Level Crossing down times

[harri2626]

I wonder if anyone can offer any guidance as to an acceptable (or minimum) down time at level crossings. I have read similar threads talking about trains per hour, but that is almost irrelevant if the down time between gates closing and opening is excessive.

My local crossing (Kildwick - midway between Steeton & Silsden and Cononley on the Aire Valley line) is notoriously bad for delays to traffic on the busy A6068 (Bradford/Keighley to Colne/Burnley).

I have just timed two closures from flashing amber to gates opening, totally at random. The first took 5mins 27secs for a Leeds-bound 333 to pass. The second closure was timed at 5mins 20sec for a Leeds-bound 333 to pass, followed by a further 3mins 53secs for a Skipton-bound 333 to pass before the gates reopened. This is by no means unusual.

Am I right in thinking that these gates are activated when trains approach (and mostly stop) at Cononley and Steeton and Silsden? This stretch is, I think, 90mph but how much distance is needed to stop at such a speed?

I am strongly pro-rail, but I find it difficult to defend rail's position to the local car-fraternity when they have to wait such lengths of time.

 

[Tomnick]

         1         3             5
####    -o        -o  ||        -o  #### ||
--------------------------------------------------
                      ||                 ||
--------------------------------------------------
####    o-            ||  o-        #### ||  o-
        2                 4                  6
Steeton            Kildwick        Cononley
& Silsden             LC

The above is a simplified representation of the signalling around Kildwick LC according to signalling diagrams that I have in my possession (and I don't think anything has changed in this area since they were drawn). I've not quoted the actual signal numbers!

If this is correct, there are two (three-aspect) signals between Steeton & Silsden and Kildwick LC in the Down direction - 1 and 3 on the above diagram. This means that the first adverse aspect that a Driver will encounter is a fair way in advance of Steeton & Silsden station, so there's no need (in terms of avoiding delay) to clear the signals until the train's on the move from the latter.

In the Up direction, Cononley station sits between the protecting signal for Kildwick LC (4) and the signal in rear of that one (6) - so unless the barriers are down and the signals cleared before a train arrives at Cononley station, the Driver will receive a single yellow at 6 and therefore need to approach Kildwick's protecting signal (4) expecting to find it at Danger. The long delay is a little more understandable in that direction, but I can't help but agree that the whole situation is far from ideal.

The operation of the crossing is supervised by the Signalman, who needs to check that it is clear before allowing the protecting signal to be cleared. Sometimes an auto-lower facility is provided to start the lowering sequence when the train occupies a certain track circuit, otherwise it's left to the Signalman - I don't know what the case is here.

 

[John Webb]

For cars and other light vehicles (weight restriction on the bridge over the railway line) there is the route via the B6172 Station Road as a nearby alternative to the A6068 level crossing. When on holiday in the area I always aim for that rather than the level crossing.

 

[ole man]

The timings also change depending on line speed and type of crossing i have over 200 pages of technical drawings on this.
You give me type of crossing and i'll give you the timings.

 

[jopsuk]

I've timed Granham's Road crossing, Shelford, on the Cambridge-Liverpool Street line, at over five minutes before a train appears several times. Most galling is sitting there and seeing a train from Cambridge to Kings Cross take the branch junction just north of the crossing- whilst a train is doing that, no train could possibly be going through the crossing.

 

[harri2626]

         1         3             5
####    -o        -o  ||        -o  #### ||
--------------------------------------------------
                      ||                 ||
--------------------------------------------------
####    o-            ||  o-        #### ||  o-
        2                 4                  6
Steeton            Kildwick        Cononley
& Silsden             LC

The above is a simplified representation of the signalling around Kildwick LC according to signalling diagrams that I have in my possession (and I don't think anything has changed in this area since they were drawn). I've not quoted the actual signal numbers!

If this is correct, there are two (three-aspect) signals between Steeton & Silsden and Kildwick LC in the Down direction - 1 and 3 on the above diagram. This means that the first adverse aspect that a Driver will encounter is a fair way in advance of Steeton & Silsden station, so there's no need (in terms of avoiding delay) to clear the signals until the train's on the move from the latter.

In the Up direction, Cononley station sits between the protecting signal for Kildwick LC (4) and the signal in rear of that one (6) - so unless the barriers are down and the signals cleared before a train arrives at Cononley station, the Driver will receive a single yellow at 6 and therefore need to approach Kildwick's protecting signal (4) expecting to find it at Danger. The long delay is a little more understandable in that direction, but I can't help but agree that the whole situation is far from ideal.

The operation of the crossing is supervised by the Signalman, who needs to check that it is clear before allowing the protecting signal to be cleared. Sometimes an auto-lower facility is provided to start the lowering sequence when the train occupies a certain track circuit, otherwise it's left to the Signalman - I don't know what the case is here.

Many thanks, Tomnick for your thorough reply. I'm sure, based on your information, that auto-lower must be used most of the time and must be activated prior to the stations as the travel time between stations and gates is far less than the actual closure times. Non-stop trains (Settle/Carlisle and Morecambe) close the gates for about 3-3.5 minutes.

Because of the congestion at the Kildwick gates, there have been numerous proposals for an over-bridge but of course nobody wants to fund one.

 

[Toots]

There are many different types of level crossing.As has been stated,the automatic ones will be activated by a track circuit which will then operate an auto lower sequence,the manual type are lowered by the signalman when the train activates an annunciator which sounds a buzzer in the signalbox.All trains will activate the annunciator at the same place but the time they actually arrive at the crossing and the time the barriers will remain lowered will depend on the type of train and the speed limit for that particular type of train.
If two trains activate the annunciators on opposite lines at different times it may be as well to leave the barriers down to let both pass rather than raise the barriers briefly and risk a build up of traffic on the crossing and thus preventing the second lowering just afterwards...

 

[GB]

I've timed Granham's Road crossing, Shelford, on the Cambridge-Liverpool Street line, at over five minutes before a train appears several times. Most galling is sitting there and seeing a train from Cambridge to Kings Cross take the branch junction just north of the crossing- whilst a train is doing that, no train could possibly be going through the crossing.

But is there a train between the annunciator and protecting signal on the opposite line though?

 

[Railsigns]

I have just timed two closures from flashing amber to gates opening, totally at random.

Nit-pick: The amber light is steady. It's only the red lights that flash.

 

[thelem]

I've noticed that crossings next to stations will be closed before a train arrives at a station even if it is going to call at the station before using the crossing. Is that really necessary?

 

[michael769]

I've noticed that crossings next to stations will be closed before a train arrives at a station even if it is going to call at the station before using the crossing. Is that really necessary?

No. At some stations there is a plunger, and the driver has to get out and press the plunger to operate the crossing which means the crossing sequence only starts when the train is ready to be dispatched.

 

[PrestonPark]

As a bus driver I have been held 16 minutes at Portslade Station for 4 trains to go through and 13 minutes at Shoreham Station for 3 trains to go through. It is quite frustrarting when some of that time is waiting for trains to enter and stop at the station before they even go through the crossing.

 

[GB]

I've noticed that crossings next to stations will be closed before a train arrives at a station even if it is going to call at the station before using the crossing. Is that really necessary?

Alot of stations fall between the crossing and its protecting signal. So yes, the crossing needs to be closed in order for the signal to show proceed to then allow the train into the platform.

If there is a signal at the end of the platform, lowering the barriers sometimes gets deferred but its standard practice to have the crossing closes and signal off before the train arrives at the station to avoid delay and minimize the potential risk.

 

[John Webb]

I've noticed that crossings next to stations will be closed before a train arrives at a station even if it is going to call at the station before using the crossing. Is that really necessary?

It is needed where there is a risk of the train (ie down-hill approach or other reason) might overshoot the station; it does happen from time to time. You couldn't use a plunger on the platform either for non-stop trains, either passenger or freight. So a stopping train triggers the crossing sequence as it approaches the station and then stops before the crossing.
EDIT: GB's beaten me to it!

 

[wilsontown]

According to my Quail, Kildwick crossing is a manual controlled barrier crossing with CCTV. So the crossing is supervised by the signaller. The signaller will lower the barriers, and then will have to press a button to confirm that the crossing is clear (which he can observe by CCTV) before the signals can be cleared to allow a train over the crossing.

If there is a signal at the end of the platform, lowering the barriers sometimes gets deferred but its standard practice to have the crossing closes and signal off before the train arrives at the station to avoid delay and minimize the potential risk.

Could this be an overlap issue as well? Presumably if a crossing lies within the overlap of a platform end signal, then the signal in rear could not be cleared until the barriers are down and the crossing is clear, as otherwise the line would not be clear to the clearing point?

 

[Tomnick]

Just a couple of points (from my phone, so no quotes I'm afraid!) in response to the above.

Level crossings aren't considered an obstruction within the clearing point or overlap, so in some places you can accept a train up to the home signal with road traffic happily crossing a few yards in advance. I think the standards now require the protecting signal to be a certain distance in rear of the crossing (30m or 50m??), so resignalling will usually see that signal moved back along the platform or, as at Cononley, in rear of the platform where there's a platform immediately adjacent to the crossing.

Michael769's post seems to be referring to something connected with stopping/non-stopping controls at an AHB (Kirknewton?) where the Signalman can set the crossing to work automatically as usual (and clear the signal in rear) or suppress the operation of the crossing (and maintain that signal at Danger) until station duties have been completed.

Toots - spot on, of course. Just wanted to clarify that, by auto-lower, I wasn't referring to automatic crossings but rather CCTV crossings where the lowering sequence is started by the approach of the train (but the Signalman still needs to observe the crossing clear before the protecting signal can clear).

All interesting stuff!

 

[w0033944]

Following-on from this discussion - another video from the Youtube chap - given the issue of down times, how commonplace is the following procedure, would you say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roo1bTy8ed0&feature=channel&list=UL

 

[Tomnick]

Following-on from this discussion - another video from the Youtube chap - given the issue of down times, how commonplace is the following procedure, would you say?

I'd imagine the 'excessive' (but not particularly so!) delay before the arrival of the first train can be explained by the fact that it'd be travelling relatively slowly (having just called at Newark) at the third signal in rear of the crossing - to avoid delay, the barriers need to be down and protecting signal cleared before the train reaches this signal. It makes sense to then keep the barriers down if there's another train closely following.

The wait from the moment when the camera started filming, as I'm turning around, until the 1st train arrived was exactly 9 minutes. This is totally unacceptable and another obvious mistake by an operator which does not inspire confidence in level crossing safety. Balderton is a suburb of Newark.

Hardly an immediate safety issue if the barriers are down for too long (though I accept that, in the long term, it might encourage folk to try to beat the barriers) - even if the crossing keeper (at Claypole) had lowered the wrong barriers in error, it's a long way from making a mistake affecting the safety of the line (it's not possible to raise the barriers with a train approaching or protecting signals cleared, and during degraded working reminder appliances will be used to remove any potential for an error). It's entirely possible that the Up train in question was delayed at Newark (with the barriers already lowered), the crossing keeper mistook it for a non-stopping train or (not so acceptable!) it's the normal practice to lower the barriers for an Up train without differentiating between a stopper or a non-stopper.

 

[w0033944]

I'd imagine the 'excessive' (but not particularly so!) delay before the arrival of the first train can be explained by the fact that it'd be travelling relatively slowly (having just called at Newark) at the third signal in rear of the crossing - to avoid delay, the barriers need to be down and protecting signal cleared before the train reaches this signal. It makes sense to then keep the barriers down if there's another train closely following.


Hardly an immediate safety issue if the barriers are down for too long (though I accept that, in the long term, it might encourage folk to try to beat the barriers) - even if the crossing keeper (at Claypole) had lowered the wrong barriers in error, it's a long way from making a mistake affecting the safety of the line (it's not possible to raise the barriers with a train approaching or protecting signals cleared, and during degraded working reminder appliances will be used to remove any potential for an error). It's entirely possible that the Up train in question was delayed at Newark (with the barriers already lowered), the crossing keeper mistook it for a non-stopping train or (not so acceptable!) it's the normal practice to lower the barriers for an Up train without differentiating between a stopper or a non-stopper.

Cheers Tom (Nick?) - I was more referring to how frequent or otherwise it might be for barriers to be kept down for two consecutive trains on the same track - and not just any line, the ECML where, I'd imagine, block gaps are longer than elsewhere due to the line speed.

 

[Tomnick]

The length of the signal sections will roughly be balanced by the generally higher speeds, so that shouldn't affect anything. If you imagine a four-aspect signalled length of railway, with signals (for simplicity) one mile apart, then a 125mph train's going to cover each signal section in about half a minute. If a second train is closely following, such that it's reaching each signal as it steps from YY to G, then you've only got that half minute to get the barriers raised, let some traffic across and get them lowered again before you're causing that second train to brake unnecessarily. I reckon that situation could potentially occur quite frequently, and Balderton is just one example (albeit with the first train starting away from a station). Similarly, you could find yourself in a similar position getting a train out of a loop as soon as a fast train has passed clear, and of course a movement on the opposite line could pinch your opportunity to get the barriers up between one train and another following (nearly had the barriers down for three trains in the middle of AB land, with relatively long block sections, for just that reason!)

Tom (not Nick - well guessed!)

 

[GB]

...or (not so acceptable!) it's the normal practice to lower the barriers for an Up train without differentiating between a stopper or a non-stopper.

You know as well as I do that LOMs do not like to differentiate between fast and slow when it comes to level crossings. By the book, if you get the call for a train then you lower the barriers. If you don't and you cause train delay then you get a please explain, so if that means extended waiting times (and I know its irritating for the publc) then so be it.

In any case like you say, there could be a number of other reasons the barriers are down longer. To immediately blame human error on the part of the crossing keeper/signaller just proves a lack of understanding of how it all works.

 

[Tomnick]

Quite correct, and I was probably being a bit harsh - perhaps (at a management level!) there ought to be more attention given to avoiding unnecessary delays to road traffic, if only by encouraging consideration of stopping patterns and allowing folk to use their judgement (and accepting that the odd delay here or there is inevitable). Our box instructions would, if followed to the letter, lead to the barriers being down for seven or eight minutes for some Down trains, with longer delays at the crossing in the section to the north - for everyone's benefit, some common sense is applied with very few delays occurring as a result!

 

[w0033944]

The length of the signal sections will roughly be balanced by the generally higher speeds, so that shouldn't affect anything. If you imagine a four-aspect signalled length of railway, with signals (for simplicity) one mile apart, then a 125mph train's going to cover each signal section in about half a minute. If a second train is closely following, such that it's reaching each signal as it steps from YY to G, then you've only got that half minute to get the barriers raised, let some traffic across and get them lowered again before you're causing that second train to brake unnecessarily. I reckon that situation could potentially occur quite frequently, and Balderton is just one example (albeit with the first train starting away from a station). Similarly, you could find yourself in a similar position getting a train out of a loop as soon as a fast train has passed clear, and of course a movement on the opposite line could pinch your opportunity to get the barriers up between one train and another following (nearly had the barriers down for three trains in the middle of AB land, with relatively long block sections, for just that reason!)

Tom (not Nick - well guessed!)

Cheers Tom - I had, of course forgotten that the extra speed is catered-for by 4-aspect signalling as opposed to longer sections between signals.

 

[harri2626]

The You Tube videos are interesting, but leave me jealous of the short waiting times. Even on the ECML, with full line speed, the trains tend to pass within a minute of closure. Also, all the gate examples seem to be on country lanes or back roads, not a major inter-urban trunk route like that at Kildwick (the original location for this thread). Tomorrow I will sit and time all the Kildwick closures for one hour and report back!

 

[w0033944]

He's moaning again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BAprTY-wEY&feature=channel&list=UL
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Now this one I will fault - barriers are rising before the trailing bogie leaves the crossing, and the extra amber flash is surely a fault?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COacd6B_qjY&feature=channel&list=UL

 

[Tomnick]

With reference to the first link - yet again, critical of the Crossing Keeper (who, here, is responsible for a number of crossings) without understanding the possible reasons behind what's gone on. I managed to keep the barriers down for three or four minutes behind an Up train whilst training in my new box, as I'd inadvertently pressed a plunger on the Down, waking up the approach locking as a safety precaution (although there was no train approaching, the interlocking wasn't to know that). No harm done - I felt a bit silly, but the barriers were locked to protect both my career and the road traffic. How that's cause to be concerned about safety, I don't know.

In this case, one possible explanation (of many) is that he's turned auto-raise off for some reason (two closely following trains, for example) and forgotten to turn it back on. A bit of an inconvenience maybe, but hardly a safety issue!

 

[GB]

The bloke is an idiot and clearly has some kind of agenda or axe to grind. In none of his videos is safety of rail or road compromised.

 

[w0033944]

A bit of an inconvenience maybe, but hardly a safety issue!

My thoughts entirely, though thanks for the suggestions of what might have happened.

 

[Tomnick]

No problem, I'm quite enjoying reading through the various captions! The situation at Cross Lane AHB does look interesting - the timing of the barriers raising is, I'm sure, by design (unless the rear bogie of the unit is failing to operate the track circuit!); not so sure about the extra amber light at the end.

Some more uneducated comments from some local crossings. Firstly Langham:

Note the semaphore signal gantry more than 2.5 times the height of the train. They don't put signals that high anymore.

Funnily enough, it's not very long since they put that one there (as a direct replacement for the previous structure).

Behind the bush on the right is Langham Junction signal box and for a mile from there to Oakham the line has 4 tracks. With only an hourly passenger train service its hard to imagine why. There are so few trains that its a chore trying to film the numerous level crossings on this line.

He's evidently not been down there in the week when the line's full of freight then!

Then from Ashwell:

In May 2012 a barrier lowered on to a sprayer being towed by a tractor.

Not here - that was at Ashwell Gatehouse, a few hundred yards down the line (evidently he's not found that one yet).

Sad to say but it would seem that with just 2 trains an hour, an automatic half barrier crossing should be installed.

This really stood out to me as the perfect example of how little this chap really knows about signalling installations, yet he's so critical of Signalmen and Crossing Keepers in his comments. Ashwell box itself serves a fairly useful function in shortening the block section, particularly helpful for a freight crawling out of the loop at Langham behind a passenger, and I don't know whether both Ashwell and Gatehouse LCs are suitable for conversion to AHBs. If the survival of the box is justified on any of those three counts, there's no point changing anything.

 

[jopsuk]

A sign on the left calls this Windmill Lane level crossing despite it being next to Cheshunt station.

"Mystery" solved...

Does he stop near level crossings, and wait till the lights and sound start before pulling up to the line?