Level Crossing down times

[harri2626]

As promised, I have made some timings of the down times at Kildwick crossing.

Monday 10 September.

Gate closes at 09.07, gate opens after 3m 8s (333 double pass)
09.16 1m 26s (dmu passes very slowly so held at approaching signal?)
09.22 2m 40s (inbound 333)
09.30 3m 42s (outbound 333)
09.36 3m 2s (outbound 333 at 2m 22s, inbound at 3m 2s)
09.55 5m 28s (inbound 333 at 2m 53s, outbound at 5m 28s)
10.07 2m 59s (inbound 333 at 2m 27s, outbound at 2m 59s)

13.37 2m 56s (333 double pass)
13.48 2m 39s (outbound freight)
13.53 2m 56s (inbound 333)
13.58 3m 54s (outbound 333)
14.02 2m 10s (inbound fast dmu)
14.07 3m 48s (333 double pass)
14.19 1m 46s (slow dmu)
14.23 2m 46s (inbound 333)
14.27 2m 57s (outbound 333)
14.37 2m 38s (333 double pass)

16.38 6m 16s (outbound 333 at 3m 30s, inbound 333 at 6m 16s)
16.56 7m 43s (inbound 333 2m 53s, outbound 333 3m 34sec, inbound dmu 7m 43s)
17.07 4m 10s (333 double pass)
17.14 1m 46s (slow, outbound dmu)
17.23 6m 20s (outbound 333 at 3m 32s, inbound 333 at 6m 20s)

To me, this proves a number of points. Firstly, the gates must be activated before Steeton and Cononley, hence the difference between stopping (333) and non-stopping (dmu) trains. Secondly, most of the day seems to be on “auto” with some element of manual over-ride at peaks. The delay after the 16.56 closure resulted in a huge queue of accumulated road traffic. The next closure at 17.07 was literally within seconds of the passing of the last of the road queue which I can’t think was coincidence. Thirdly, the differences between the 333 pass times can only be explained by the station dwell times which can vary considerably.

All this is perfectly safe and, from a railway perspective, satisfactory. However, I am convinced that a repositioning of the signals at Steeton and Cononley to after the station departures, would reduce the road delays by at least a minute at every gate closure sequence (for 333s), thus saving thousands of man-hours and gallons of fuel for the local economy. Not only that, but I have witnessed many ambulances on emergency duty en-route to the nearby Airedale Hospital being caught in these queues, and the only option is a much longer detour via the A629 and Steeton village.

 

[Toots]

Yes you can put the barriers on manual,and no it probably wasn't a coincidence the last car had passed before the barriers were lowered again,as I've said,on barriers (CCTV), they are lowered by The Signalman on the activation of an annunciator if they are not auto lower,the guy in this case could have put them down mid queue but rather than holding some cars up twice,he waited,and yet he is still getting critisized.If you do this,it means in a lot of cases a train will then be coming up on a yellow and any subsequent delay means an 'O' code for the Signaller.
Moving a signal isn't as easy as picking it up and putting it somewhere else,it costs an absolute fortune and the sighting has to be correct for the Drivers observing that signal,so it cannot just go anywhere....the fact is,the users of the crossing know it's there so have to make arrangements to that effect.

 

[harri2626]

Toots - I'm not entirely stupid, and understand the need for sight-lines, stopping distances etc. but all I wanted to know is, are Kildwick's delays excessive or acceptable. If they are excessive (which many of us believe they are), then what's the solution? Repositioned signals or a flyover? Your response seems to be "Tough - live with it".

I never criticised the signal staff, and am now (thanks to your comments) aware that they can (and do) over-ride the autos. This, however, is a double-edged sword, as it also confirms that there are many occasions when they don't intervene, with considerable delays for local traffic. This is not a criticism, as signal staff will obviously be busy with many other crossings to monitor, but true none the less.

I also now know for sure that the signals are placed in such a position that the crossing will always be lowered as a train approaches either Steeton or Cononley - stopping or otherwise. Each station is almost exactly a mile and a half on either side of the crossing and both sections have very favourable sight lines.

 

[Tomnick]

Repositioned signals probably aren't an option - sighting distance is of course one issue, but probably critical in this case is braking distance between successive signals determining the actual signal spacing. In my earlier diagram...

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

...one possible solution might be to provide an additional (distant) signal between (as indicated) 6 and 4, and provide an additional YY aspect on 6. I wouldn't want to say that would be permitted by the standards though - it'd introduce a brief four-aspect sequence in an otherwise three-aspect area, but at least it'd give a train calling at Cononley chance to pass a YY at 6 (with Kildwick barriers raised) but receive a green at the new signal.

 

[Toots]

Harri...each crossing is different.Some lower automatically and therefore you wouldn't override it.What I said was,that you can use your judgement and ignore the annunciator for a couple of minutes whilst a crossing clears,but of course the train will then be slowing down at the distant signal,so when you do put the barriers down the cars that you have stopped will have to wait longer because the train has slowed and will take longer to reach the crossing,this is especially the case with freight ,and of course if you positioned the signals closer to the crossing,the speeds would drop accordingly ,so generally someone will lose out whatever happens.Whatever we do,we have a set of parameters to work to and the priority is to make sure the crossing is safe for both road users and trains,some of my colleagues come under immense pressure from road users if their car is waiting a long time and more often than not,it's nothing to do with the Signaller,so we certainly don't stop traffic for fun,though I'm not suggesting you you are suggesting that!.

 

[GB]

If they are excessive (which many of us believe they are).

Based on the timings you have posted I cannot see where it is excessive. Most trains arrive within a few minutes which for a full barrier crossing is pretty good.

The couple of instances of 6 or 7 minutes might seem excessive while sitting in the car but if you have a second train arrive at or close to the annunciator then that explains the extra closure time.

 

[harri2626]

Fair point, Toots. However, you must agree that it cannot be logical for a gate to close 1.1/2 miles away when that train is sat in the platform. This is, of course, nothing to do with the signalmen, who obviously have to work with what is provided.

Are there any signalmen working this route who would care to comment (anonymously of course!)?

Thanks, Tomnick for your interesting observations. Even one repositioned (or added) signal would lessen the delays.

(By the way, as I write this, I've just seen an ambulance on an emergency (blue lights flashing) approach the roundabout nearest to the crossing and, seeing the long tailback, swerved off to take the long route to Airedale Hospital. Sorry, this is a cheap bit of heart-string pulling but, when every minute counts.......)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Based on the timings you have posted I cannot see where it is excessive. Most trains arrive within a few minutes which for a full barrier crossing is pretty good.

The couple of instances of 6 or 7 minutes might seem excessive while sitting in the car but if you have a second train arrive at or close to the annunciator then that explains the extra closure time.

Sorry GB, our posting crossed and I didn't see yours come in.

I agree that 2-3 minutes is acceptable, but 6-7+ minutes is not. I understand the reasons for the extra delays but we are looking for solutions. My timings were made purely at random, but I can assure you that delays often far exceed 6-7 minutes (my personal record was 14 minutes with 5 trains last year).

This whole posting is making me seem like some kind of Jeremy Clarkson. I am not, and use the trains frequently, local, nationally and internationally. I desperately want to promote the local railway, but I really do find it difficult to defend trains to locals when this crossing causes so much trouble.

I will make this my last posting on the subject, as we seem to be going round in circles.

 

[GB]

Sorry GB, our posting crossed and I didn't see yours come in.

No problem.

At the end of the day it all comes down to money. If you were to delay a train just 1 or 2 minutes by keeping a crossing open longer then the delay can easily snowball into scores or hundreds of delay minutes. The delay will not just be to the one train but others around it...even miles down the line. At a couple of hundred £££ per minute in fines that soon adds up and is one of the reason management want the crossing closed at the official times.

Bridges and underpasses will cost millions and not every site will be suitable, but you then have the argument of who should pay for it.

Untill signallers and crossing keepers are officially given a degree of discretion, I don't think things are likely to change.