Level crossing Phone to cross but can't speak!

[steve_wills]

Whilst my particular reasons for likely being unable to use a crossing phone aren't exactly common there's a fair few disabilities where someone wouldn't.

The easiest solution for NR is to close the said crossing. Then there is no need for any reasonable adjustment.

Problem solved.

 

[mmh]

The easiest solution for NR is to close the said crossing. Then there is no need for any reasonable adjustment.

Problem solved.

And that seems to be NR's preferred position on crossings in general, to close them. Even when that itself is illegal.
Which reminds me to badger my AM and MP about NR's lack of movement on reinstating a user worked crossing they illegally closed a decade ago and. after many years of fighting, were ordered to replace by a court.

 

[Okowsc]

The easiest solution for NR is to close the said crossing. Then there is no need for any reasonable adjustment.

Problem solved.

Completely agree with you there with the caveat of ensuring there is level access for wheelchair users.

 

[Egg Centric]

Completely agree with you there with the caveat of ensuring there is level access for wheelchair users.

Undoubtedly it's the easiest soultion for National Rail.

However - how has this made the world better?

 

[JamesT]

I know that it's a few years ago but the ORR's Periodic Review for Control Period 5 (PR13, for 2014-19) included £75,000,000 of funding from the Westminster and Scottish governments for level crossing safety and there was an expectation that 500 would be eliminated during the Control Period.

(This is just to give a bit of background. Obviously the 500 closures would tend to be the cheapest/easiest/quickest to deal with and not directly related to the OP's point about the challenges of telephone communication. Some of the money would go on upgrades to crossings being retained rather than full closures.)

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/safety-in-the-community/level-crossing-safety/ says that over 1,250 level crossings have been closed since 2009. Which 500 in 5 years seems roughly in line with.

 

[zwk500]

Undoubtedly it's the easiest soultion for National Rail.

However - how has this made the world better?

If it means providing an accessible footbridge, which would allow absolutely anybody to use it regardless of language skills or being non-verbal then I'd say it has.

 

[Llanigraham]

You've ignored the protected characteristics of the Welsh language again, I see!

It has been accepted by the Welsh Government, the railway, and the relevant language bodies that English is the accepted and correct language to be used for all communications on the railway in Wales.

 

[Llanigraham]

I know what the Welsh Language Act 1993 is, but its provisions would not extend to this exact circumstance, a single caller speaking to a single monoglot signaller about a safety critical matter.

The Equality Act does extend to this and the railway must implement a reasonable adjustment if it can.

And the railway was allowed dispensation from the Act in respect of certain communictions,such as to signal boxes.

 

[island]

The Railway is legally obliged to. And the whole point of the Equality Act is that you make things accessible by default as far as is practicable, not just adapting when somebody with a particular requirement turns up.

The railway is legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments. What is reasonable will depend on the particular circumstances. It is not necessarily correct, as you seem to believe, that the railway must make any adjustment requested by one individual.

Accessibility by default is of course the target for new infrastructure, but the railway uses infrastructure which in a number of cases is approaching 200 years old. It will not always be reasonable (or even possible) to rebuild this to modern accessibility standards.

 

[steve_wills]

The railway is legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments. What is reasonable will depend on the particular circumstances. It is not necessarily correct, as you seem to believe, that the railway must make any adjustment requested by one individual.

Accessibility by default is of course the target for new infrastructure, but the railway uses infrastructure which in a number of cases is approaching 200 years old. It will not always be reasonable (or even possible) to rebuild this to modern accessibility standards.

but going back to the OPs question. NR can close the said crossing.

Case closed. No this law or that law.

 

[AlterEgo]

but going back to the OPs question. NR can close the said crossing.

Case closed. No this law or that law.

It’s not as simple as that. Even level crossing closures require a consultation and each one is unique.

We don’t know anything about this crossing to say whether closure would be likely or not. Some crossings can’t reasonably be closed.

 

[steve_wills]

It’s not as simple as that. Even level crossing closures require a consultation and each one is unique.

We don’t know anything about this crossing to say whether closure would be likely or not. Some crossings can’t reasonably be closed.

If NR want to close a crossing they will.

No right of access across a railway line.

 

[AlterEgo]

If NR want to close a crossing they will.

No right of access across a railway line.

There are plenty of public rights of way across railway lines!

Just saying “oh they’ll just close it” is ignorant of what actually happens when a crossing comes up for closure. Not all crossings close and there is quite an extensive process to go through before closing one, not least an Equality and Diversity Impact Assessment.

I know people like simplicity but it just isn’t as simple as you suggest I’m afraid and that’s that.

 

[edwin_m]

If NR want to close a crossing they will.

No right of access across a railway line.

If they could do that they would have closed all of them already, as they are the top safety risk to the railway as well creating a lot of cost and general hassle.

Most crossings are there because there was a road or path there before the railway was built, or to re-connect land that was severed. A few would have been added later but all of them are subject to statutory Level Crossing Orders.

 

[Annetts key]

If NR want to close a crossing they will.

No right of access across a railway line.

If the railway could have avoided a level crossing when the line was built, they would have. So level crossings were required and will be subject of legal agreements with the relevant land owners. For public roads, there are statutory level crossings orders and the railways are not free to do what they like.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

If the railway could have avoided a level crossing when the line was built, they would have.

Surely cost is/was a major consideration here? Level crossings presumably much cheaper to install, back in the day (i.e. when a given line was being built) than constructing overbridges, underpasses and the suchlike.

 

[Annetts key]

Surely cost is/was a major consideration here? Level crossings presumably much cheaper to install, back in the day (i.e. when a given line was being built) than constructing overbridges, underpasses and the suchlike.

Yep, especially the accommodation crossings where the only equipment was two farm type gates, some signs, maybe a couple of whistle boards and maybe cattle/trespass guards and some gravel.

Obviously if it’s a public highway, more equipment was required (crossing box and gates at that time), but the crossing box would have acted as a signal block post anyway…