Level crossings : eliminating them "a good thing".

[Justin Smith]

As to the OP. I think that when a level crossing has been removed and all the intricacies have been addressed I would certainly say that its a "Good Thing" I will concede that the need for crossings will remain. Each crossing that can be eliminated is a step in the right direction. After all isn't the goal of the railway to eliminate incidents and to provide a safe network for Trains and their Drivers, the passenger, and the public.

I think you`re forgetting the salient fact, crossing are used by trains and road vehicles/pedestrians. It`s not just about the trains.....

So, if I'm out for a hike somehwhere in the middle of nowhere, or I use a crossing to get somewhere without a half mile detour and I get to (what once was) a foot crossing (but no longer is), what am I supposed to do ? How is it a "good thing" that the crossing has been removed ?
This danger thing is all a load of b******s anyway, I'd feel safer crossing a 125mph electrified railway than most roads I have to cross everyday. I reckon that statistically I actually would be safer as well. Why is it a newsworthy item if anyone gets killed on a rail crossing but thousands are killed on the roads every day and nothing is every reported !
As for road crossings, I agree with some of the other posters, cameras (rotated round and hidden for the less busy crossings) are the answer, with at least 3 points on the licence (a ban for a close shave type incident), that would soon sort it all out.

 

[jopsuk]

Especially if it's a Right of Way, as far as I'm aware it's very rare for a foot crossing to be shut without replacing it it directly with a bridge or underpass.

But I'll repeat, over and over and over again:

It is not about the safety of idiots abusing crossings. It's about the safety (and mental welfare) of those that could be directly affected by the idiocy and selfishness of crossing abusers. It's also (with road crossings) about congestion relief- both on the road and railway.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

An emergency stop from 300km/h now that would be interesting!

I've experienced a full emergency stop from that speed on a TGV-A between Montparnasse and Le Mans about 20 years ago - it was quite noticable, but nowhere near the most violent stop I've ever had, which was on a Gatwick Express when they were first introduced; on that instance a brake pipe parted when the train was passing through Clapham Junction in the up direction and it stopped within it's own length...!!

 

[8A Rail]

...and then ensure that even the most panicked individual can work out what to do, where to stand and how long to remain there for. I'd be interested in the details of this foot crossing, as I'd understood that any crossing, not monitored, that could trap anyone was still a no-no.

Cannot give you "details" as such as I have used the crossing as intended and not attempted to find out the 'if" part of your question as I prefer to be on the right side of the gate as you may fully appreciate. The crossing in question is known as Norton Crossing (Daresbury / Runcorn) and it has red/green lights for people to see whether safe to cross or not - when on red obviously the gates are closed that is for sure. HTH.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

camera and fine. Would dissuade idiots. We shouldn't be closing crossings which can be a lifeline to many due to a minority of morons. Instead make them pay. Change the law so that network rail aren't responsible for the stupidity of some as well.

+1 :d