether it's still happening.

No further update on the Derby - Stoke re-signalling at the current time; though staff were redeployed to that line after the East Nottingham scheme was completed.

I think something is happening on the north staffs as Tutbury crossing was recently upgraded and now the footbridge not far from Tutbury & Hatton station has been replaced. I don't think anything has changed signaling wise.

 

[jopsuk]

wig wags (unlike traffic lights) are not permitted to be passed by emergency service vehicles- but I'm guessing that in practice at such a site the keeper would stop closing the gates and wave them through?

(if you want a "how has that survived?" example, but without wigwags, Elsenham is fascinating. Busy, fast, electric railway yet still a fully manual crossing)

 

[MarkyT]

wig wags (unlike traffic lights) are not permitted to be passed by emergency service vehicles- but I'm guessing that in practice at such a site the keeper would stop closing the gates and wave them through?

I've seen that at an MCB operated by local signaller.

 

[Llanigraham]

There’s quite a few examples of full barrier crossings that would be partway through absolute block sections (but for the fact that their protecting signals effectively become the home signal in one direction and the section signal in the other - I can’t think of any with non-block signals). Luffenham is the one example - about four miles from the controlling box (Manton) and continuously track circuited between the two, with very long station limits and effectively the benefits of an IB section on the Up (not so on the Down, purely because trains can’t be tail lamped until they pass the box). It’s perhaps not the best example because it came about as the result of the abolition of Luffenham box rather than AHB-CCTV conversion. Another, more recent, one is Rauceby, the half barriers on the main road having been converted to full barriers, effectively with extended station limits in a similar manner although it’s all a lot closer together there.

Thinking along those lines, Leominster has one AHB between it and Woofferton, and then there is another one between there and Bromfield.

 

[Llanigraham]

Perhaps a sign then: "Vehicles must not move until red lights extinguished", backed up by enforcement cameras.

Considering that drivers already ignore the flashing red lights, do you honestly think that a sign like that is going to make any difference?

 

[Tomnick]

Four lane ends is an OD level crossing located in the block section between parbold and burscough bridge signal boxes.

An interesting one, thanks. Although it's continuously track circuited between the crossing and its supervising box, it does appear as though the protecting signals (and also the signal protecting Dean Lane AHB) are 'non block' signals, provided with auto buttons which must be unusual on an AB line!

Clayton bridge level crossing used to be a cctv Lc in the block section between Baguley fold and Ashton moss north.

A more conventional arrangement, with the protecting signal on the Down also acting as the section signal?

 

[alangla]

Isn't Norbury Hollow between Hazel Grove and Middlewood an example of non-block signals protecting a level crossing; the Block section itself runs from Hazel Grove to Furness Vale?

Was it not the case in pre-ETCS days that the crossing at the Porthmadog end of Criccieth was a keeper worked effort with semaphores operated from a ground frame in an RETB section, while the (probably busier) crossing near the station was an AHB?
Also, on the topic of manual crossings on busy electrified lines, are there still a load of minor roads crossing the ECML at keeper operated crossings, maybe in the Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire area?

 

[High Dyke]

Also, on the topic of manual crossings on busy electrified lines, are there still a load of minor roads crossing the ECML at keeper operated crossings, maybe in the Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire area?

Woodcroft has a crossing keeper, supervised from Helpston gatebox. All normal level crossings are CCTV crossings south of that location. Helpston oversees a number of CCTV crossings in its own right. The next manned crossing is Claypole gatebox which, like Helpston, oversees a number of CCTV crossings. Grassthorpe crossing is still a manned crossing supervised by Carlton-on-Trent gatebox. Ranskill gatebox oversees a number of CCTV, though its own crossing is not on CCTV. It also grants permission for a User Worked Crossing on the ECML.