Level crossings

[Llanigraham]

Strictly speaking a phone isn't necessary at a locally monitored crossing because the train is approaching slowly enough that it can stop if the driver sees that the crossing is obstructed. I guess if a train arrives while a very slow road vehicle is crossing, there is a risk that the barriers will come down on it, but this isn't a huge safety issue and is probably rare and minor enough that the cost of dealing with it when it happens is less than that of providing and maintaining phones.

Rubbish!
I control a "locally" monitored level crossing, and the line speed is 90mph!

 

[Jydo]

Don't know the particular type of LC at Motherwell bridge works but it must be down around 25mins in every hour during peak times, a lot of unhappy motorists living in that area for sure

 

[underbank]

Don't know the particular type of LC at Motherwell bridge works but it must be down around 25mins in every hour during peak times, a lot of unhappy motorists living in that area for sure

Changing the Bare Lane LC from local signalman to remote operation has also caused much longer delays for cars, even though the line is slow.

Likewise, the St Michaels Lane LC at Bolton Le Sands was bad enough when it was controlled via CCTV from Hest Bank just down the line - waits over 30 minutes, especially around 1-2pm, but now it too is controlled more remotely (from Preston), the delays are even longer. Though this is slightly more explainable with it being the WCML.

Very strange considering when I stayed near a LC near Livingston in Scotland and there was a LC with a frighteningly late closure for fast trains, and also a driver controlled closure (linked to signal) for trains leaving the station so that the LC gates weren't closed to cars until the train driver was ready to leave - quite a contrast to Bare Lane where the gates are closed and there's a 5-10 minute wait for the train to cross even when it's due to stop at the station (almost every train will stop at the station).

Quite different ways of working in different locations.

 

[Tomnick]

Rubbish!
I control a "locally" monitored level crossing, and the line speed is 90mph!

Locally monitored as in AOCL or ABCL, from the description, as opposed to locally controlled as in MCB. The former can't have an approach speed higher than 55mph, often much less, for the reasons that edwin_m explains in his 'rubbish' post. You wouldn't, of course, normally find a phone for road users at any of those crossings.

 

[Railsigns]

Halkirk level crossing has new (To contact railway please phone ******) boards. I thought that ABCL crossings had telephones rather than the blue contact boards.

Telephones for road users are normally provided at ABCLs but their provision isn't mandatory.

 

[Trucker Glen]

Is there a technical reason why Halkirk was upgraded to ABCL rather then getting a +B conversion, or is there a bit of politics going on and wanting to be seen to be spending more on that particular crossing?

As for phones, the three existing ABCLs on the FN and Kyle lines do have them.

 

[Andrew AOCL]

Is there a technical reason why Halkirk was upgraded to ABCL rather then getting a +B conversion, or is there a bit of politics going on and wanting to be seen to be spending more on that particular crossing?

As for phones, the three existing ABCLs on the FN and Kyle lines do have them.

I think your right that rather than converting the crossing to an AOCL+B (cheaper option) they would change the system to the more expensive ABCL due to the accidents and the publics opinion. Maybe the 5 second amber light during the strike-in at Halkirk is there to provide more warning for road users as it is claimed a more dangerous crossing.

Even though the strike-in is longer than usual the white light on the Dorman crossing indicator still flashes before the train meets the Speed restriction board.

 

[WestRiding]

I find it amazing that Network Rail has pushed through these obstical detection crossings, closed signal/gate boxes, without the technology working. So now we have an increasing number of OD crossings, all been manned by an attendant just in case, so there is no cost saving, and definitely no safety improvement. I would hate to be the signalling engineer that one day has to sign these things off as safe to use................. no way.

 

[Llanigraham]

I find it amazing that Network Rail has pushed through these obstical detection crossings, closed signal/gate boxes, without the technology working. So now we have an increasing number of OD crossings, all been manned by an attendant just in case, so there is no cost saving, and definitely no safety improvement. I would hate to be the signalling engineer that one day has to sign these things off as safe to use................. no way.

Are they ALL being manned?
I can only think of one on the Crewe line that is.

 

[w0033944]

Are they ALL being manned?
I can only think of one on the Crewe line that is.

I'm not sure as to the current situation, but, until recently, most, if not all of the examples on the Breckland line were manned.

 

[carriageline]

Are the ones down Ely/Felixstowe(?) way still being manned? I know one winter they was due to the snow?

 

[IanXC]

I think I'm right in saying the first pilot instalation of MCB-OD was at Filey, and I can confirm that there's not a constant presence watching that one.

OT - quick question for the assembled signallers, I regularly cross an MCB level crossing supervised by an immediately adjacent signal box, the wigwag lights continue for some time after the gates have been manually raised. When is it correct to proceed onto the crossing, when the gates have risen, or when the wigwags cease?

 

[carriageline]

Wigwags cease. They are essentially the same as a red traffic light, but also apply to emergency services.

A fault with the crossing I would presume.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IanXC]

Wigwags cease. They are essentially the same as a red traffic light, but also apply to emergency services.

A fault with the crossing I would presume.

Thanks. The barriers are raised by what appears to be a wheel in the signal box, mechanically connected to the barriers! I've always waited but no one else seems to!

 

[Tomnick]

The red road lights should extinguish at some point during the raising sequence - not sure exactly what the standards say for new installations, but it's not uncommon to see cars driving under the ascending barriers with the RRLs still flashing. It's still technically an offence (to pass the wigwags), but I doubt anyone's ever been prosecuted under those circumstances!

Edit: Missed the most recent post - if they're wheel-worked barriers (former NER?), I suppose it's possible that the wigwags are manually extinguished once the signalman's finished raising them, so it'll take a few seconds longer than most (motor-worked) barriers.

 

[WestRiding]

So, what is the reason so many OD are manned 24/7, such as Sandhill Lane and Thorpe Gates in Selby?

 

[High Dyke]

Poor reliabilty for some. AIUI there have been some issues regarding correct detection of obstructons and dust causing problems with the scanning equipment. Quite how they are going to work on a line with a speed of 125mph is going to be interesting...

 

[DazCM]

Poor reliabilty for some. AIUI there have been some issues regarding correct detection of obstructons and dust causing problems with the scanning equipment. Quite how they are going to work on a line with a speed of 125mph is going to be interesting...

Is the monitoring therefore a case of the equipment detecting an obstruction where there isn't one as opposed to it not detecting an actual obstruction?

 

[carriageline]

I think (if I remember this correctly) was it was detecting an obstacle when there wasn't one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[balne-wonderer]

I find it amazing that Network Rail has pushed through these obstical detection crossings, closed signal/gate boxes, without the technology working. So now we have an increasing number of OD crossings, all been manned by an attendant just in case, so there is no cost saving, and definitely no safety improvement. I would hate to be the signalling engineer that one day has to sign these things off as safe to use................. no way.

That's what makes me laugh, all that chaos around Selby because they did Thorpe Gates, Sandhill Lane and Dam Lane all at the same time.

The lovely old box at Thorpe was pulled down and new crossings installed. Now we have NR employees sat in their cars watching the crossing day and night.

I find the situation completely bizarre and with Balne, Balne Lowgate, Fenwick, Barcroft, Heyworth, Henwick Hall and Noblethorpe all going to OD this year, there is going to be a lot of NR people sat in their cars

 

[fsmr]

While online today i came across the outcome of the tragic accident a while back at Kiddlington which was discussed at the time and blamed by some on the car driver ignoring the LC lights, but this was clearly not the case

I think the facts speak for themselves in this case and I can see some very strong HSE reports heading the way of NWR despite the LC working as designed

This was the thread at the time of the accident now locked
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=77198

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25022997

An elderly man died when the car he was in stalled on a level crossing near Oxford, an inquest has heard.

Thomas Pizzey, 85, from Banbury, was in a wheelchair in the back when the car was hit by a freight train at Yarnton in January. He died at the scene.

His partner, who was driving, failed to restart it. A woman tried to help them but had to get out of the way.

Describing it as a "nightmare scenario", the Oxfordshire coroner recorded a verdict of accidental death.

The inquest heard the engine of the car, driven by Mr Pizzey's partner Malcolm Kimberley, unexpectedly failed on the railway line as the couple were returning from a trip to a garden centre.

Moments later the signals began warning them a train was approaching.

Mr Kimberly remained at the wheel and was described by witnesses as "panicking" as he tried to restart the car a number of times.

After 45 seconds, the car was struck by a freight train en route from Manchester to Southampton, travelling at about 60mph (95kph).

Before the crash, a female passenger from another car who had attempted to go to the men's aid had to get out of the way before the train hit.


The car was struck by a freight train travelling at 60mph The impact threw Mr Pizzey out of the car and onto the tracks where he died instantly.

Mr Kimberly suffered serious injuries. At the time, the train driver was said to be shaken but unhurt.

The inquest heard British Transport Police inquiries had shown there was no fault to the barrier.

Network Rail said the barriers and warning signals had worked exactly as they should.

In a statement, Mr Pizzey's two nieces said: "This was a very tragic way for our Uncle to die and the family are sad that his long life ended in this way."

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the facts speak for themselves in this case and I can see some very strong HSE reports heading the way of NWR despite the LC working as designed

Why ?

 

[fsmr]

Why ?

Killing innocent members of the workforce or public in accidents tends to be fround upon these days wether some on here like it or not The rail industry is no different to a factory

 

[carriageline]

Killing innocent members of the workforce or public in accidents tends to be fround upon these days wether some on here like it or not The rail industry is no different to a factory

Why should the rail industry protect people that can't drive, or even use level crossings PROPERLY. Actually, I think the word properly isn't even needed as it wasn't misused, more like stupidity if you ask me.

 

[fsmr]

Why should the rail industry protect people that can't drive, or even use level crossings PROPERLY. Actually, I think the word properly isn't even needed as it wasn't misused, more like stupidity if you ask me.

Have you not read the inquest report
Clearly not
I would suggest you do
How on earth was this the fault of the car driver who was using a public highway He didnt run out of fuel

True he could have broken down on the road and been run into by an lgv but the driver of the LGV would face action

 

[Bald Rick]

Killing innocent members of the workforce or public in accidents tends to be fround upon these days wether some on here like it or not The rail industry is no different to a factory

Accepted. But then the railway seems to be innocent as well:

"The inquest heard British Transport Police inquiries had shown there was no fault to the barrier."

Sufficiently so that it seems neither RAIB or ORR (the railway safety regulator) saw fit to comment, let alone investigate.

 

[edwin_m]

What fsmr is effectively saying is that the entire concept of level crossings is at fault. This one worked as designed but someone got killed anyway. The unusual circumstance is that he was in a wheelchair, and presumably had no chance of getting out of the vehicle and clear of the lines in the time available.

In health and safety terms I think this would fall under ALARP, the principle where a risk can't be eliminated entirely but is reduced As Low As Reasonably Practicable. In this principle the law recognises that a certain level of accidents is unavoidable in any human activity, and if there are enough level crossings in use for long enough something like this will happen sooner or later. The "Reasonably" means that account can be taken of cost and other relevant factors, rather than having to do anything that was "Practicable". The test of reasonableness ultimately comes down to the courts but there is a lot of precedent in the rail industry on how make this call in respect of level crossings. Assuming this process has been followed I think Network Rail will be found to be complying with Health & Safety law, and while I'm not a lawyer I think the verdict of "accidental death" supports this.

One obvious practicable (but not necessarily reasonably practicable) measure that would have avoided this accident would be to convert the crossing to a manned or CCTV one or to install obstacle detection. Either of these would increase road traffic delays significntly and the manned option in particular would also cost a lot.

 

[fsmr]

What fsmr is effectively saying is that the entire concept of level crossings is at fault. This one worked as designed but someone got killed anyway. The unusual circumstance is that he was in a wheelchair, and presumably had no chance of getting out of the vehicle and clear of the lines in the time available.

In health and safety terms I think this would fall under ALARP, the principle where a risk can't be eliminated entirely but is reduced As Low As Reasonably Practicable. In this principle the law recognises that a certain level of accidents is unavoidable in any human activity, and if there are enough level crossings in use for long enough something like this will happen sooner or later. The "Reasonably" means that account can be taken of cost and other relevant factors, rather than having to do anything that was "Practicable". The test of reasonableness ultimately comes down to the courts but there is a lot of precedent in the rail industry on how make this call in respect of level crossings. Assuming this process has been followed I think Network Rail will be found to be complying with Health & Safety law, and while I'm not a lawyer I think the verdict of "accidental death" supports this.

One obvious practicable (but not necessarily reasonably practicable) measure that would have avoided this accident would be to convert the crossing to a manned or CCTV one or to install obstacle detection. Either of these would increase road traffic delays significntly and the manned option in particular would also cost a lot.

Or Bridge, which is what the Unions would like. and no only automatic crossings, i have no problemn with any design interlocked into the signals

Not going to happen having bridges on every LC I know but i would rather have a delay with option 2 to my journey than arrive early in the next life

If this had been a LGV and trailer that had broken down at the precise moment that a PAX DMU was arriving at the stike in, do youthink you would all be saying it was just one of those things!!
I dont think so,

AHBs were fine in thair day although i say that with trepidation but technology and risk elimination have moved on since the 60s and the railway needs to as well. Convert to bridges where traffic delays need to be negated and the rest to remote worked fully and interlocked and if you must automated monitoring (although I wouldnt trust that one)

Not that ong ago when you could wander around in a donkey jacket and flat cap with little qualification or education and no Hi viz or hard hat on a live line :roll: Its called progress but it comes at a cost

Shame the GCR was the only line that saw the pitfalls of level crossings and built without them

 

[yorksrob]

AHBs were fine in thair day although i say that with trepidation but technology and risk elimination have moved on since the 60s and the railway needs to as well. Convert to bridges where traffic delays need to be negated and the rest to remote worked fully and interlocked and if you must automated monitoring (although I wouldnt trust that one)

Not that ong ago when you could wander around in a donkey jacket and flat cap with little qualification or education and no Hi viz or hard hat on a live line :roll: Its called progress but it comes at a cost

Shame the GCR was the only line that saw the pitfalls of level crossings and built without them

That's all fine and well, but why is it automatically assumed that the cost of this should come from the railway budget. In the tragic case cited by yourself, the accident was the result of road equipment (the motor car) not operating correctly rather than railway equipment malfunctioning.

 

[fsmr]

Accepted. But then the railway seems to be innocent as well:

"The inquest heard British Transport Police inquiries had shown there was no fault to the barrier."

Sufficiently so that it seems neither RAIB or ORR (the railway safety regulator) saw fit to comment, let alone investigate.

The railway is not innocent though, the car did not skid off the road and land on the track, it was lawfully crossing the railway and broke down. 45 second is no time to get people out of a car especially infirm or elderly.
If you had the same scenario in a factory where you had less than 45 seconds before you were killed to get clear of machinery, do you really think it would be allowed?

Regard the reports on the girls killed in Essex o the pedestrian crossing and you could argue the railway was even less to blame but they still got hit witha massive fine

The fact is that any business including the railways have to take all reasonable measures to avoid risk and injury or death. That would ultimitely mean removing all AHBs and converting them to a failsafe designs such that any accident or breakdown on the LC will not allow Rail and road to mix
Tough but that will happen mark my words, and if its doesnt NWR will keep getting fined