Level Crossing Incident - Finningley (nr Doncaster) 4th December

[Ediswan]

LC barriers are not very strong in the perpendicular direction and will break the shear bolts.

My emphasis.

The fact they are called that pretty much answers my question.

I was discussing this accident tonight with my 21 year old and explaining how you should always keep a distance so that as you enter the LC at a safe speed not only is the exit clear but you have sufficient speed to roll over by dipping the clutch, should your engine cut out.

Good strategy, but there are always exceptions. This used to be my local crossing. Due to the hump, you cannot see if your exit is clear. Also, the gate is only one vehicle wide. You need to approach with caution in case of oncoming traffic. The crossing is its own 'passing place', between the gates.

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/167817

It works. No accidents I can recall.

(It is possible it has been replaced since I last visited in 2011.)

 

[Dieseldriver]

It has just come by me that from the picture posted yesterday of the 153 and the 67 next to it, it looks like the 153 stopped not that long after the crossong - doesn't look like 1/4 mile as I'm sure has been stated...or is perception from the angle it has been taken from?

Also, RIP to the girl who has sadly passed away in the incident

It isn't a particularly long distance however I think the zoom used to take that photo is deceptive. Look at the apparent distance between the yellow distant signal and the red signal.

 

[Me2]

Not from the leader of the union representing a significant number of Signalmen and Crossing Keepers, it's not - considering especially that full-barrier MCB or CCTV crossings are a completely different kettle of fish to AHBs.

Indeed, Bob should remember who he is paid to represent, not talk about a scheme that would reduce staff levels. He should also wait until it's known what actually happened before commenting.

 

[AlexS]

That said it should be remembered that job protectionism cannot be the only way to go - if it's economically viable to completely remove a safety risk like a level crossing while you're doing other work for example then it should be done and that's the only sensible position really. Otherwise you're saying 'we need to keep something that's been determined as a risk just to keep someone in a job', which I doubt Brother Bob would be caught saying, as he'd be even more crucified than normal!

 

[Me2]

If a crossing is used correctly and well maintained there is realistically almost zero risk from level crossings.

 

[Penmorfa]

Ah maybe that was one of the few on there then, I know that it was laid out specifically to avoid LCs as well as being to continental loading Gauge and with minimal curves and gradients
Whatever came of the Victorian builders plans for a tunnel under the channel

It was the Great Central Extension south of Annesley to Marylebone which was built with no level crossings. However it was'nt built to continental loading gauge. If it had been then British passenger trains could not have used it, the gap from train to platform would have been too large.

 

[fsmr]

It was the Great Central Extension south of Annesley to Marylebone which was built with no level crossings. However it was'nt built to continental loading gauge. If it had been then British passenger trains could not have used it, the gap from train to platform would have been too large.

Ok going off topic now but yep
from my GCR bible.

"Unlike other railway lines in Britain, the line was built to an expanded continental loading gauge which meant it could accommodate larger sized continental trains, in anticipation of traffic to a future Channel Tunnel. There is, however, a popular myth that the GCR was built to the standard continental Berne loading gauge - impossible, since the Berne gauge convention was not held until 1912."

 

[jon0844]

It isn't a particularly long distance however I think the zoom used to take that photo is deceptive. Look at the apparent distance between the yellow distant signal and the red signal.

On the TV broadcast, the camera panned quite some way before you saw the train. I'd say it went a fair distance.

 

[Penmorfa]

Ok going off topic now but yep
from my GCR bible.

"Unlike other railway lines in Britain, the line was built to an expanded continental loading gauge which meant it could accommodate larger sized continental trains, in anticipation of traffic to a future Channel Tunnel. There is, however, a popular myth that the GCR was built to the standard continental Berne loading gauge - impossible, since the Berne gauge convention was not held until 1912."

Even if the bridges and tunnels were built to a larger structure gauge it would have made no difference to the size of trains which could have been handled. The deciding factor would have been platforms. Any continental wagon would have hit the first platform it came to.

 

[Tomnick]

Good strategy, but there are always exceptions. This used to be my local crossing. Due to the hump, you cannot see if your exit is clear. Also, the gate is only one vehicle wide. You need to approach with caution in case of oncoming traffic. The crossing is its own 'passing place', between the gates.

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/167817

It works. No accidents I can recall.

The crossing is worked manually by a crossing keeper, so there's no (or minimal!) risk from vehicles breaking down on or otherwise becoming unable to leave the crossing despite the inability to see the other side.

That said it should be remembered that job protectionism cannot be the only way to go - if it's economically viable to completely remove a safety risk like a level crossing while you're doing other work for example then it should be done and that's the only sensible position really. Otherwise you're saying 'we need to keep something that's been determined as a risk just to keep someone in a job', which I doubt Brother Bob would be caught saying, as he'd be even more crucified than normal!

Entirely correct, of course, and if Bob hadn't gone quite so far as to suggest abolishing all crossings, it'd all sound a lot more reasonable. In fact, he'd probably have a stronger argument as far as his members' job security goes if he'd talked about (as has happened in some cases) replacing AHBs with CCTV crossings. Full-barrier crossings (those which provide jobs for Bob's memberships!) must be about the safest type of crossing, so any case for replacing these with a bridge would more likely be based upon reducing traffic congestion (like Tallington).

...unless in the case of CCTV worked, it was picked up and the protecting signal returned to danger before the train had approached, however i don't believe that a CCTV worked LC is monitored once the crossing is confirmed as clear...

Going back up the thread a bit to fsmr's post - yes, CCTV crossings aren't generally monitored once 'crossing clear' has been pressed, and indeed in most cases the picture disappears once that's happened (though quite a few Signalmen do put the picture back on periodically if they're not busy elsewhere in the box). However, a fracture strip is (usually? always?) fitted to the barriers to indicate back to the box if a barrier is significantly damaged.

Just to clarify too following a couple of earlier posts, there should be no need for a vehicle trapped on a crossing (perhaps because they'd driven onto the crossing with no clear exit) to drive through a barrier to escape danger. If the crossing isn't checked by someone before a train is allowed to approach (i.e. AHBs), there'll be no exit barrier. In all other cases (excepting UWCs etc. where the user should open both gates themselves), a trapped vehicle shouldn't be in danger as the Signalman (or Crossing Keeper) should check the crossing first so wouldn't need to drive through the barrier. I can think of only a couple of exceptions - those strange RC or MCBR crossings (for example, Ashwell Gatehouse) where, after the barriers have been raised for a road user, they lower themselves after a short time, and there's no requirement for the Signalman to check that the crossing is clear (although a basic CCTV installation is provided at Ashwell now). However, clearly signed emergency plungers are provided which do (I think) raise one barrier for a short time to allow a vehicle to escape, and also sound an alarm in the signal box.

 

[Bedpan]

Yes, but it would have been comparatively easy to slew track away from the platform edges to accommodate larger trains as opposed to having to enlarge bridges and tunnels etc if it had been built to (one of) the British loading gauge(s).

 

[Penmorfa]

Yes, but it would have been comparatively easy to slew track away from the platform edges to accommodate larger trains as opposed to having to enlarge bridges and tunnels etc if it had been built to (one of) the British loading gauge(s).

Very true but you can't have it both ways, it was either British loading gauge or continental. Slueing the track away from platforms would have had the effect of making the GCR London Extension unusable by British passenger rolling stock.

 

[Stephen55a1960]

More to the point why are the BBC quoting randomers on Twitter as part of a serious news story?

Yes (even as a user of Twitter) I wondered that? Struck me as inappropriate: and the quote used could have been taken, out of context.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, Bob should remember who he is paid to represent, not talk about a scheme that would reduce staff levels. He should also wait until it's known what actually happened before commenting.

Thought it was interesting (party politics aside), the local MP realising that abolition of LC's would cost a fortune.

 

[t o m]

Just to clarify too following a couple of earlier posts, there should be no need for a vehicle trapped on a crossing (perhaps because they'd driven onto the crossing with no clear exit) to drive through a barrier to escape danger. If the crossing isn't checked by someone before a train is allowed to approach (i.e. AHBs), there'll be no exit barrier. In all other cases (excepting UWCs etc. where the user should open both gates themselves), a trapped vehicle shouldn't be in danger as the Signalman (or Crossing Keeper) should check the crossing first so wouldn't need to drive through the barrier. I can think of only a couple of exceptions - those strange RC or MCBR crossings (for example, Ashwell Gatehouse) where, after the barriers have been raised for a road user, they lower themselves after a short time, and there's no requirement for the Signalman to check that the crossing is clear (although a basic CCTV installation is provided at Ashwell now). However, clearly signed emergency plungers are provided which do (I think) raise one barrier for a short time to allow a vehicle to escape, and also sound an alarm in the signal box.

I thought that Ashwell crossing could be seen from the box.

 

[Tomnick]

I thought that Ashwell crossing could be seen from the box.

Ashwell Gatehouse is 440yds from the box - it can just about be seen, but not the whole crossing (and very little in darkness). There's now a basic CCTV installation which covers most of the crossing, but the primary means of protection for a trapped road users is still the emergency plungers on the crossing - bearing in mind that the Signalman doesn't usually control or supervise the lowering of the barriers (so wouldn't necessarily check the crossing immediately anyway).

 

[Flywaver]

Four fatalities across the Network yesterday then this..http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17522825

 

[sheff'd victoria]

Last time I was through that crossing I seem to recall it had only half-width barriers. Not concluding anything, but it's just a factor to consider :roll:

A number of crossing in Lincolnshire have this design, did I hear right that NR are doing a review of all crossings ?

Finaly my thoughts are will the little girl that died . R.I.P :cry:

 

[ReverendFozz]

I know this thread is not about dormant lines or lines considered for future, but what would this mean for lines like Leamside in the future and Level Crossings at places like Sulgrave, Washington and Fencehouses.

I noticed in my area, the foot crossings in Seaham have gone or are going

Sent by Comrade Marxista Fozzski

 

[jimm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by t o m
No new level crossings have been installed since the 1960's.

Hmmm. The A52 at Wainfleet was built in the early/mid 80's, or indeed the A16 in Boston which was built in 89/90ish.

And two level crossings were provided on the A5 and A483 around Oswestry when the town bypass was built in the 1980s, though now out of use with the end of quarry traffic on the line some years back.

BBC website quotes Sim Harris, editor of Rail News, who said the problem of crossings was as old as railways but had got steadily worse.

RAIB investigations involving vehicular/train incidents at crossings:

2006 2
2007 4
2008 2
2009 4
2010 3
2011 4
2012 3

...was it ever lower?

but those are just incidents where RAIB was involved. There are many more near-misses and cases of what Network Rail classes as misuse of level crossings. Press release from Tuesday about a new BTP camera van gives the following figures at Shiplake and in the Thames Valley:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...ew-technology-to-combat-level-crossing-misuse

Shiplake level crossing
Since 2009 44 reported incidents of misuse
Since 2009 11 near misses with vehicles and pedestrians

Reported incidents of level crossing misuse (figures are for financial years)
2009/10
Thames Valley: 56
2010/11
Thames Valley: 75
2011/12
Thames Valley: 102
2012/13 (so far)
Thames Valley: 78

 

[Pumbaa]

Four fatalities across the Network yesterday then this..http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17522825

It's been a bad week, now this:

A 14 year old boy has just been hit and killed on a foot crossing near Lincoln. Link when it's available.

Thoughts with driver and the family.

 

[Ediswan]

Just to clarify too following a couple of earlier posts, there should be no need for a vehicle trapped on a crossing (perhaps because they'd driven onto the crossing with no clear exit) to drive through a barrier to escape danger. If the crossing isn't checked by someone before a train is allowed to approach (i.e. AHBs), there'll be no exit barrier. In all other cases (excepting UWCs etc. where the user should open both gates themselves), a trapped vehicle shouldn't be in danger as the Signalman (or Crossing Keeper) should check the crossing first so wouldn't need to drive through the barrier.

Thanks. I thought that was the case and you have saved me readiing up on all the crossing types.

I can think of only a couple of exceptions - those strange RC or MCBR crossings (for example, Ashwell Gatehouse) where, after the barriers have been raised for a road user, they lower themselves after a short time, and there's no requirement for the Signalman to check that the crossing is clear (although a basic CCTV installation is provided at Ashwell now). However, clearly signed emergency plungers are provided which do (I think) raise one barrier for a short time to allow a vehicle to escape, and also sound an alarm in the signal box.

That's a new one to me. The instructions on the signs are clear.

 

[matchmaker]

In This case, it is being reported tonight on BBC Look North that the location of the LC on a ridge and the low winter sun could have played a part, in which case full barriers may not have helped, unless in the case of CCTV worked, it was picked up and the protecting signal returned to danger before the train had approached, however i don't believe that a CCTV worked LC is monitored once the crossing is confirmed as clear, and as has been discussed many times, full barriers are not any stonger and wont stop a skidding car, unlike their solid Oak predecessor gates, which also gave a fairly clear signal they they were closed to the car driver in low winter sunlight

Unfortunately, even wooden gates won't stop a vehicle as is shown by Britain's two worst level crossing accidents - Balmuckety in 1946 (10 dead) and Burton Agnes in 1947 (12 dead). In the first brake failure was the cause, in the second driver error.

 

[Pumbaa]

Four fatalities across the Network yesterday then this..http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17522825

Now PHBT at Harpenden as well.

 

[trentside]

Four fatalities across the Network yesterday then this..http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17522825

And a young lad was struck and killed by the 0742 Sleaford to Leicester service in Lincoln this morning. Tragic - this is the fourth such incident in the local area this week alone;

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk...rossing-near/story-17513165-detail/story.html

 

[Ferret]

And a young lad was struck and killed by the 0742 Sleaford to Leicester service in Lincoln this morning. Tragic - this is the fourth such incident in the local area this week alone;

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk...rossing-near/story-17513165-detail/story.html

Unbelievable that so many incidents could happen so quickly in such a small area. Alas these won't be the last either - unfortunately railways are inherently dangerous places, and no matter how safe you try and make them, they will always be dangerous!

 

[SN74LS123N]

Unbelievable that so many incidents could happen so quickly in such a small area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution

 

[fsmr]

The crossing is worked manually by a crossing keeper, so there's no (or minimal!) risk from vehicles breaking down on or otherwise becoming unable to leave the crossing despite the inability to see the other side.


Entirely correct, of course, and if Bob hadn't gone quite so far as to suggest abolishing all crossings, it'd all sound a lot more reasonable. In fact, he'd probably have a stronger argument as far as his members' job security goes if he'd talked about (as has happened in some cases) replacing AHBs with CCTV crossings. Full-barrier crossings (those which provide jobs for Bob's memberships!) must be about the safest type of crossing, so any case for replacing these with a bridge would more likely be based upon reducing traffic congestion (like Tallington).

Going back up the thread a bit to fsmr's post - yes, CCTV crossings aren't generally monitored once 'crossing clear' has been pressed, and indeed in most cases the picture disappears once that's happened (though quite a few Signalmen do put the picture back on periodically if they're not busy elsewhere in the box). However, a fracture strip is (usually? always?) fitted to the barriers to indicate back to the box if a barrier is significantly damaged.

Just to clarify too following a couple of earlier posts, there should be no need for a vehicle trapped on a crossing (perhaps because they'd driven onto the crossing with no clear exit) to drive through a barrier to escape danger. If the crossing isn't checked by someone before a train is allowed to approach (i.e. AHBs), there'll be no exit barrier. In all other cases (excepting UWCs etc. where the user should open both gates themselves), a trapped vehicle shouldn't be in danger as the Signalman (or Crossing Keeper) should check the crossing first so wouldn't need to drive through the barrier. I can think of only a couple of exceptions - those strange RC or MCBR crossings (for example, Ashwell Gatehouse) where, after the barriers have been raised for a road user, they lower themselves after a short time, and there's no requirement for the Signalman to check that the crossing is clear (although a basic CCTV installation is provided at Ashwell now). However, clearly signed emergency plungers are provided which do (I think) raise one barrier for a short time to allow a vehicle to escape, and also sound an alarm in the signal box.

Sorry i meant if the vehicle had skidded through the already closed barrier or ended up on the wrong side of an AHB with barrier in front. Joe public wont know if the barriers are being monitored or if the protecting signal has been passed so better to get the hell off there IMHO
Example the recent RAIB of the straw truck in Wales that due to parked vehicles ended up crossing slowly on the wrong side as the lights came on ending up with AHB in front of his cab blocking the exit.

 

[Tomnick]

I agree - I don't think anyone finding themselves trapped on a level crossing could be criticised for forcing their way through a barrier. I just wanted to clarify that such action should never be necessary to get out of danger, although (as you say) that doesn't account for someone driving through an entrance barrier!

 

[w0033944]

Not that it's really a fair criticism (I'm well aware that assessments have to balance foreseeable risk with value for money), but the BBC site has this item which will only give the anti-rail argument more weight:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-20624216

 

[OuterDistant]

The Network Rail report said the Beech Hill crossing was "no longer suitable for half barriers" and proposed to install full barriers in April 2013.

So it will suddenly become more attractive to ignore the lights? Terrific.