Level crossings

[edwin_m]

By the same logic of course, all motorised vehicles would be banned anyway because of the risk of injury to blameless pedestrians and cyclists. This would also considerably reduce the casualty rate on level crossings.

 

[fsmr]

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.

Jeez some of you are so blinkered, you have obviously never worked in risk management outside of the railway industry

it matters not what the failure is caused by. A car or LGV breaking down on the LC is foreseable. therefore to negate the fact that this can happen , you have to confirm that it hasnt happened on the line, before you lower the crossing and release the protecting peg. AHBs cant do this , as you know the strike in time is not sufficient to stop the train. Therefore only full barriers and a protecting signal will satisfy the criteria

Or is it ok to kill elderly and infirm people now?
much like departing the station with someone trapped in the doors because they are too slow, not the railways fault.
The train doors worked fine

 

[yorksrob]

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

That's all well and good, but why shouldn't the highway authorities have to take reasonable measures to avoid risk of injury or death ?

To explore your factory analogy, the Highway authorities aren't "in the employ" of the railway. They are both users of the level crossing interface, so shouldn't they both have a duty of care to their users ?

I've worked in several factories which have had large moving machines (pallet trucks) where you have rather less than 45 seconds to get out of the way of.

Also if a car can breakdown on a level crossing, surely it can break down anywhere, including on a motorway or on a junction, both of which could result in something banging into the stationary car at speed with fatal consequences. What is the technical fix for that ?

Let's remove all level crossings but divide the costs proportionally according to the proportion of fatal accidents which are caused by an error or malfunction on the part of the railway as opposed to those caused by a an error or malfunction on the part of the road user.

 

[fsmr]

By the same logic of course, all motorised vehicles would be banned anyway because of the risk of injury to blameless pedestrians and cyclists. This would also considerably reduce the casualty rate on level crossings.

If you dirve , you will have seen that the law has changed consideranbly over the last 5 years and what was considered once as an accident on the roads is now pursued through the courts as careless driving or higher often with susppended or 6 months jail for manslaughter so dont start trying to fight one mode of transport against another. It all comes out the tax payers pocket regardless of who pays for improvements to safety. The fact is road and rail should not mix and where they do, risk should be minimal

 

[carriageline]

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

Admittedly, I haven't. Excluding the fault of the crossing, my main grumble is, How do you break down on a level crossing? Unless the brakes magically lock on, I can't see how any driver with a normal amount of driving skill gets stuck. If the engine cuts out (automatic excluded), you can still dip the clutch, and roll off. If it stalls while your at a stand on the level crossing, then why are you at a stand on the level crossing? That's the comment I meant. Unless I have made some glaring omission?

 

[Tomnick]

Vehicles don't often break down and come to an immediate stand, so the likelihood of a vehicle driven properly becoming stranded on an automatic level crossing (as opposed to anywhere else on the thousands of miles of roads in the UK) must be tiny - the principle of ALARP, mentioned above, surely applies. I'll accept that the probability is increased slightly by the fact that some vehicles will be starting from a stand at the stop line*, but AHBs tend to be well away from any other junctions or obstructions: those who creep timidly onto a level crossing, sometimes stopping foul of the running line to look both ways, are putting themselves at the greatest risk of stalling and being unable to restart the engine (especially if panicked by the crossing sequence starting). I do wonder whether that's what happened here. Accepting that sometimes the road surface over the crossing sometimes leaves a lot to be desired, those who make sensible progress shouldn't have anything to worry about.

* - which is why, as I understand it, controls are provided to ensure that the crossing sequence won't start within ten seconds of the barriers rising, to avoid anyone panicking whilst starting to cross from a stand.

Edit: just another thought. Without the reduction in operating costs afforded by the introduction of AHBs, some rural lines would almost certainly have closed. The Skegness line is one that I often use as an example (which was down to a single shift at one point): I'd suggest that, in the peak season, the increased pressure on the road network in the area resulting from the withdrawl of the passenger service would carry a vastly greater amount of risk than that associated with the AHBs now found on the line.

 

[yorksrob]

Jeez some of you are so blinkered, you have obviously never worked in risk management outside of the railway industry

it matters not what the failure is caused by. A car or LGV breaking down on the LC is foreseable. therefore to negate the fact that this can happen , you have to confirm that it hasnt happened on the line, before you lower the crossing and release the protecting peg. AHBs cant do this , as you know the strike in time is not sufficient to stop the train. Therefore only full barriers and a protecting signal will satisfy the criteria

That's all well and good, but why must the railway (i.e. fare payers) always have to pay. The risk is forseeable, but surely it is forseeable to highways and to the railway (presumably those in charge of motorways have heard of cars breaking down?)

Or is it ok to kill elderly and infirm people now?
much like departing the station with someone trapped in the doors because they are too slow, not the railways fault.
The train doors worked fine

You sound more like a very tawdry tabloid hack than a risk manager.

 

[fsmr]

That's all well and good, but why shouldn't the highway authorities have to take reasonable measures to avoid risk of injury or death ?

To explore your factory analogy, the Highway authorities aren't "in the employ" of the railway. They are both users of the level crossing interface, so shouldn't they both have a duty of care to their users ?

I've worked in several factories which have had large moving machines (pallet trucks) where you have rather less than 45 seconds to get out of the way of.

Also if a car can breakdown on a level crossing, surely it can break down anywhere, including on a motorway or on a junction, both of which could result in something banging into the stationary car at speed with fatal consequences. What is the technical fix for that ?

Let's remove all level crossings but divide the costs proportionally according to the proportion of fatal accidents which are caused by an error or malfunction on the part of the railway as opposed to those caused by a an error or malfunction on the part of the road user.

If you are talking about autoamated pallet trucks, they have 360 laser scanning to detect if an object is in front and stop with an alarm warning and if it is a FLT you are taliking about, then the driver would be on manslaughter charge if he ran you over. Providing you had your Hi Viz and were on the walkway

But we are not talking about cars and trucks that can take avoiding action and lets face it, most folks get onto the hard shoulder before conking out
And unless someones been lying to me, i thought class 66s had no steering and took a mile to stop at 60 mph so totaly different. That said, they are now talking about prosecuting folks that run out of fuel on the motorway due to the hazzard it presents
In this case, that was not the cause
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You sound more like a very tawdry tabloid hack than a risk manager.

Might be a lot more fun than doing RAs and method statements all day to have a sh!!!

 

[Bald Rick]

it matters not what the failure is caused by. A car or LGV breaking down on the LC is foreseable. therefore to negate the fact that this can happen , you have to confirm that it hasnt happened on the line, before you lower the crossing and release the protecting peg. AHBs cant do this , as you know the strike in time is not sufficient to stop the train. Therefore only full barriers and a protecting signal will satisfy the criteria

A well maintained car tyre blowing out is foreseeable, as is the consequence of the car swerving uncontrollably into the path of oncoming traffic. This doesn't make it the fault of the highways authority for not installing a barrier down the middle of every single carriageway road, which is a practical (but not reasonably practical) mitigation.

In my 20 years on the railway this is the only case I have heard of where a car has broken down on an LX and there has been a fatality as a result.

 

[w0033944]

A well maintained car tyre blowing out is foreseeable, as is the consequence of the car swerving uncontrollably into the path of oncoming traffic. This doesn't make it the fault of the highways authority for not installing a barrier down the middle of every single carriageway road, which is a practical (but not reasonably practical) mitigation.

In my 20 years on the railway this is the only case I have heard of where a car has broken down on an LX and there has been a fatality as a result.

Does the following incident (albeit before your time) count?

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Beckingham1968.pdf

 

[fsmr]

Admittedly, I haven't. Excluding the fault of the crossing, my main grumble is, How do you break down on a level crossing? Unless the brakes magically lock on, I can't see how any driver with a normal amount of driving skill gets stuck. If the engine cuts out (automatic excluded), you can still dip the clutch, and roll off. If it stalls while your at a stand on the level crossing, then why are you at a stand on the level crossing? That's the comment I meant. Unless I have made some glaring omission?

So we shoudl ban all drivers over 70 and any disabled persons in case they happen on an AHB and breakdown.
These are the driver that get confused with automatic TX and drive through garage walls FFS

What applies to us thinking logically and with experince aint so with all
Had i been there, i would have got it off on the starter but not all drivers have that sense
having said that maybe the alternator and gone and the battery was flat which is why it stalled
, who knows. What i would say is that drivers often slow right down to traverse LCs due to adverse camber and if an engines going to stall, it will be then and you have little momentum then to get across. Anyway i hope you all sleep well in your beds as you obviously have contempt for anyone else but traincrew being killed on LCs. I hope the relatives of all these stupid car drivers and passengers dont come on here

 

[Bald Rick]

Does the following incident (albeit before your time) count?

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Beckingham1968.pdf

Well it would if I had started work 46 years ago!

 

[w0033944]

Well it would if I had started work 46 years ago!

Sorry Rick, I thought you meant that you had never heard of such a thing happening before, and were citing your experience as provenance, rather than stating that it hadn't happened during your career.

 

[Tomnick]

I don't lose any sleep over level crossing safety, because I'm satisfied that the industry takes the assessment of risk associated with crossings seriously: the risk of various things going wrong at AHBs is clearly mitigated by measures such as the emergency phones (which alarm if failed) and regulations requiring trains to be cautioned in certain circumstances. The number of 'innocent' motorists killed on level crossings is insignificant compared to the number of 'innocent' motorists killed in collisions involving defective road vehicles, negligent drivers and so on.

 

[edwin_m]

Jeez some of you are so blinkered, you have obviously never worked in risk management outside of the railway industry

it matters not what the failure is caused by. A car or LGV breaking down on the LC is foreseable. therefore to negate the fact that this can happen , you have to confirm that it hasnt happened on the line, before you lower the crossing and release the protecting peg. AHBs cant do this , as you know the strike in time is not sufficient to stop the train. Therefore only full barriers and a protecting signal will satisfy the criteria

Or is it ok to kill elderly and infirm people now?
much like departing the station with someone trapped in the doors because they are too slow, not the railways fault.
The train doors worked fine

And what exactly is your track record in risk management in other industries? You appear to be ignorant of the principle of ALARP which is relevant to anyone covered by the Health and Safety at Work Act.

I have to say you sound like the sort of person who gives rise to some of these "health and safety myths":

http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/

And any incident of people being trapped in the doors will be investigated and lessons learned to prevent similar future incidents. Several recent RAIB reports cover this type of incident. I'd link to them but I have a feeling it would be a waste of time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does the following incident (albeit before your time) count?

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Beckingham1968.pdf

Reading this report, this happened because a car stalled on starting away when the barriers were raised, and they lowered again very soon afterwards on a shortened warning sequence because of a second train approaching. It is to be expected that a car is much more likely to stall on the crossing when starting from a stop as the barriers rise, for example if started in the wrong gear.

I believe that the rules were changed soon after (possibly as a result of Hixon, though this report doesn't mention anything) so that if there is a second train coming it is detected before the normal strike-in point and prevents the raising of the barriers.

Thus, if the same thing happened today, it is still foreseeable that the car might stall when starting away over the crossing but if this happens the minimum time available to get the car moving or to escape from it would be very much longer. Hence an accident of this type is very much less likely to happen today.

 

[w0033944]

Reading this report, this happened because a car stalled on starting away when the barriers were raised, and they lowered again very soon afterwards on a shortened warning sequence because of a second train approaching. It is to be expected that a car is much more likely to stall on the crossing when starting from a stop as the barriers rise, for example if started in the wrong gear.

I believe that the rules were changed soon after (possibly as a result of Hixon, though this report doesn't mention anything) so that if there is a second train coming it is detected before the normal strike-in point and prevents the raising of the barriers.

Thus, if the same thing happened today, it is still foreseeable that the car might stall when starting away over the crossing but if this happens the minimum time available to get the car moving or to escape from it would be very much longer. Hence an accident of this type is very much less likely to happen today.

Absolutely - the interval now is greater. My motivation for posting the link was to demonstrate that a collision due to vehicle breakdown at an AHB crossing isn't entirely unprecedented.

 

[transmanche]

Absolutely - the interval now is greater. My motivation for posting the link was to demonstrate that a collision due to vehicle breakdown at an AHB crossing isn't entirely unprecedented.

True, although it happened almost 46 years ago. Cars today are far more reliable and less likely to stall than those from the 1960s.

 

[balne-wonderer]

Reported a fault to NR ages ago about Hensall Crossing on the A645

After the train has passed, the barrier rise back up as normal but as they get back to the fully open position the light sequence starts again for around 2 seconds.

Now, this might not sound like a problem but the crossing has camera's on it that are active when the lights are flashing. I've already seen a couple of cars get flashed, completley wrongly.

NR have done sweet fanny adams about it, I even managed to catch it on my dash cam.

I thought it couldn't get any worse until this morning.....

When the entire sequence of lights, barriers happened but guess what.....no train.

 

[GB]

True, although it happened almost 46 years ago. Cars today are far more reliable and less likely to stall than those from the 1960s.

A couple of years ago a car was hit by a train on an AHB (I think it was somewhere in Lincolnshire) and the car driver was sadly killed. The reason being the crossing was icy and she couldn't get her car moving. While it may not have been due to a stalled engine, the results were just the same.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Reported a fault to NR ages ago about Hensall Crossing on the A645

After the train has passed, the barrier rise back up as normal but as they get back to the fully open position the light sequence starts again for around 2 seconds.

Now, this might not sound like a problem but the crossing has camera's on it that are active when the lights are flashing. I've already seen a couple of cars get flashed, completley wrongly.

NR have done sweet fanny adams about it, I even managed to catch it on my dash cam.

I thought it couldn't get any worse until this morning.....

When the entire sequence of lights, barriers happened but guess what.....no train.

Barriers operating without a train could happen for a number of reason. As for the lights coming back on for a couple of seconds, while very annoying and inconvenient, its hardly a pressing safety issue.

 

[Tomnick]

Not sure what causes the lights to come back on, but it seems quite common (not usually for as long as two seconds though!) - perhaps the barriers 'bouncing' as they reach the top of their travel, gaining then losing 'up' detection?

As GB says, all sorts of reasons for the barriers to be lowered with no train. At an AHB, possible explanations include a track circuit showing occupied when clear (did they raise again after two minutes or so?), a treadle being disturbed or taken on local control for S&T maintenance.

 

[fsmr]

Not sure what causes the lights to come back on, but it seems quite common (not usually for as long as two seconds though!) - perhaps the barriers 'bouncing' as they reach the top of their travel, gaining then losing 'up' detection?

Brooke rds do it all the time in strong winds when open as the detection switch gets tripped by the boom bouncing in the wind bringing the red lights on for a few seconds. Fundamental design flaw as it confuses the hell out of drivers and as someone else has pointed out , could be used for false prosecution were these new cameras in place although they hopefully would cross check against actual operation of the LC before sending out a NIP .



bit on the South Drove LC mentioned tragedy here
Interesting comments from the coroner as the driver was blameless despite not reacting to the trapped car
Not expecting an obstruction is irrelevant, could have still derailed his train and killed PAX some attempt at braking would have been appropriate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/8334842.stm

 

[Tomnick]

It's actually a necessary design feature - if 'up' detection isn't obtained within a certain period of the barriers starting to raise, or if detection is lost at any other time, or if a train overruns the protecting signal, the red road lights will start flashing immediately (no steady amber) as there's something not right. If the barriers are blown, or bounce, away from the up position though, the red lights shouldn't flash for more than a fraction of a second, as the motor should have already kicked in by that stage. With all that in mind though, I'd be surprised if the enforcement cameras would be allowed to bubble anyone going over within the first few seconds of the red lights starting with no amber.

 

[fsmr]

It's actually a necessary design feature - if 'up' detection isn't obtained within a certain period of the barriers starting to raise, or if detection is lost at any other time, or if a train overruns the protecting signal, the red road lights will start flashing immediately (no steady amber) as there's something not right. If the barriers are blown, or bounce, away from the up position though, the red lights shouldn't flash for more than a fraction of a second, as the motor should have already kicked in by that stage. With all that in mind though, I'd be surprised if the enforcement cameras would be allowed to bubble anyone going over within the first few seconds of the red lights starting with no amber.

Accept that Tom but there are ways of putting in de-bounce timers to filter spurious movement of the switch while retaining its function after all high winds are not unusual this winter. Matters not if it is one second or 3, if the lights suddenly flash red, it is very confusing for the drivers especially now with the high profile push to get them to obey the lights and not to cross even if there is no train.

 

[GB]

Brooke rds do it all the time in strong winds when open as the detection switch gets tripped by the boom bouncing in the wind bringing the red lights on for a few seconds. Fundamental design flaw as it confuses the hell out of drivers and as someone else has pointed out , could be used for false prosecution were these new cameras in place although they hopefully would cross check against actual operation of the LC before sending out a NIP .



bit on the South Drove LC mentioned tragedy here
Interesting comments from the coroner as the driver was blameless despite not reacting to the trapped car
Not expecting an obstruction is irrelevant, could have still derailed his train and killed PAX some attempt at braking would have been appropriate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/8334842.stm

Thanks for the link, I had no idea the family was blaming the driver and going for unlawful killing!

 

[edwin_m]

Why aren't they going after the council for failing to prevent the ice on the road?

 

[w0033944]

Why aren't they going after the council for failing to prevent the ice on the road?

Don't think they can - there was an accident at Exeter St. Davids where a platform was divided into a and b sections to allow 2 short units to use it - it was during an icy spell and the council had salted the road on the crossing, whereupon the action of trains mixed the salt with oil and other debris to form a slippery paste. Apparently, a unit was running into the platform with the driver making a standard brake application when the train slid, clattering into the train already in the station. It was recommended at that point that council gritters should stop gritting on and a few yards each side of a crossing. Trouble is, that means that motorists are driving on a gritted road which suddenly becomes an ice rink.

 

[GB]

Also with the fact road salt can seriously affect the signalling equipment.

 

[Tomnick]

Accept that Tom but there are ways of putting in de-bounce timers to filter spurious movement of the switch while retaining its function after all high winds are not unusual this winter. Matters not if it is one second or 3, if the lights suddenly flash red, it is very confusing for the drivers especially now with the high profile push to get them to obey the lights and not to cross even if there is no train.

Might be worth reporting it to Network Rail if it's doing it frequently, if it's not just happening immediately after the barriers are raised. I don't know the exact figures off-hand, but they're usually set up so that the motor starts driving the barrier back up at a greater angle (from horizontal) than that at which detection is lost - i.e. they should sort themselves out before detection's lost. Should also indicate failed in the box too, if they do lose detection.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also with the fact road salt can seriously affect the signalling equipment.

Not to mention those metal things 1435mm apart.

 

[yorksrob]

bit on the South Drove LC mentioned tragedy her
Interesting comments from the coroner as the driver was blameless despite not reacting to the trapped car
Not expecting an obstruction is irrelevant, could have still derailed his train and killed PAX some attempt at braking would have been appropriate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/8334842.stm

What this tradgedy clearly illustrates to me is that the highways agency cannot guarantee that their road surfice is safe to use, even for their own road users. This clearly poses a risk to rail users as well as motorists and I do not understand why there is no pressure on the highways authorities to replace such crossings with bridges.